METHODS: This study applies radiomics and deep learning in the diagnosis of lung cancer to help clinicians accurately analyze the images and thereby provide the appropriate treatment planning. 86 patients were recruited from Bach Mai Hospital, and 1012 patients were collected from an open-source database. First, deep learning has been applied in the process of segmentation by U-NET and cancer classification via the use of the DenseNet model. Second, the radiomics were applied for measuring and calculating diameter, surface area, and volume. Finally, the hardware also was designed by connecting between Arduino Nano and MFRC522 module for reading data from the tag. In addition, the displayed interface was created on a web platform using Python through Streamlit.
RESULTS: The applied segmentation model yielded a validation loss of 0.498, a train loss of 0.27, a cancer classification validation loss of 0.78, and a training accuracy of 0.98. The outcomes of the diagnostic capabilities of lung cancer (recognition and classification of lung cancer from chest CT scans) were quite successful.
CONCLUSIONS: The model provided means for storing and updating patients' data directly on the interface which allowed the results to be readily available for the health care providers. The developed system will improve clinical communication and information exchange. Moreover, it can manage efforts by generating correlated and coherent summaries of cancer diagnoses.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study collected and analyzed dose volume histogram (DVH) data for two groups of treatment plans implemented using the Halcyon system. The first group consisted of 19 patients who received conventional fractionated (CF) treatment with a total dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions, while the second group comprised 9 patients who received hypofractionated (HF) treatment with a total dose of 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions. The DVH data was used to calculate various parameters, including tumor control probability (TCP), normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), and equivalent uniform dose (EUD), using radiobiological models.
RESULTS: The results indicated that the CF plan resulted in higher TCP but lower NTCP for the lungs compared to the HF plan. The EUD for the HF plan was approximately 49 Gy (114% of its total dose) while that for the CF plan was around 53 Gy (107% of its total dose).
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis suggests that while the CF plan is better at controlling tumors, it is not as effective as the HF plan in minimizing side effects. Additionally, it is suggested that there may be an optimal configuration for the HF plan that can provide the same or higher EUD than the CF plan.
METHODS: In this open-label phase III study (PROFILE 1029), patients were randomized 1:1 to receive orally administered crizotinib 250 mg twice daily continuously (3-week cycles) or intravenously administered chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2, or carboplatin [at a dose to produce area under the concentration-time curve of 5-6 mg·min/mL]) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. PFS confirmed by independent radiology review was the primary end point.
RESULTS: Crizotinib significantly prolonged PFS (hazard ratio, 0.402; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.286-0.565; p < 0.001). The median PFS was 11.1 months with crizotinib and 6.8 months with chemotherapy. The objective response rate was 87.5% (95% CI: 79.6-93.2%) with crizotinib versus 45.6% (95% CI: 35.8-55.7%) with chemotherapy (p < 0.001). The most common adverse events were increased transaminase levels, diarrhea, and vision disorders with crizotinib and leukopenia, neutropenia, and anemia with chemotherapy. Significantly greater improvements from baseline in patient-reported outcomes were seen in crizotinib-treated versus chemotherapy-treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: First-line crizotinib significantly improved PFS, objective response rate, and patient-reported outcomes compared with standard platinum-based chemotherapy in East Asian patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC, which is similar to the results from PROFILE 1014. The safety profiles of crizotinib and chemotherapy were consistent with those previously published.
METHOD: We conducted an international survey among experts from medical oncology (MO), clinical oncology (CO), radiation oncology (RO), and neurosurgery (NS) about treatment recommendations for patients with asymptomatic BRAF+ or BRAF mutation negative (BRAF-) MBM. Eighteen specific clinical scenarios were presented and a total of 267 responses were collected. Answers were grouped and compared using Fisher's exact test.
RESULTS: In most MBM scenarios, survey respondents, regardless of specialty, favored RT in addition to systemic therapy. However, for patients with BRAF+ MBM, MO and CO were significantly more likely than RO and NS to recommend BRAF/MEK inhibitors alone, without the addition of RT, including the majority of MO (51%) for patients with 1-3 MBM, all <2 cm. Likewise, for BRAF- MBM, MO and CO more commonly recommended single or dual agent ICI only and dual agent ICI therapy alone was the most common recommendation from MO or CO for MBM <2 cm. When at least 1 of 3 MBM (BRAF+ or BRAF-) was >2 cm, upfront Sx was recommended by all groups with the exception that MO and RO recommended RT for BRAF- MBM.
CONCLUSIONS: In most clinical settings involving asymptomatic MBM, experts recommended RT in addition to systemic therapy. However, recommendations varied significantly according to specialty, with MO and CO more commonly recommending dual systemic therapy alone for up to 9 BRAF- MBM <2 cm.
METHODS: We conducted an international survey among medical (MO), clinical (CO), and radiation oncologists (RO), as well as neurosurgeons (NS), of treatment recommendations for asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions) EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC patients according to specific clinical scenarios. We grouped and compared treatment recommendations according to specialty. Responses were summarized using counts and percentages and analyzed using the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: A total of 449 surveys were included in the final analysis: 48 CO, 85 MO, 60 NS, and 256 RO. MO and CO were significantly more likely than RO and NS to recommend first-line TKI monotherapy, regardless of the number and/or size of asymptomatic BrM (in non-eloquent regions). Radiotherapy in addition to TKI as first-line management was preferred by all specialties for patients with ≥4 BrM. NS recommended surgical resection more often than other specialties for BrM measuring >2 cm.
CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for the management of BrM from EGFRm or ALK+ NSCLC vary significantly according to oncology sub-specialties. Development of multidisciplinary guidelines and further research on establishing optimal treatment strategies is warranted.