From AAA to Acuros XB-clinical implications of selecting either Acuros XB dose-to-water or dose-to-medium

Adaptation of dose-prescription for vestibular schwannoma radiosurgery taking body contouring method and heterogeneous material into account

BACKGROUND

Majority of vestibular schwannoma (VS) patients have undergone gamma-knife radiosurgery (GKRS) with favorable results. Clinical evidence is derived from doses calculated with a type-a algorithm, which in this case assumes all material to be water. A type-b algorithm (Convolution algorithm [CA]) taking tissue heterogeneity into account is available. Historically, body contour is defined using a 16-point approximation, whereas modern softwares generate the body from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The accuracy in dose-calculation algorithms (DCA) and contouring method (CM) will have a significant influence in the relation between clinical outcome and dosimetric data. The objective was to investigate the impact of DCA and CMs on dose distribution while preserving treatment conditions.

METHODS

Treatment plans for 16 VS patients were recalculated in terms of DCA and CM. The difference in the dose covering 99% of the VS (DVS99%) depending on CM and DCA was estimated. The difference in DVS99% was used to adopt the prescription of new CA-based plans. CA-plans were recalculated to TMR10 to evaluate clinical treatability, as clinical evidence is derived from TMR10-doses.

RESULTS

Both CM and DCA had a significant impact on the dose to VS and surrounding structures. CM altered the doses homogenously by 2.1-3.3%, whereas DCA heterogeneously by 5.0-10.7%. An increase of 9.1[8.1, 10.0]% was found for DVS99% and the CA-plans recalculated into TMR10 resulted in clinically treatable plans.

INTERPRETATION

We conclude that transferring to more modern algorithms that take tissue heterogeneity into account heterogeneously alter dose distributions. This work establishes a safe pathway to adopt prescription dose for VS while preserving clinical treatability.

Benchmarking Automated Machine Learning-Enhanced Planning With Ethos Against Manual and Knowledge-Based Planning for Locally Advanced Lung Cancer

Purpose

Currently, there is insufficient guidance for standard fractionation lung planning using the Varian Ethos adaptive treatment planning system and its unique intelligent optimization engine. Here, we address this gap in knowledge by developing a methodology to automatically generate high-quality Ethos treatment plans for locally advanced lung cancer.

Methods and Materials

Fifty patients previously treated with manually generated Eclipse plans for inoperable stage IIIA-IIIC non-small cell lung cancer were included in this institutional review board-approved retrospective study. Fifteen patient plans were used to iteratively optimize a planning template for the Daily Adaptive vs Non-Adaptive External Beam Radiation Therapy With Concurrent Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Trial of an Individualized Approach for Toxicity Reduction (ARTIA-Lung); the remaining 35 patients were automatically replanned without intervention. Ethos plan quality was benchmarked against clinical plans and reoptimized knowledge-based RapidPlan (RP) plans, then judged using standard dose-volume histogram metrics, adherence to clinical trial objectives, and qualitative review.

Results

Given equal prescription target coverage, Ethos-generated plans showed improved primary and nodal planning target volume V95% coverage (P < .001) and reduced lung gross tumor volume V5 Gy and esophagus D0.03 cc metrics (P ≤ .003) but increased mean esophagus and brachial plexus D0.03 cc metrics (P < .001) compared with RP plans. Eighty percent, 49%, and 51% of Ethos, clinical, and RP plans, respectively, were "per protocol" or met "variation acceptable" ARTIA-Lung planning metrics. Three radiation oncologists qualitatively scored Ethos plans, and 78% of plans were clinically acceptable to all reviewing physicians, with no plans receiving scores requiring major changes.

Conclusions

A standard Ethos template produced lung radiation therapy plans with similar quality to RP plans, elucidating a viable approach for automated plan generation in the Ethos adaptive workspace.

Dosimetric comparison of analytical anisotropic algorithm and the two dose reporting modes of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is an important modality for radical radiotherapy of all major treatment sites. This study aims to compare Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and the two dose-reporting modes of Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm -the dose to medium option (D_m) and the dose to water option (D_w) in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate. We also compared the measured dose with Treatment Planning System calculated dose for AAA and the two dose reporting options of Acuros XB using Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and ArcCHECK phantom. Treatment plans of twenty patients each who have already undergone radiotherapy for cancer of lung and cancer of prostate were selected for the study. Three sets of VMAT plans were generated in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS), one with AAA and two plans with Acuros-D_m and Acuros-D_w options. The Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) were compared and analyzed for Planning Target Volume (PTV) and critical structures for all the plans. Verification plans were created for each plan and measured doses were compared with TPS calculated doses using EPID and ArcCHECK phantom for all the three algorithms. For lung plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 1.7% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 0.66% when compared to AAA plans. For prostate plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 3.0% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 1.6% when compared to AAA plans. There was no difference in the Conformity Index (CI) between AAA and AXB-D_m and between AAA and AXB-D_w plans for both sites. But the homogeneity worsened in AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m plans when compared to AAA plans for both sites. AXB-D_w calculated higher dose values for PTV and all the critical structures with significant differences with one or two exceptions. Point dose measurements in ArcCHECK phantom showed that AXB-D_m and AXB-D_w options showed very small deviations with measured dose distributions than AAA for both sites. Results of EPID QA also showed better pass rates for AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m than AAA for both sites when gamma analysis was done for 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. With reference to the results, it is always better to choose Acuros algorithm for dose calculations if it is available in the TPS. AXB-D_w plans showed very high dose values in the PTV when compared to AAA and AXB-D_m in both sites studied. Also, the volume of PTV receiving 107% dose was significantly high in AXB-D_w plans compared to AXB-D_m plans in sites involving high density bones. Considering the results of dosimetric comparison and QA measurements, it is always better to choose AXB-D_m algorithm for dose calculations for all treatment sites especially when high density bony structures and complex treatment techniques are involved. For patient specific QA purposes, choosing AXB-D_m or AXB-D_w does not make any significant difference between calculated and measured dose distributions.

Comprehensive nodal breast VMAT: solving the low-dose wash dilemma using an iterative knowledge-based radiotherapy planning solution

INTRODUCTION

Aimed to develop a simple and robust volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT) solution for comprehensive lymph node (CLN) breast cancer without increase in low-dose wash.

METHODS

Forty CLN-breast patient data sets were utilised to develop a knowledge-based planning (KBP) VMAT model, which limits low-dose wash using iterative learning and base-tangential methods as benchmark. Another twenty data sets were employed to validate the model comparing KBP-generated ipsilateral VMAT (ipsi-VMAT) plans against the benchmarked hybrid (h)-VMAT (departmental standard) and bowtie-VMAT (published best practice) methods. Planning target volume (PTV), conformity/homogeneity index (CI/HI), organ-at-risk (OAR), remaining-volume-at-risk (RVR) and blinded radiation oncologist (RO) plan preference were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ipsi- and bowtie-VMAT plans were dosimetrically equivalent, achieving greater nodal target coverage (P < 0.05) compared to h-VMAT with minor reduction in breast coverage. CI was enhanced for a small reduction in breast HI with improved dose sparing to ipsilateral-lung and humeral head (P < 0.05) at immaterial expense to spinal cord. Significantly, low-dose wash to OARs and RVR were comparable between all plan types demonstrating a simple VMAT class solution robust to patient-specific anatomic variation can be applied to CLN breast without need for complex beam modification (hybrid plans, avoidance sectors or other). This result was supported by blinded RO review.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple and robust ipsilateral VMAT class solution for CLN breast generated using iterative KBP modelling can achieve clinically acceptable target coverage and OAR sparing without unwanted increase in low-dose wash associated with increased second malignancy risk.

Dosimetric influence of acuros XB dose-to-medium and dose-to-water reporting modes on carcinoma cervix using intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric rapidarc technique

Aim:

We aimed to evaluate the dosimetric influence of Acuros XB (AXB) dose-to-medium (D_m) and dose-to-water (D_w) reporting mode on carcinoma cervix using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) technique.

Materials and Methods:

A cohort of thirty patients cared for carcinoma cervix was retrospectively selected for the study. Plans were computed using analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), AXB-D_m, and AXB-D_w algorithms for dosimetric comparison. A paired t-test and Pitman–Morgan dispersion test were executed to appraise the difference in mean values and the inter-patient variability of the differences.

Results:

The dose–volume parameters were higher for AXB-D_w in contrast to AAA for IMRT and RA plans, excluding D_98%, minimum dose to planning target volume (PTV) and rectum mean dose (RA). There was no systematic trend observed in dose–volume parameters for PTV and organs at risk (OARs) between AXB-D_m and AXB-D_w for IMRT and RA plans. The dose–volume parameters for target were higher for AXB-D_m in comparison to AAA in IMRT and RA plans, except D_98% and minimum dose to PTV. Analysis envisaged less inter-patient variability while switching from AAA to AXB-D_m in comparison to those switching from AAA to AXB-D_w.

Conclusions:

The present study reveals the important difference between AAA, AXB-D_m, and AXB-D_w computations for cervix carcinoma using IMRT and RA techniques. The inter-patient variability and systematic difference in dose–volume parameters computed using AAA, AXB-D_m, and AXB-D_w algorithms present the possible impact on the dose prescription to PTV and their relative constraints to OARs for IMRT and RA techniques. This may help in the decision-making in clinic while switching from AAA to AXB (D_m or D_w) algorithm for cervix carcinoma using IMRT and RA techniques.

Dosimetric validation of Acuros® XB algorithm for RapidArc™ treatment technique: A post software upgrade analysis

Aim

To validate the Acuros^® XB (AXB) algorithm in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for RapidArc™ (RA) technique following the software upgrades.

Materials and Methods

A Clinac-iX (2300CD) linear accelerator and Eclipse TPS (Varian Medical System, Inc., Palo Alto, USA) was used for commissioning of AXB algorithm using a 6 megavolts photon beam. Percentage depth dose (PDD) and profiles for field size 2 cm × 2 cm, 4 cm × 4 cm, 6 cm × 6 cm, 10 cm × 10 cm, 20 cm × 20 cm, 30 cm × 30 cm to 40 cm × 40 cm were taken. AXB calculated PDDs and profiles were evaluated against the measured and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA)-calculated PDDs and profiles. Test sites recommended by American Association of Physicists in Medicine task group (AAPM TG)-119 recommendation were used for RA planning and delivery verification using AXB algorithm.

Results

Dosimetric analysis of AXB calculated data showed that difference between calculated and measured data for PDD curves were maximum <1% beyond the depth of dose maximum and computed profiles in central region matches with maximum <1% for all considered field sizes. Ion-chamber measurements showed that the average confidence limit (CLs) was 0.034 and 0.020 in high-gradient and 0.047 and 0.042 in low-gradient regions, respectively, for AAA and AXB calculated RA plans. Portal measurements show the average CLs were 2.48 and 2.58 for AAA and AXB-calculated RA plans, with gamma passing criteria of 3%/3 mm.

Conclusions

AXB shows excellent agreement with measurements and AAA calculated data. The CLs were consistent with the baseline values published by TG-119. AXB algorithm has the potential to perform photon dose calculation with comparable fast calculation speed without negotiating the accuracy. AAPM TG-119 was successfully implemented to access the proper configuration of AXB algorithm following the TPS upgrade.

Dose calculation and reporting with a linear Boltzman transport equation solver in vertebral SABR

Vertebral Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) involves substantial tumour density heterogeneities. We evaluated the impact of a linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE) solver dose calculation on vertebral SABR dose distributions. A sequential cohort of 20 patients with vertebral metastases treated with SABR were selected. Treatment plans were initially planned with a convolution style dose calculation algorithm. The plan was copied and recalculated with a LBTE algorithm reporting both dose to water (D_w) or dose to medium (D_m). Target dose as a function of CT number, and spinal cord dose was compared between algorithms. Compared with a convolution algorithm, there was minimal change in PTV D90% with LBTE. LBTE reporting D_m resulted in reduced GTV D50% by (mean, 95% CI) 2.2% (1.9-2.6%) and reduced Spinal Cord PRV near-maximum dose by 3.0% (2.0-4.1%). LBTE reporting D_w resulted in increased GTV D50% by 2.4% (1.8-3.0%). GTV D50% decreased or increased with increasing CT number with D_m or D_w respectively. LBTE, reporting either D_m or D_w resulted in decreased central spinal cord dose by 8.7% (7.1-10.2%) and 7.2% (5.7-8.8%) respectively. Reported vertebral SABR tumour dose when calculating with an LBTE algorithm depends on tumour density. Spinal cord near-maximum dose was lower when using LBTE algorithm reporting D_m, which may result in higher spinal cord doses being delivered than with a convolution style algorithm. Spinal cord central dose was significantly lower with LBTE, potentially reflecting LBTE transport approximations.

Virtual bronchoscopy-guided lung SAbR: dosimetric implications of using AAA versus Acuros XB to calculate dose in airways

In previous works, we showed that incorporating individual airways as organs-at-risk (OARs) in the treatment of lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) patients potentially mitigates post-SAbR radiation injury. However, the performance of common clinical dose calculation algorithms in airways has not been thoroughly studied. Airways are of particular concern because their small size and the density differences they create have the potential to hinder dose calculation accuracy. To address this gap in knowledge, here we investigate dosimetric accuracy in airways of two commonly used dose calculation algorithms, the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros-XB (AXB), recreating clinical treatment plans on a cohort of four SAbR patients. A virtual bronchoscopy software was used to delineate 856 airways on a high-resolution breath-hold CT (BHCT) image acquired for each patient. The planning target volumes (PTVs) and standard thoracic OARs were contoured on an average CT (AVG) image over the breathing cycle. Conformal and intensity-modulated radiation therapy plans were recreated on the BHCT image and on the AVG image, for a total of four plan types per patient. Dose calculations were performed using AAA and AXB, and the differences in maximum and mean dose in each structure were calculated. The median differences in maximum dose among all airways were ≤0.3Gy in magnitude for all four plan types. With airways grouped by dose-to-structure or diameter, median dose differences were still ≤0.5Gy in magnitude, with no clear dependence on airway size. These results, along with our previous airway radiosensitivity works, suggest that dose differences between AAA and AXB correspond to an airway collapse variation ≤0.7% in magnitude. This variation in airway injury risk can be considered as not clinically relevant, and the use of either AAA or AXB is therefore appropriate when including patient airways as individual OARs so as to reduce risk of radiation-induced lung toxicity.

Dose accuracy improvement on head and neck VMAT treatments by using the Acuros algorithm and accurate FFF beam calibration

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess dose accuracy improvement and dosimetric impact of switching from the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AA) to the Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) when performing an accurate beam calibration in head and neck (H&N) FFF-VMAT treatments.

Materials and methods

Twenty H&N cancer patients treated with FFF-VMAT techniques were included. Calculations were performed with the AA and AXB algorithm (dose-to-water - AXB_w- and dose-to-medium - AXB_m-). An accurate beam calibration was used for AXB calculations. Dose prescription to the tumour (PTV70) and at-risk-nodal region (PTV58.1) were 70 Gy and 58.1 Gy, respectively. A PTV70_{_bone} including bony structures in PTV70 was contoured. Dose-volume parameters were compared between the algorithms. Statistical tests were used to analyze the differences in mean values and the correlation between compliance with the D95 > 95% requirement and occurrence of local recurrence.

Results

AA systematically overestimated the dose compared to AXB algorithm with mean dose differences within 1.3 Gy/2%, except for the PTV70_{_bone} (2.2 Gy/3.2%). Dose differences were significantly higher for AXB_m calculations when including accurate beam calibration (maximum dose differences up to 2.8 Gy/4.1% and 4.2 Gy/6.3% for PTV70 and PTV70_{_bone}, respectively). 80% of AA-calculated plans did not meet the D95 > 95% requirement after recalculation with AXB_m and accurate beam calibration. The reduction in D95 coverage in the tumour was not clinically relevant.

Conclusions

Using the AXB_m algorithm and carefully reviewing the beam calibration procedure in H&N FFF-VMAT treatments ensures (1) dose accuracy increase by approximately 3%; (2) a consequent dose increase in targets; and (3) a dose reporting mode that is consistent with the trend of current algorithms.

Dosimetric impact of switching from AAA to Acuros dose-to-water and dose-to-medium for RapidArc plans of nasopharyngeal carcinomas

PURPOSE

This work aims to evaluate the dosimetric consequences of replacing the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) by Acuros XB (AXB), dose-to-water (Dw) or dose-to-medium (Dm), for RapidArc plans of nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventeen NPC plans created with AAA (v15.6) were recalculated with AXB (v15.6) Dw and Dm. The dose-volume parameters to the planning target volumes (PTV) and relevant organs at risk (OAR) were compared. The high dose PTV was divided into bone, air and tissue components and the comparison was performed for each of them.

RESULTS

AXB Dw revealed no significant differences in the PTVs compared to AAA. Lower values were observed to spinal cord, brainstem, oral cavity and parotids (0.5% to 2.3%), and higher values to cochleas (up to 5.4%) and mandible (up to 6.7%). AXB Dm predicted lower values than AAA for all PTVs and OARs (2.0% to 6.1%). For the bone PTV subvolume, AXB Dw and Dm predicted respectively higher (2.4%) and lower (2.2% to 3.4%) values. No significant differences were noted in air. AXB predicted lower values than AAA in soft tissues (0.4% to 1.6%). The largest difference was found to the mandible V_60Gy parameter, with median differences of 6.7% for AXB Dw and -6.0% for AXB Dm.

CONCLUSION

Significant dose differences are expected when switching from AAA to AXB in NPC cases. The dose prescriptions and the tolerance limits for some OARs, especially those of high density, may need to be adjusted depending on the selected dose calculation algorithm and reporting mode.

Impact of acuros XB algorithm in deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) respiratory techniques used for the treatment of left breast cancer

Aim

To investigate the impact of Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in the deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique used for treatment of left sided breast cancer.

Background

AXB may estimate better lung toxicities and treatment outcome in DIBH.

Materials and Methods

Treatment plans were computed using the field-in-field technique for a 6 MV beam in two respiratory phases - free breathing (FB) and DIBH. The AXB-calculations were performed under identical beam setup and the same numbers of monitor units as used for AAA-calculation.

Results

Mean Hounsfield units (HU), mass density (g/cc) and relative electron density were -782.1 ± 24.8 and -883.5 ± 24.9; 0.196 ± 0.025 and 0.083 ± 0.032; 0.218 ± 0.025 and 0.117 ± 0.025 for the lung in the FB and DIBH respiratory phase, respectively. For a similar target coverage (p > 0.05) in the DIBH respiratory phase between the AXB and AAA algorithm, there was a slight increase in organ at risk (OAR) dose for AXB in comparison to AAA, except for mean dose to the ipsilateral lung. AAA predicts higher mean dose to the ipsilateral lung and lesser V_20Gy for the ipsilateral and common lung in comparison to AXB. The differences in mean dose to the ipsilateral lung were 0.87 ± 2.66 % (p > 0.05) in FB, and 1.01 ± 1.07% (p < 0.05) in DIBH, in V_20Gy the differences were 1.76 ± 0.83% and 1.71 ± 0.82% in FB (p < 0.05), 3.34 ± 1.15 % and 3.24 ± 1.17 % in DIBH (p < 0.05), for the ipsilateral and common lung, respectively.

Conclusion

For a similar target volume coverage, there were important differences between the AXB and AAA algorithm for low-density inhomogeneity medium present in the DIBH respiratory phase for left sided breast cancer patients. DIBH treatment in conjunction with AXB may result in better estimation of lung toxicities and treatment outcome.

Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: Plan quality and subvolume analysis

Purpose

Two dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse‐based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequently, clinical practice is necessary prior to implementation. We characterized the difference in breast plan quality between AXB and AAA for dissemination to clinicians during implementation.

Methods

Locoregional irradiation plans were created with AAA for 30 breast cancer patients with a prescription dose of 50 Gy to the breast and 45 Gy to the regional node, in 25 fractions. The internal mammary chain (IMC_CTV) nodes were covered by 80% of the breast dose. AXB, both dose‐to‐water and dose‐to‐medium reporting, was used to recalculate plans while maintaining constant monitor units. Target coverage and organ‐at‐risk doses were compared between the two algorithms using dose–volume parameters. An analysis to assess location‐specific changes was performed by dividing the breast into nine subvolumes in the superior–inferior and left–right directions.

Results

There were minimal differences found between the AXB and AAA calculated plans. The median difference between AXB and AAA for breast_CTVV_95%, was <2.5%. For IMC_CTV, the median differences V_95%, and V_80% were <5% and 0%, respectively; indicating IMC_CTV coverage only decreased when marginally covered. Mean superficial dose increased by a median of 3.2 Gy. In the subvolume analysis, the medial subvolumes were “hotter” when recalculated with AXB and the lateral subvolumes “cooler” with AXB; however, all differences were within 2 Gy.

Conclusion

We observed minimal difference in magnitude and spatial distribution of dose when comparing the two algorithms. The largest observable differences occurred in superficial dose regions. Therefore, clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast radiotherapy is not expected to result in changes in clinical practice for prescribing or planning breast radiotherapy.

Variation of the prescription dose using the analytical anisotropic algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

PURPOSE

The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the dosimetric variation regarding the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) relative to other algorithms in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We conducted a multi-institutional study involving six institutions using a secondary check program and compared the AAA to the Acuros XB (AXB) in two institutions.

METHODS

All lung SBRT plans (128 patients) were generated using the AAA, pencil beam convolution with the Batho (PBC-B) and adaptive convolve (AC). All institutions used the same secondary check program (simple MU analysis [SMU]) implemented by a Clarkson-based dose calculation algorithm. Measurement was performed in a heterogeneous phantom to compare doses using the three different algorithms and the SMU for the measurements. A retrospective analysis was performed to compute the confidence limit (CL; mean±2SD) for the dose deviation between the AAA, PBC, AC and SMU. The variations between the AAA and AXB were evaluated in two institutions, then the CL was acquired.

RESULTS

In comparing the measurements, the AAA showed the largest systematic dose error (3%). In calculation comparisons, the CLs of the dose deviation were 8.7±9.9% (AAA), 4.2±3.9% (PBC-B) and 5.7±4.9% (AC). The CLs of the dose deviation between the AXB and the AAA were 1.8±1.5% and -0.1±4.4%, respectively, in the two institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The CL of the AAA showed much larger variation than the other algorithms. Relative to the AXB, larger systematic and random deviations still appeared. Thus, care should be taken in the use of AAA for lung SBRT.