Abstract
PURPOSE: We combined clinical practice changes, standardizations, and technology to automate aggregation, integration, and harmonization of comprehensive patient data from the multiple source systems used in clinical practice into a big data analytics resource system (BDARS). We then developed novel artificial intelligence algorithms, coupled with the BDARS, to identify structure dose volume histograms (DVH) metrics associated with dysphagia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From the BDARS harmonized data of ≥22,000 patients, we identified 132 patients recently treated for head and neck cancer who also demonstrated dysphagia scores that worsened from base line to a maximum grade ≥2. We developed a method that used both physical and biologically corrected (α/β = 2.5) DVH curves to test both absolute and percentage volume based DVH metrics. Combining a statistical categorization algorithm with machine learning (SCA-ML) provided more extensive detailing of response threshold evidence than either approach alone. A sensitivity guided, minimum input, machine learning (ML) model was iteratively constructed to identify the key structure DVH metric thresholds. RESULTS: Seven swallowing structures producing 738 candidate DVH metrics were ranked for association with dysphagia using SCA-ML scoring. Structures included superior pharyngeal constrictor (SPC), inferior pharyngeal constrictor (IPC), larynx, and esophagus. Bilateral parotid and submandibular gland (SG) structures were categorized by relative mean dose (eg, SG_high, SG_low) as a dose versus tumor centric analog to contra and ipsilateral designations. Structure DVH metrics with high SCA-ML scores included the following: SPC: D20% (equivalent dose [EQD2] Gy) ≥47.7; SPC: D25% (Gy) ≥50.4; IPC: D35% (Gy) ≥61.7; parotid_low: D60% (Gy) ≥13.2; and SG_high: D35% (Gy) ≥61.7. Larynx: D25% (Gy) ≥21.2 and SG_low: D45% ≥28.2 had high SCA-ML scores but were segmented on less than 90% of plans. A model based on SPC: D20% (EQD2 Gy) alone had sensitivity and area under the curve of 0.88 ± 0.13 and 0.74 ± 0.17, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides practical demonstration of combining big data with artificial intelligence to increase volume of evidence in clinical learning paradigms.