TY - JOUR T1 - “Radiosensitivity Index” (“RSI”) is not fit to be used for dose-adjustments: a pan-cancer analysis JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.08.13.21262017 SP - 2021.08.13.21262017 AU - Hitesh B. Mistry Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/04/2021.08.13.21262017.abstract N2 - Purpose Re-analyze both the original preclinical and latest clinical pan-cancer open-source data-set to assess if the “Radiosensitivity Index”, “RSI” for short, explains enough of the outcome variance either preclinically or clinically to elucidate a dose-response empirically.Methods and Materials The original preclinical test-set data from the publication where “RSI” was derived was collected and re-analyzed by comparing the observed versus predicted survival fraction at 2Gy (SF2). In addition, the predictive capability of “RSI” was also compared to random sampling. Clinical data was collected from a recently published data-set that included “RSI” values, overall survival outcomes, radiotherapy dose and tumor site for 5 cancers, glioma, triple negative breast, endometrial, pancreatic and lung cancer. Cox proportional hazards model were used to assess: 1) is “RSI” better than random chance at ordering overall survival times; 2) does adjusting for “RSI” elucidate a dose-response and 3) does an interaction between “RSI” and dose exist.Results Preclinically “RSI” showed a negative correlation (Spearman’s rho = −0.61, p = 0.034) between observed and predicted SF2. Furthermore, 98 percent of random samples showed better correlation to SF2 than “RSI”. Clinically, the pooled concordance-index for “RSI” was 0.52 (standard error 0.2) i.e. it was found to be no better than random chance and so replicated the preclinical findings. Furthermore, a dose-response was not seen after adjusting for “RSI” (p=0.584) and no interaction between “RSI” and dose was found (p=0.147).Conclusions These results suggest that like the initial in-vitro analysis 12 years previously “RSI” is not a marker of radiotherapy sensitivity, should not be referred to as such and is also not fit to be used in any dose-adjustment algorithms.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This was a retrospective analysis of open-access data thus the analysis is exempt from needing IRB approaval.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data/code is available here: https://github.com/mcbi9hm2/ClinicalRSICritique1 https://github.com/mcbi9hm2/ClinicalRSICritique1 ER -