Experimental validation of deterministic Acuros XB algorithm for IMRT and VMAT dose calculations with the Radiological Physics Center's head and neck phantom

Linear Boltzmann equation solver for voxel-level dosimetry in radiopharmaceutical therapy: Comparison with Monte Carlo and kernel convolution

BACKGROUND

With recent interest in patient-specific dosimetry for radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) and selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), an increasing number of voxel-based algorithms are being evaluated. Monte Carlo (MC) radiation transport, generally considered to be the most accurate among different methods for voxel-level absorbed dose estimation, can be computationally inefficient for routine clinical use.

PURPOSE

This work demonstrates a recently implemented grid-based linear Boltzmann transport equation (LBTE) solver for fast and accurate voxel-based dosimetry in RPT and SIRT and benchmarks it against MC.

METHODS

A deterministic LBTE solver (Acuros MRT) was implemented within a commercial RPT dosimetry package (Velocity 4.1). The LBTE is directly discretized using an adaptive mesh refined grid and then the coupled photon-electron radiation transport is iteratively solved inside specified volumes to estimate radiation doses from both photons and charged particles in heterogeneous media. To evaluate the performance of the LBTE solver for RPT and SIRT applications, 177 Lu SPECT/CT, 90 Y PET/CT, and 131 I SPECT/CT images of phantoms and patients were used. Multiple lesions (2-1052 mL) and normal organs were delineated for each study. Voxel dosimetry was performed with the LBTE solver, dose voxel kernel (DVK) convolution with density correction, and a validated in-house MC code using the same time-integrated activity and density maps as input to the different dose engines. The resulting dose maps, difference maps, and dose-volume-histogram (DVH) metrics were compared, to assess the voxel-level agreement. Evaluation of mean absorbed dose included comparison with structure-level estimates from OLINDA.

RESULTS

In the phantom inserts/compartments, the LBTE solver versus MC and DVK convolution demonstrated good agreement with mean absorbed dose and DVH metrics agreeing to within 5% except for the D90 and D70 metrics of a very low activity concentration insert of 90 Y where the agreement was within 15%. In the patient studies (five patients imaged after 177 Lu DOTATATE RPT, five after 90 Y SIRT, and two after 131 I radioimmunotherapy), in general, there was better agreement between the LBTE solver and MC than between LBTE solver and DVK convolution for mean absorbed dose and voxel-level evaluations. Across all patients for all three radionuclides, for soft tissue structures (kidney, liver, lesions), the mean absorbed dose estimates from the LBTE solver were in good agreement with those from MC (median difference < 1%, maximum 9%) and those from DVK (median difference < 5%, maximum 9%). The LBTE and OLINDA estimates for mean absorbed dose in kidneys and liver agreed to within 10%, but differences for lesions were larger with a maximum 14% for 177 Lu, 23% for 90 Y, and 26% for 131 I. For bone regions, the agreement in mean absorbed doses between LBTE and both MC and DVK were similar (median < 11%, max 11%) while for lung the agreement between LBTE and MC (median < 1%, max 8%) was substantially better than between LBTE and DVK (median < 16%, max 33%). Voxel level estimates for soft tissue structures also showed good agreement between the LBTE solver and both MC and DVK with a median difference < 5% (maximum < 13%) for the DVH metrics with all three radionuclides. The largest difference in DVH metrics was for the D90 and D70 metric in lung and bone where the uptake was low. Here, the difference between LBTE and MC had a median value < 14% (maximum 23%) for bone and < 4% (maximum 37%) for lung, while the corresponding differences between LBTE and DVK were < 23% (maximum 31%) and < 67% (maximum 313%), respectively. For a typical patient with a matrix size of 166 × 166 × 129 (voxel size 3 × 3 × 3 mm3 ), voxel dosimetry using the LBTE solver was as fast as ∼2 min on a desktop computer.

CONCLUSION

Having established good agreement between the LBTE solver and MC for RPT and SIRT applications, the LBTE solver is a viable option for voxel dosimetry that can be faster than MC. Further analysis is being performed to encompass the broad range of radionuclides and conditions encountered clinically.

Correlation Between Dosimetric Parameters and Local Control in Definitive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancers

BACKGROUND/AIM

Radiotherapy (RT) outcomes are generally reported based on stage, patient background, and concomitant chemotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the prescribed dose to gross tumor volume (GTV) and the calculation algorithm on local control in definitive RT for head and neck (H&N) cancers using follow-up images after RT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 154 patients with H&N cancers treated by Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy at the Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital. Patients were classified into those receiving definitive RT (70 Gy of irradiation) and those not receiving it. Follow-up images were used to categorize the patients into the responders and non-responders groups. In the non-responders group, follow-up images were imported into the treatment planning system, and the contours of the residual or recurrent areas (local failure) were extracted and fused with computed tomography-simulated images for treatment planning. Dose evaluation parameters included maximum dose, dose administered to 1% of the volume, dose administered to 50% of the volume, dose administered to 99% of the volume (D99%), and minimum dose (Dmin) administered to the GTV. The doses to the GTV were compared between responders and non-responders.

RESULTS

D99% exhibited significant differences between local failure and responders and between local failure and non-responders. Dmin showed significant differences between responders and non-responders and between responders and local failure.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the importance of verifying dose distribution in all slices of treatment planning, highlighting the need for precise assessment of the dose to the GTV in head and neck cancers.

Dose difference between anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) caused by target's air content for volumetric modulated arc therapy of head and neck cancer

Background

We clarified the dose difference between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) with increasing target's air content using a virtual phantom and clinical cases.

Materials and methods

Whole neck volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan was transferred into a virtual phantom with a cylindrical air structure at the center. The diameter of the air structure was changed from 0 to 6 cm, and the target's air content defined as the air/planning target volume (PTV) in percent (air/PTV) was varied. VMAT plans were recalculated by AAA and AXB with the same monitor unit (MU) and multi-leaf collimator (MLC) motions. The dose at each air/PTV (5%-30%) was compared between each algorithm with D98%, D95%, D50% and D2% for the PTV. In addition, MUs were also compared with the same MLC motions between the D95% prescription with AAA (AAA_D95%), AXB_D95%, and the prescription to 100% minus air/PTV (AXB_D100%-air/PTV) in clinical cases of head and neck (HNC).

Results

When air/PTV increased (5-30%), the dose differences between AAA and AXB for D98%, D95%, D50% and D2% were 3.08-15.72%, 2.35-13.92%, 0.63-4.59%, and 0.14-6.44%, respectively. At clinical cases with air/PTV of 5.61% and 28.19%, compared to AAA_D95%, the MUs differences were, respectively, 2.03% and 6.74% for AXB_D95% and 1.80% and 0.50% for AXB_D100%-air/PTV.

Conclusion

The dose difference between AAA and AXB increased as the target's air content increased, and AXB_D95% resulted in a dose escalation over AAA_D95% when the target's air content was ≥ 5%. The D100%-air/PTV of PTV using AXB was comparable to the D95% of PTV using AAA.

Dosimetric evaluation of a treatment planning system using the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) validation tests

Verifying the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithm is considered one of the most critical steps in radiotherapy treatment for delivering an accurate dose to the patient. This work aimed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of the treatment planning system (TPS) algorithms; the AAA (v. 15.6), AXB (v. 15.6) and eMC (v. 15.6) following the AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) validation tests package in a Varian iX Linear Accelerator (Linac). A series of tests were developed based on the MPPG 5.a. on a Varian's Eclipse TPS (v. 15.6) (Varian Medical Systems). First, the basic photon and electron tests were validated by comparing the TPS calculated dose with the measurements. Next, for heterogeneity tests, we verified the Computed Tomography number to electron density (CT-to-ED) curve by comparing it with the baseline values, and TPS calculated point doses beyond heterogeneous media were compared to the measurements. Finally, for IMRT/VMAT dose validation tests, clinical reference plans were re-calculated on ArcCheck's virtual phantom (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA) and exported to the Linac for delivery using the ArcCheck dosimetry system. All validation tests were evaluated following the MPPG 5.a recommended tolerances. In basic dose validation tests, the TPS calculated depth dose profiles agreed well with the measurements, with a minimum gamma passing rate of 95% at 2%/2 mm criteria. However, disagreements are seen in the build-up and penumbra region. Results for most point doses in homogeneous water phantoms were within the MPPG 5.a tolerance. For the heterogeneity tests, the CT-to-ED curve was established, and calculated point doses were all within 3% of the measurements for heterogeneous media for both photon algorithms at three energies. These results are within the MPPG5.a the recommended tolerance of 3%. Moreover, for electron beams, the differences between the calculated and measured point doses averaged 5% and 7%, but were just within the MPPG 5.a tolerance of 7%. For IMRT and VMAT validation tests using a gamma criteria of a 2%/2 mm, IMRT plans showed maximum and minimum passing rates of 98.2% and 97.4%, respectively. Whereas VMAT plans showed maximum and minimum passing rates of 100% and 94.3%, respectively. We conclude that the dosimetric accuracy of the Eclipse TPS (v15.6) algorithm is adequate for clinical use. The MPPG 5.a tests are valuable for evaluating dose calculation accuracy and are very useful for TPS upgrade checks, commissioning tests, and routine TPS QA.

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.

Dosimetric comparison and validation of Eclipse Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms in RapidArc-based radiosurgery plans of patients with solitary brain metastasis

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is increasingly being used to manage solitary or multiple brain metastasis. This study aims to compare and validate Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms of Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) in RapidArc-based SRS plans of patients with solitary brain metastasis. Twenty patients with solitary brain metastasis who have been already treated with RapidArc SRS plans calculated using AAA plans were selected for this study. These plans were recalculated using AXB algorithm keeping the same arc orientations, multi-leaf collimator apertures, and monitor units. The two algorithms were compared for target coverage parameters, isodose volumes, plan quality metrics, dose to organs at risk and integral dose. The dose calculated by the TPS using AAA and AXB algorithms was validated against measured dose for all patient plans using an in-house developed cylindrical phantom. An Exradin A14SL ionization chamber was positioned at the center of this phantom to measure the in-field dose. NanoDot Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeters (OSLDs) (Landauer Inc.) were placed at distances 3.0 cm, 4.0 cm, 5.0 cm, and 6.0 cm respectively from the center of the phantom to measure the non-target dose. In addition, the planar dose distribution was measured using amorphous silicon aS1000 Electronic Portal Imaging Device. The measured 2D dose distribution was compared against AAA and AXB estimated 2D distribution using gamma analysis. All results were tested for significance using the paired t-test at 5% level of significance. Significant differences between the AAA and AXB plans were found only for a few parameters analyzed in this study. In the experimental verification using cylindrical phantom, the difference between the AAA calculated dose and the measured dose was found to be highly significant (p < 0.001). However, the difference between the AXB calculated dose and the measured dose was not significant (p = 0.197). The difference between AAA/AXB calculated and measured at non-target locations was statistically insignificant at all four non-target locations and the dose calculated by both AAA and AXB algorithms shows a strong positive correlation with the measured dose. The results of the gamma analysis show that the AXB calculated planar dose is in better agreement with measurements compared to the AAA. Even though the results of the dosimetric comparison show that the differences are mostly not significant, the measurements show that there are differences between the two algorithms within the target volume. The AXB algorithm may be therefore more accurate in the dose calculation of VMAT plans for the treatment of small intracranial targets. For non-target locations either algorithm can be used for the estimation of dose accounting for their limitations in non-target dose estimations.

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.

Correlation between the γ passing rates of IMRT plans and the volumes of air cavities and bony structures in head and neck cancer

Background

Both patient-specific dose recalculation and γ passing rate analysis are important for the quality assurance (QA) of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans. The aim of this study was to analyse the correlation between the γ passing rates and the volumes of air cavities (V_air) and bony structures (V_bone) in target volume of head and neck cancer.

Methods

Twenty nasopharyngeal carcinoma and twenty nasal natural killer T-cell lymphoma patients were enrolled in this study. Nine-field sliding window IMRT plans were produced and the dose distributions were calculated by anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) and SciMoCa based on the Monte Carlo (MC) technique. The dose distributions and γ passing rates of the targets, organs at risk, air cavities and bony structures were compared among the different algorithms.

Results

The γ values obtained with AAA and AXB were 95.6 ± 1.9% and 96.2 ± 1.7%, respectively, with 3%/2 mm criteria (p > 0.05). There were significant differences (p < 0.05) in the γ values between AAA and AXB in the air cavities (86.6 ± 9.4% vs. 98.0 ± 1.7%) and bony structures (82.7 ± 13.5% vs. 99.0 ± 1.7%). Using AAA, the γ values were proportional to the natural logarithm of V_air (R² = 0.674) and inversely proportional to the natural logarithm of V_bone (R² = 0.816). When the V_air in the targets was smaller than approximately 80 cc or the V_bone in the targets was larger than approximately 6 cc, the γ values of AAA were below 95%. Using AXB, no significant relationship was found between the γ values and V_air or V_bone.

Conclusion

In clinical head and neck IMRT QA, greater attention should be paid to the effect of V_air and V_bone in the targets on the γ passing rates when using different dose calculation algorithms.

Radiotherapy dose calculations in high-Z materials: comprehensive comparison between experiment, Monte Carlo, and conventional planning algorithms

Purpose. To compare the accuracies of the AAA and AcurosXB dose calculation algorithms and to predict the change in the down-stream and lateral dose deposition of high energy photons in the presence of material with densities higher that commonly found in the body.Method. Metal rods of titanium (d = 4.5 g cm^-3), stainless steel (d = 8 g cm^-3) and tungsten (d = 19.25 g cm^-3) were positioned in a phantom. Film was position behind and laterally to the rods to measure the dose distribution for a 6 MV, 18 MV and 10 FFF photon beams. A DOSXYZnrc Monte Carlo simulation of the experimental setup was performed. The AAA and AcurosXB dose calculation algorithms were used to predict the dose distributions. The dose from film and DOSXYZnrc were compared with the dose predicted by AAA and AcurosXB.Results. AAA overestimated the dose behind the rods by 15%-25% and underestimated the dose laterally to the rods by 5%-15% depending on the range of materials and energies investigated. AcurosXB overestimated the dose behind the rods by 1%-18% and underestimated the dose laterally to the rods by up to 5% depending on the range of material and energies investigated.Conclusion. AAA cannot deliver clinically acceptable dose calculation results at a distance less than 10 mm from metals, for a single field treatment. Acuros XB is able to handle metals of low atomic numbers (Z ≤ 26), but not tungsten (Z = 74). This can be due to the restriction of the CT-density table in Eclipse^TMTPS, which has an upper HU limit of 10501.

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.

Effect of dental metal artifact conversion volume on dose distribution in head-and-neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy

Purpose

During treatment planning for head‐and‐neck volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT), manual contouring of the metal artifact area of artificial teeth is done, and the area is replaced with water computed tomography (CT) values for dose calculation. This contouring of the metal artifact areas, which is performed manually, is subject to human variability. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and analyze the effect of inter‐observer variation on dose distribution.

Methods

The subjects were 25 cases of cancer of the oropharynx for which VMAT was performed. Six radiation oncologists (ROs) performed metal artifact contouring for all of the cases. Gross tumor volume, clinical target volume, planning target volume (PTV), and oral cavity were evaluated. The contouring of the six ROs was divided into two groups, small and large groups. A reference RO was determined for each group and the dose distribution was compared with those of the other radiation oncologists by gamma analysis (GA).

As an additional experiment, we changed the contouring of each dental metal artifact area, creating enlarged contours (L), reduced contours (S), and undrawn contours (N) based on the contouring by the six ROs and compared these structure sets.

Results

The evaluation of inter‐observer variation showed no significant difference between the large and small groups, and the GA pass rate was 100%. Similar results were obtained comparing structure sets L and S, but in the comparison of structure sets L and N, there were cases with pass rates below 70%.

Conclusions

The results show that the artificial variability of manual artificial tooth metal artifact contouring has little effect on the dose distribution of VMAT. However, it should be noted that the dose distribution may change depending on the contouring method in cases where the overlap between PTV and metal artifact areas is large.

Validation of the preconfigured Varian Ethos Acuros XB Beam Model for treatment planning dose calculations: A dosimetric study

Varian (Palo Alto, California, United States) recently released an online adaptation treatment platform, Ethos, which has introduced a new Dose Preview and Automated Plan Generation module despite sharing identical beam data with the existing Halcyon linac. The module incorporates a preconfigured beam model and the Acuros XB algorithm (Ethos AXB model) to generate final dose calculations from an initial fluence optimization. In this study, we comprehensively validated the accuracy of the Ethos AXB model by comparing it against the Halcyon AXB model, the Halcyon Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) model, and measurements acquired on an Ethos linac. Results indicated that the Ethos AXB model demonstrated a comparable if not superior dosimetric accuracy to the Halcyon AXB model in basic and complex calculations, and at the same time its dosimetric accuracy in modulated and heterogeneous plans was better than that of the Halcyon AAA model. Despite the fact that the same algorithm was utilized, the Ethos AXB model and the Halcyon AXB model still exhibited variations across a range of tests, although these variations were predominantly insignificant in the clinical environment. The accuracy of the Ethos AXB model has been successfully verified in this study and is considered appropriate for the current clinical scope. On the basis of this study, clinical physicists can perform a data validation instead of a full data commissioning when implementing the Ethos system, thereby adopting a more efficient approach for Ethos installation.

6X acuros algorithm validation in the presence of inhomogeneities for VMAT treatment planning

Aim

To validate the Acuros®XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm for a 6 MV beam from the Varian TrueBeam treatment units.

Background

Currently Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm (AAA) is clinically used on authors' department but AXB could replace it for VMAT treatments in regions where inhomogeneities and free air are present.

Materials and methods

Two steps are followed in the validation process of a new dose calculation algorithm. The first is to check the accuracy of algorithm for a homogenous phantom and regular fields. Multiple fields of increasing complexity have been acquired using a Mapcheck diode array. The accuracy of the algorithm was evaluated using the gamma analysis method. The second is to validate the algorithm in the presence of heterogeneous media. Planar absolute dose was measured with GafChromic®EBT2 film and was compared with the dose calculated by AXB. Gamma analysis was performed between Mapcheck measurements and AXB dose calculations, at a range of clinical source-surface distance.

Results

For SSDs ranging from 80 to 100 cm, the results show a minimum pass rate of 95% between AXB and Mapcheck acquisition. For open 6 MV photon beam interacting with a phantom with an air gap, the agreement after the air gap between AXB and GafChromic®EBT2 is less than 1% in the 3 × 3cm² field and less than 2% in the 10 × 10 cm² field.

Conclusions

AXB has advanced modelling of lateral electron transport that enables a more accurate dose calculation in heterogeneous regions and, compared with AAA, improves accuracy between different density interfaces. This will be of particular benefit for head/neck treatments.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment planning based on virtual monochromatic images for head and neck cancer: effect of the contrast-enhanced agent on dose distribution

Virtual monochromatic images (VMIs) at a lower energy level can improve image quality but the computed tomography (CT) number of iodine contained in the contrast‐enhanced agent is dramatically increased. We assessed the effect of the use of contrast‐enhanced agent on the dose distributions in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for head and neck cancer (HNC). Based on the VMIs at 40 keV (VMI_40keV), 60 keV(VMI_60keV), and 77 keV (VMI_77keV) of a tissue characterization phantom, lookup tables (LUTs) were created. VMAT plans were generated for 15 HNC patients based on contrast‐enhanced‐ (CE‐) VMIs at 40‐, 60‐, and 77 keV using the corresponding LUTs, and the doses were recalculated based on the noncontrast‐enhanced‐ (nCE‐) VMIs. For all structures, the difference in CT numbers owing to the contrast‐enhanced agent was prominent as the energy level of the VMI decreased, and the mean differences in CT number between CE‐ and nCE‐VMI was the largest for the clinical target volume (CTV) (125.3, 55.9, and 33.1 HU for VMI_40keV, VMI_60keV, and VMI_77keV, respectively). The mean difference of the dosimetric parameters (D_99%, D_50%, D_1%, D_mean, and D_0.1cc) for CTV and OARs was <1% in the treatment plans based on all VMIs. The maximum difference was observed for CTV in VMI_40keV (2.4%), VMI_60keV (1.9%), and VMI_77keV (1.5%) plans. The effect of the contrast‐enhanced agent was larger in the VMAT plans based on the VMI at a lower energy level for HNC patients. This effect is not desirable in a treatment planning procedure.

Dose to medium in head and neck radiotherapy: Clinical implications for target volume metrics

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In radiotherapy dose calculation, advanced type-B dose calculation algorithms can calculate dose to medium (Dm ), as opposed to Type-B algorithms which compute dose to varying densities of water (Dw ). We investigate the impact of Dm on calculated dose and target coverage metrics in head and neck cancer patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed 27 successfully treated (disease free at two-years post-(chemo)radiotherapy) human papillomavirus-associated (HPV) oropharyngeal cancer (ONC) patients treated with IMRT. Doses were calculated with Type-B and Linear Boltzman Transport Equation (LBTE) algorithms in a commercial treatment planning system, with the treated multi-leaf collimator patterns and monitor units. Coverage for primary Gross Tumour Volume (GTVp), high dose Planning Target Volume (PTV) (PTV_High), mandible within PTV_High (Mand ∩ PTV) and PTV_High excluding bone (PTV-bone) were compared between the algorithms.

RESULTS

Dose to 95% of PTV_High with LBTE was on average 1.1 Gy/1.7% lower than with Type-B (95%CI 1.5-1.9%, p < 0.0001). This magnitude was inversely linearly correlated with the relative volume of the PTV_High containing bone (pearson r = -0.81). Dose to 98% of the GTVp was 0.9 Gy/1.3% lower with LBTE compared with Type-B (95%CI 1.1-1.5%, p < 0.05). Dose to 98% of Mand ∩ PTV was on average 3.4 Gy/5.0% lower with LBTE than with Type-B (95%CI 4.6-5.4%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In OPC treated with IMRT, Dm results in significant reductions in dose to bone in high dose PTVs. Reported GTVp dose was reduced, but by a lower magnitude. Reduced coverage metrics should be expected for OPC patients treated with IMRT, with dose reductions limited to regions of bone.

Feasibility study of conformal forward planned simultaneous integrated boost technique comparable to IMRT and VMAT in pelvic irradiation for locally advanced cervical cancer

Aim: To check the feasibility of simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) using a forward planned field in field (FIF) conformal technique for the treatment of carcinoma of the cervix IIIB and compare it dosimetrically with other advanced inverse planning techniques.

Methods: In our study 33 patients of carcinoma of the cervix IIIB were planned for SIB using conformal FIF technique and they were compared with retrospectively planned IMRT and VMAT techniques. SIB using conformal FIF was planned by two different methods.

Results: The results of our study indicate that forward planned Conformal SIB techniques are comparable with inverse planned techniques dosimetrically, in terms of conformity Index, Homogeneity Index, Maximum dose, etc. The ability of FIF SIB plans to produce dose contrast in differential dose accumulation was compared and analyzed and the results were encouraging. To treat an advanced/bulky disease like Carcinoma of the Cervix IIIB in centers with large patient load, utilizing advanced techniques such as IMRT and VMAT is both technically and practically difficult. Despite VMAT’s shorter delivery time, the procedures involved are time-consuming.

Conclusion: Hence forward planned SIB techniques may be used to achieve similar dosimetric effects of IMRT and VMAT techniques without much compromise in plan quality and patient throughput for treating bulky carcinoma of the cervix IIIB cases. However, the clinical results need to be carefully compared and evaluated and reported.

Dosimetric assessment of a single-energy metal artifact reduction algorithm for computed tomography images in radiation therapy

This study aimed to evaluate the performance of a single-energy metal artifact reduction (SEMAR) algorithm for radiation therapy treatment using phantom cases with metal inserts, assess improvements in computed tomography (CT) number accuracy, and investigate its effects on treatment planning dosimetry. A standard electron density phantom was scanned with and without metal inserts. The numbers of tissue-equivalent materials on both uncorrected and SEMAR-corrected CT images were compared. Treatment planning accuracy was evaluated by comparing dose distributions computed using true density images (without metal inserts), uncorrected images (with metal inserts), and SEMAR-corrected images (with metal inserts) using three-dimensional gamma analysis. The numbers of the true density and uncorrected and SEMAR-corrected CT images in a muscle plug with unilateral inserts were 25.9 HU, - 281.8 HU, and 26.1 HU, respectively. A similar tendency was obtained for other tissue-equivalent materials, and the numbers on CT images were improved with the SEMAR algorithm. In cases involving 1 portal irradiation, 10-MV X-ray, and the Acuros XB algorithm, the pass ratio between the true density and uncorrected images was 89.89%, while that between the true density and SEMAR-corrected images was 95.03%. Improvements in dose distribution were evident using the SEMAR algorithm. Similar trends were found for different irradiation methods and dose calculation algorithms. The SEMAR algorithm can significantly reduce metal artifacts on CT images used for radiation treatment planning. This aspect influenced dosimetry in the region of the artifact and dose distribution was significantly improved with use of the SEMAR-corrected images.

Calculation of absorbed dose in radiotherapy by solution of the linear Boltzmann transport equations

Over the last decade, dose calculations which solve the linear Boltzmann transport equations have been introduced into clinical practice and are now in widespread use. However, knowledge in the radiotherapy community concerning the details of their function is limited. This review gives a general description of the linear Boltzmann transport equations as applied to calculation of absorbed dose in clinical radiotherapy. The aim is to elucidate the principles of the method, rather than to describe a particular implementation. The literature on the performance of typical algorithms is then reviewed, in many cases with reference to Monte Carlo simulations. The review is completed with an overview of the emerging applications in the important area of MR-guided radiotherapy.

Comparative study between Acuros XB algorithm and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm in the case of heterogeneity for the treatment of lung cancer

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of heterogeneity on the dose calculation for two algorithms implemented in the TPS “Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB” and validated the use of Acuros XB algorithm in clinical routine. First, we compare the dose calculated by these algorithms and the dose measured at the given point P, which is found after heterogeneity insert. Second, we extend our work on clinical cases that present a complex heterogeneity. By evaluating the impact of the choice of the algorithm on the dose coverage of the tumor, and the dose received by the organs at risk for 20 patients affected by lung cancer.

The result of our phantom study showed a good agreement with several studies that showed the superiority of the Acuros XB over the AAA in predicting dose when it concerns heterogeneous media. The treatment plans for 20 lung cancers were calculated by two algorithms AAA and Acuros XB, the results show a statistical significant difference between algorithms for Homogeneity Index and the maximum dose of planning target volume (HI: 0.11±0.01 vs 0.05±0.01 p = 0.04; Dmax: 69.30±3.12 vs 68.51±2.64 p = 0.02). Instead, no statistically significant difference was observed for conformity index CI and mean dose (CI: 0.98±0.18 vs 0.99±0.14 p = 0.33; Dmean: 66.3±0.65 vs 66.10 ±0.61 p = 0.54). For organs at risk, the maximum dose for spinal cord, mean dose and D37 % of lung minus GTV (dose receiving 37% of lung volume) were found to be lower for AAA plans than Acuros XB and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). For the heart D33% and D67% were found to be higher for AAA plans than Acuros XB and the differences were statistically significant (p<0.05), but No difference was observed for D100% of the heart.

The use of the AXB algorithm is suitable in the case of presence of heterogeneity, because it allows to have a better accuracy close to the Monte Carlo calculation.

Validation of the Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm versus Monte Carlo for clinical treatment plans

PURPOSE

The two distinct dose computation paradigms of Boltzmann equation solvers and Monte Carlo simulation both promise in principle maximum accuracy. In practice, clinically acceptable calculation times demand approximations and numerical short-cuts on one hand, and modeling the beam characteristics of a real linear accelerator to the required accuracy on the other. A thorough benchmark of both algorithm types therefore needs to start with beam modeling, and needs to include a number of clinically challenging treatment plans.

METHODS

The Acuros XB (v 13.7, Varian Medical Systems) and SciMoCa (v 1.0, Scientific RT) algorithms were commissioned for the same Varian Clinac accelerator for beam qualities 6 and 15 MV. Beam models were established with water phantom measurements and MLC calibration protocols. In total, 25 patients of five case classes (lung/three-dimensional (3D) conformal, lung/IMRT, head and neck/VMAT, cervix/IMRT, and rectum/VMAT) were randomly selected from the clinical database and computed with both algorithms. Statistics of 3D gamma analysis for various dose/distance-to-agreement (DTA) criteria and differences in selected DVH parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

The percentage of points fulfilling a gamma evaluation was scored as the gamma agreement index (GAI), denoted as G(ΔD, DTA). G(3,3), G(2,2), and G(1,1) were evaluated for the full body, PTV, and selected organs at risk (OARs). For all patients, G(3,3) ≥ 99.9% and G(2,2) > 97% for the body. G(1,1) varied among the patients. However, for all patients, G(1,1) > 70% and G(1,1) > 80% for 68% of the patients. For each patient, the mean dose deviation was ΔD < 1% for the body, PTV, and all evaluated OARs, respectively. In dense bone and at off-axis distance > 10 cm, the Acuros algorithm yielded slightly higher doses. In the first layer of voxels of the patient surface, the calculated doses deviated between the algorithms. However, at the second voxel, good agreement was observed. The differences in D(98%PTV) were <1.9% between the two algorithms and for 76% of the patients, deviations were below 1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, an outstanding agreement was found between the Boltzmann equation solver and Monte Carlo. High-accuracy dose computation algorithms have matured to a level that their differences are below common experimental detection thresholds for clinical treatment plans. Aside from residual differences which could be traced back to implementation details and fundamental cross-section data, both algorithms arrive at identical dose distributions.

Verification of Acuros XB dose algorithm using 3D printed low-density phantoms for clinical photon beams

The transport-based dose calculation algorithm Acuros XB (AXB) has been shown to accurately account for heterogeneities primarily through comparisons with Monte Carlo simulations. This study aims to provide additional experimental verification of AXB for clinically relevant flattened and unflattened beam energies in low density phantoms of the same material. Polystyrene slabs were created using a bench-top 3D printer. Six slabs were printed at varying densities from 0.23 to 0.68 g/cm3 , corresponding to different density humanoid tissues. The slabs were used to form different single and multilayer geometries. Dose was calculated with Eclipse™ AXB 11.0.31 for 6MV, 15MV flattened and 6FFF (flattening filter free) energies for field sizes of 2 × 2 and 5 × 5 cm2 . EBT3 film was inserted into the phantoms, which were irradiated. Absolute dose profiles and 2D Gamma analyses were performed for 96 dose planes. For all single slab configurations and energies, absolute dose differences between the AXB calculation and film measurements remained <3% for both fields in the high-dose region, however, larger disagreement was seen within the penumbra. For the multilayered phantom, percentage depth dose with AXB was within 5% of discrete film measurements. The Gamma index at 2%/2 mm averaged 98% in all combinations of fields, phantoms and photon energies. The transport-based dose algorithm AXB is in good agreement with the experimental measurements for small field sizes using 6MV, 6FFF and 15MV beams adjacent to various low-density heterogeneous media. This work provides preliminary experimental grounds to support the use of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation purposes.

The virtual cone: A novel technique to generate spherical dose distributions using a multileaf collimator and standardized control-point sequence for small target radiation surgery

Purpose

The study aimed to develop and demonstrate a standardized linear accelerator multileaf collimator-based method of delivering small, spherical dose distributions suitable for radiosurgical treatment of small targets such as the trigeminal nerve.

Methods and materials

The virtual cone is composed of a multileaf collimator–defined field with the central 2 leaves set to a small gap. For 5 table positions, clockwise and counter-clockwise arcs were used with collimator angles of 45 and 135 degrees, respectively. The dose per degree was proportional to the sine of the gantry angle. The dose distribution was calculated by the treatment planning system and measured using radiochromic film in a skull phantom for leaf gaps of 1.6, 2.1, and 2.6 mm. Cones with a diameter of 4 mm and 5 mm were measured for comparison. Output factor constancy was investigated using a parallel-plate chamber.

Results

The mean ratio of the measured-to-calculated dose was 0.99, 1.03, and 1.05 for 1.6, 2.1, and 2.6 mm leaf gaps, respectively. The diameter of the measured (calculated) 50% isodose line was 4.9 (4.6) mm, 5.2 (5.1) mm, and 5.5 (5.5) mm for the 1.6, 2.1, and 2.6 mm leaf gap, respectively. The measured diameter of the 50% isodose line was 4.5 and 5.7 mm for the 4 mm and 5 mm cones, respectively. The standard deviation of the parallel-plate chamber signal relative to a 10 cm × 10 cm field was less than 0.4%. The relative signal changed 32% per millimeter change in leaf gap, indicating that the parallel-plate chamber is sensitive to changes in gap width.

Conclusions

The virtual cone is an efficient technique for treatment of small spherical targets. Patient-specific quality assurance measurements will not be necessary in routine clinical use. Integration directly into the treatment planning system will make planning using this technique extremely efficient.

Validation of a modern second-check dosimetry system using a novel verification phantom

Purpose

To evaluate the Mobius second‐check dosimetry system by comparing it to ionization‐chamber dose measurements collected in the recently released Mobius Verification Phantom™ (MVP). For reference, a comparison of these measurements to dose calculated in the primary treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse with the AcurosXB dose algorithm, is also provided. Finally, patient dose calculated in Mobius is compared directly to Eclipse to demonstrate typical expected results during clinical use of the Mobius system.

Methods

Seventeen anonymized intensity‐modulated clinical treatment plans were selected for analysis. Dose was recalculated on the MVP in both Eclipse and Mobius. These calculated doses were compared to doses measured using an A1SL ionization‐chamber in the MVP. Dose was measured and analyzed at two different chamber positions for each treatment plan. Mobius calculated dose was then compared directly to Eclipse using the following metrics; target mean dose, target D95%, global 3D gamma pass rate, and target gamma pass rate. Finally, these same metrics were used to analyze the first 36 intensity modulated cases, following clinical implementation of the Mobius system.

Results

The average difference between Mobius and measurement was 0.3 ± 1.3%. Differences ranged from −3.3 to + 2.2%. The average difference between Eclipse and measurement was −1.2 ± 0.7%. Eclipse vs. measurement differences ranged from −3.0 to −0.1%. For the 17 anonymized pre‐clinical cases, the average target mean dose difference between Mobius and Eclipse was 1.0 ± 1.1%. Average target D95% difference was ‐0.9 ± 2.0%. Average global gamma pass rate, using a criteria of 3%, 2 mm, was 94.4 ± 3.3%, and average gamma pass rate for the target volume only was 80.2 ± 12.3%. Results of the first 36 intensity‐modulated cases, post‐clinical implementation of Mobius, were similar to those seen for the 17 pre‐clinical test cases.

Conclusion

Mobius correctly calculated dose for each tested intensity modulated treatment plan, agreeing with measurement to within 3.5% for all cases analyzed. The dose calculation accuracy and independence of the Mobius system is sufficient to provide a rigorous second‐check of a modern TPS.

Clinical implementation and evaluation of the Acuros dose calculation algorithm

PURPOSE

The main aim of this study is to validate the Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm for a Varian Clinac iX linac in our clinics, and subsequently compare it with the wildely used AAA algorithm.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The source models for both Acuros XB and AAA were configured by importing the same measured beam data into Eclipse treatment planning system. Both algorithms were validated by comparing calculated dose with measured dose on a homogeneous water phantom for field sizes ranging from 6 cm × 6 cm to 40 cm × 40 cm. Central axis and off-axis points with different depths were chosen for the comparison. In addition, the accuracy of Acuros was evaluated for wedge fields with wedge angles from 15 to 60°. Similarly, variable field sizes for an inhomogeneous phantom were chosen to validate the Acuros algorithm. In addition, doses calculated by Acuros and AAA at the center of lung equivalent tissue from three different VMAT plans were compared to the ion chamber measured doses in QUASAR phantom, and the calculated dose distributions by the two algorithms and their differences on patients were compared. Computation time on VMAT plans was also evaluated for Acuros and AAA. Differences between dose-to-water (calculated by AAA and Acuros XB) and dose-to-medium (calculated by Acuros XB) on patient plans were compared and evaluated.

RESULTS

For open 6 MV photon beams on the homogeneous water phantom, both Acuros XB and AAA calculations were within 1% of measurements. For 23 MV photon beams, the calculated doses were within 1.5% of measured doses for Acuros XB and 2% for AAA. Testing on the inhomogeneous phantom demonstrated that AAA overestimated doses by up to 8.96% at a point close to lung/solid water interface, while Acuros XB reduced that to 1.64%. The test on QUASAR phantom showed that Acuros achieved better agreement in lung equivalent tissue while AAA underestimated dose for all VMAT plans by up to 2.7%. Acuros XB computation time was about three times faster than AAA for VMAT plans, and computation time for other plans will be discussed at the end. Maximum difference between dose calculated by AAA and dose-to-medium by Acuros XB (Acuros_D_m,m ) was 4.3% on patient plans at the isocenter, and maximum difference between D₁₀₀ calculated by AAA and by Acuros_D_m,m was 11.3%. When calculating the maximum dose to spinal cord on patient plans, differences between dose calculated by AAA and Acuros_D_m,m were more than 3%.

CONCLUSION

Compared with AAA, Acuros XB improves accuracy in the presence of inhomogeneity, and also significantly reduces computation time for VMAT plans. Dose differences between AAA and Acuros_D_w,m were generally less than the dose differences between AAA and Acuros_D_m,m . Clinical practitioners should consider making Acuros XB available in clinics, however, further investigation and clarification is needed about which dose reporting mode (dose-to-water or dose-to-medium) should be used in clinics.

A comparison of two dose calculation algorithms-anisotropic analytical algorithm and Acuros XB-for radiation therapy planning of canine intranasal tumors

Although anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) are both radiation dose calculation algorithms that take into account the heterogeneity within the radiation field, Acuros XB is inherently more accurate. The purpose of this retrospective method comparison study was to compare them and evaluate the dose discrepancy within the planning target volume (PTV). Radiation therapy (RT) plans of 11 dogs with intranasal tumors treated by radiation therapy at the University of Georgia were evaluated. All dogs were planned for intensity-modulated radiation therapy using nine coplanar X-ray beams that were equally spaced, then dose calculated with anisotropic analytical algorithm. The same plan with the same monitor units was then recalculated using Acuros XB for comparisons. Each dog's planning target volume was separated into air, bone, and tissue and evaluated. The mean dose to the planning target volume estimated by Acuros XB was 1.3% lower. It was 1.4% higher for air, 3.7% lower for bone, and 0.9% lower for tissue. The volume of planning target volume covered by the prescribed dose decreased by 21% when Acuros XB was used due to increased dose heterogeneity within the planning target volume. Anisotropic analytical algorithm relatively underestimates the dose heterogeneity and relatively overestimates the dose to the bone and tissue within the planning target volume for the radiation therapy planning of canine intranasal tumors. This can be clinically significant especially if the tumor cells are present within the bone, because it may result in relative underdosing of the tumor.

Dosimetric Verification around High-density Materials for External Beam Radiotherapy

It is generally known that the dose distribution around the high-density materials is not accurate with commercially available radiation treatment planning systems (RTPS). Recently, Acuros XB (AXB) has been clinically available for dose calculation algorithm. The AXB is based on the linear Boltzmann transport equation - the governing equation - that describes the distribution of radiation particles resulting from their interactions with matter. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy around high-density materials for AXB under three X-rays energy on the basis of measured values with EBT3 and compare AXB with various dose calculation algorithms (AAA, XVMC) in RTPS and Monte Carlo. First, two different metals, including titanium and stainless steel, were inserted at the center of a water-equivalent phantom, and the depth dose was measured with EBT3. Next, after a phantom which reproduced the geometry of measurement was virtually created in RTPS, dose distributions were calculated with three commercially available algorithms (AXB, AAA, and XVMC) and MC. The calculated doses were then compared with the measured ones. As a result, compared to other algorithms, it was found that the dose calculation accuracy of AXB at the exit side of high-density materials was comparable to that of MC and measured value with EBT3. However, note that AXB underestimated the dose up to approximately 30% at the plane of incidence because it cannot exactly estimate the impact of the backscatter.

A phantom study on the behavior of Acuros XB algorithm in flattening filter free photon beams

To study the behavior of Acuros XB algorithm for flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams in comparison with the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) when applied to homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms in conventional and RapidArc techniques. Acuros XB (Eclipse version 10.0, Varian Medical Systems, CA, USA) and AAA algorithms were used to calculate dose distributions for both 6X FFF and 10X FFF energies. RapidArc plans were created on Catphan phantom 504 and conventional plans on virtual homogeneous water phantom 30 × 30 × 30 cm³, virtual heterogeneous phantom with various inserts and on solid water phantom with air cavity. Dose at various inserts with different densities were measured in both AAA and Acuros algorithms. The maximum % variation in dose was observed in (−944 HU) air insert and minimum in (85 HU) acrylic insert in both 6X FFF and 10X FFF photons. Less than 1% variation observed between −149 HU and 282 HU for both energies. At −40 HU and 765 HU Acuros behaved quite contrarily with 10X FFF. Maximum % variation in dose was observed in less HU values and minimum variation in higher HU values for both FFF energies. Global maximum dose observed at higher depths for Acuros for both energies compared with AAA. Increase in dose was observed with Acuros algorithm in almost all densities and decrease at few densities ranging from 282 to 643 HU values. Field size, depth, beam energy, and material density influenced the dose difference between two algorithms.

Heterogeneity correction for intensity-modulated frameless SRS in pituitary and cavernous sinus tumors: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Frameless immobilization allows for planning and quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiosurgery (IM-SRS) plans. We tested the hypothesis that IM-SRS planning with uniform tissue density corrections results in dose inaccuracy compared to heterogeneity-corrected algorithms.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with tumors of the pituitary or cavernous sinus underwent frameless IM-SRS. Treatment planning CT and MRI scans were obtained and fused to delineate the tumor, optic nerves, chiasm, and brainstem. The plan was developed with static gantry IM-SRS fields using a pencil beam (PB), analytical anisotropic (AAA), and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms. We evaluated measures of target coverage as well as doses to organs at risk (OAR) for each algorithm. We compared the results of each algorithm in the cases where PTV overlapped OAR (n = 10) to cases without overlapping OAR with PTV (n = 5). Utilizing film dosimetry, we measured the dose distribution for each algorithm through a uniform density target to a rando phantom with non-uniform density of air, tissue, and bone.

RESULTS

There was no difference in target coverage measured by DMaxPTV, DMinPTV, D95%PTV, or the isodose surface (IDS) covering 95% of the PTV regardless of algorithm. However, there were differences in dose to OAR. PB predicted higher (p < 0.05) Dmax for the brainstem, chiasm, right optic nerve, and left optic nerve. In cases of PTV overlapping an optic nerve (n = 7), PB was unable to limit dose to 8 Gy while achieving PTV coverage (PB 855 cGy vs. AAA 769 cGy, p = 0.05 vs. AXB 658 cGy, p = 0.03). Within the rando phantom, the PB and AAA algorithms over-estimated the dose delivered in the bone-tissue-air interface of the sinus (+17%), while the AXB algorithm closely predicted the actual dose delivered through the inhomogeneous tissue (+/- 1 % max, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing frameless SRS benefit from heterogeneity corrected dose plans when the lesion lies in areas of widely varying tissue density and near critical normal structures such as the skull base. Film dosimetry confirms that the AXB dose calculation algorithm more accurately predicts actual dose delivered though tissues of varying densities than PB or AAA dose calculation algorithms.

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low- and high-density heterogeneities

The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric methods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percent depth doses (PDD) were calculated and measured in three heterogeneous phantoms. The first two phantoms were a 30×30×30 cm3 solid‐water slab that had an air‐gap of 20×2.5×2.35 cm3. The third phantom consisted of 30×30×5 cm3 solid water slabs, two 30×30×5 cm3 slabs of lung, and one 30×30×1 cm3 solid water slab. Acuros XB, AAA, and MC calculations were within 1% in the regions with particle equilibrium. At media interfaces and buildup regions, differences between Acuros XB and MC were in the range of +4.4% to −12.8%. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements agreed to MC calculations within ∼2.5%, except for the first centimeter of buildup where differences of 4.5% were observed. AAA did not predict the backscatter dose from the high‐density heterogeneity. For the third, multilayer lung phantom, 6 MV beam PDDs calculated by all TPS algorithms were within 2% of MC. 18 MV PDDs calculated by two versions of Acuros XB and AAA differed from MC by up to 2.8%, 3.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. MOSkin and EBT2 each differed from MC by up to 2.9% and 2.5% for the 6 MV, and by −3.1% and ∼2% for the 18 MV beams. All dosimetric techniques, except AAA, agreed within 3% in the regions with particle equilibrium. Differences between the dosimetric techniques were larger for the 18 MV than the 6 MV beam. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements were in a better agreement with MC than Acuros XB calculations at the interfaces, and they were in a better agreement to each other than to MC. The latter is due to their thinner detection layers compared to MC voxel sizes.

PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.k

Dosimetric study of the AAA algorithm for the VMAT technique using an anthropomorphic phantom in the pelvic region

Purpose

The objective of this work was to investigate the accuracy of AAA dose calculation algorithm for RapidArc volumetric modulated technique (VMAT) in the presence of anatomical heterogeneities in the pelvic region.

Material and methods

An anthropomorphic phantom was used to simulate a prostate case, delineating planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk. VMAT plans were optimised in eclipse (v10·0) treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated by the AAA dose calculation algorithm. A total of 49 thermoluminiscent dosimeters were inserted into the anthropomorphic phantom and dose measurements were compared with the predicted TPS doses.

Results

The average dose variation was −1·5% for planning target volume corresponding to the prostate and −0·3% for planning target volume corresponding to the pelvic nodes, −0·2% for the rectum, +2·4% for the bladder, −2·0% for the femoral heads and +1·0% for the intestinal package.

Conclusion

AAA is a reliable dose calculation for the treatment with VMAT in the anatomy of the pelvis.

Dose calculation of Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment with flattening filter free beams and the potential role of calculation grid size

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to appraise the dose differences between Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment for lung cancer with flattening filter free (FFF) beams. Additionally, the potential role of the calculation grid size (CGS) on the dose differences between the two algorithms was also investigated.

METHODS

SBRT plans with 6X and 10X FFF beams produced from the CT scan data of 10 patients suffering from stage I lung cancer were enrolled in this study. Clinically acceptable treatment plans with AAA were recalculated using AXB with the same monitor units (MU) and identical multileaf collimator (MLC) settings. Furthermore, different CGS (2.5 mm and 1 mm) in the two algorithms was also employed to investigate their dosimetric impact. Dose to planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) between the two algorithms were compared. PTV was separated into PTV_soft (density in soft-tissue range) and PTV_lung (density in lung range) for comparison.

RESULTS

The dose to PTV_lung predicted by AXB was found to be 1.33 ± 1.12% (6XFFF beam with 2.5 mm CGS), 2.33 ± 1.37% (6XFFF beam with 1 mm CGS), 2.81 ± 2.33% (10XFFF beam with 2.5 mm CGS) and 3.34 ± 1.76% (10XFFF beam with 1 mm CGS) lower compared with that by AAA, respectively. However, the dose directed to PTV_soft was comparable. For OARs, AXB predicted a slightly lower dose to the aorta, chest wall, spinal cord and esophagus, regardless of whether the 6XFFF or 10XFFF beam was utilized. Exceptionally, dose to the ipsilateral lung was significantly higher with AXB.

CONCLUSIONS

AXB principally predicts lower dose to PTV_lung compared to AAA and the CGS contributes to the relative dose difference between the two algorithms.

Current state of the art brachytherapy treatment planning dosimetry algorithms

Following literature contributions delineating the deficiencies introduced by the approximations of conventional brachytherapy dosimetry, different model-based dosimetry algorithms have been incorporated into commercial systems for (192)Ir brachytherapy treatment planning. The calculation settings of these algorithms are pre-configured according to criteria established by their developers for optimizing computation speed vs accuracy. Their clinical use is hence straightforward. A basic understanding of these algorithms and their limitations is essential, however, for commissioning; detecting differences from conventional algorithms; explaining their origin; assessing their impact; and maintaining global uniformity of clinical practice.

Evaluation of six TPS algorithms in computing entrance and exit doses

Entrance and exit doses are commonly measured in in vivo dosimetry for comparison with expected values, usually generated by the treatment planning system (TPS), to verify accuracy of treatment delivery. This report aims to evaluate the accuracy of six TPS algorithms in computing entrance and exit doses for a 6 MV beam. The algorithms tested were: pencil beam convolution (Eclipse PBC), analytical anisotropic algorithm (Eclipse AAA), AcurosXB (Eclipse AXB), FFT convolution (XiO Convolution), multigrid superposition (XiO Superposition), and Monte Carlo photon (Monaco MC). Measurements with ionization chamber (IC) and diode detector in water phantoms were used as a reference. Comparisons were done in terms of central axis point dose, 1D relative profiles, and 2D absolute gamma analysis. Entrance doses computed by all TPS algorithms agreed to within 2% of the measured values. Exit doses computed by XiO Convolution, XiO Superposition, Eclipse AXB, and Monaco MC agreed with the IC measured doses to within 2%‐3%. Meanwhile, Eclipse PBC and Eclipse AAA computed exit doses were higher than the IC measured doses by up to 5.3% and 4.8%, respectively. Both algorithms assume that full backscatter exists even at the exit level, leading to an overestimation of exit doses. Despite good agreements at the central axis for Eclipse AXB and Monaco MC, 1D relative comparisons showed profiles mismatched at depths beyond 11.5 cm. Overall, the 2D absolute gamma (3%/3 mm) pass rates were better for Monaco MC, while Eclipse AXB failed mostly at the outer 20% of the field area. The findings of this study serve as a useful baseline for the implementation of entrance and exit in vivo dosimetry in clinical departments utilizing any of these six common TPS algorithms for reference comparison.

PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.N‐, 87.53.Bn

Performance of dose calculation algorithms from three generations in lung SBRT: comparison with full Monte Carlo-based dose distributions

The accuracy of dose calculation is a key challenge in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of the lung. We have benchmarked three photon beam dose calculation algorithms — pencil beam convolution (PBC), anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), and Acuros XB (AXB) — implemented in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS), Varian Eclipse. Dose distributions from full Monte Carlo (MC) simulations were regarded as a reference. In the first stage, for four patients with central lung tumors, treatment plans using 3D conformal radiotherapy (CRT) technique applying 6 MV photon beams were made using the AXB algorithm, with planning criteria according to the Nordic SBRT study group. The plans were recalculated (with same number of monitor units (MUs) and identical field settings) using BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc MC codes. The MC‐calculated dose distributions were compared to corresponding AXB‐calculated dose distributions to assess the accuracy of the AXB algorithm, to which then other TPS algorithms were compared. In the second stage, treatment plans were made for ten patients with 3D CRT technique using both the PBC algorithm and the AAA. The plans were recalculated (with same number of MUs and identical field settings) with the AXB algorithm, then compared to original plans. Throughout the study, the comparisons were made as a function of the size of the planning target volume (PTV), using various dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and other parameters to quantitatively assess the plan quality. In the first stage also, 3D gamma analyses with threshold criteria 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm were applied. The AXB‐calculated dose distributions showed relatively high level of agreement in the light of 3D gamma analysis and DVH comparison against the full MC simulation, especially with large PTVs, but, with smaller PTVs, larger discrepancies were found. Gamma agreement index (GAI) values between 95.5% and 99.6% for all the plans with the threshold criteria 3%/3 mm were achieved, but 2%/2 mm threshold criteria showed larger discrepancies. The TPS algorithm comparison results showed large dose discrepancies in the PTV mean dose (D50%), nearly 60%, for the PBC algorithm, and differences of nearly 20% for the AAA, occurring also in the small PTV size range. This work suggests the application of independent plan verification, when the AAA or the AXB algorithm are utilized in lung SBRT having PTVs smaller than 20‐25 cc. The calculated data from this study can be used in converting the SBRT protocols based on type ‘a’ and/or type ‘b’ algorithms for the most recent generation type ‘c’ algorithms, such as the AXB algorithm.

PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.Qr

Local confidence limits for IMRT and VMAT techniques: a study based on TG119 test suite

The aim of this study was to generate a local confidence limit (CL) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) techniques used at Waikato Regional Cancer Centre. This work was carried out based on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group (TG) 119 report. The AAPM TG 119 report recommends CLs as a bench mark for IMRT commissioning and delivery based on its multiple institutions planning and dosimetry comparisons. In this study the locally obtained CLs were compared to TG119 benchmarks. Furthermore, the same bench mark was used to test the capabilities and quality of the VMAT technique in our clinic. The TG 119 test suite consists of two primary and four clinical tests for evaluating the accuracy of IMRT planning and dose delivery systems. Pre defined structure sets contoured on computed tomography images were downloaded from AAPM website and were transferred to a locally designed phantom. For each test case two plans were generated using IMRT and VMAT optimisation. Dose prescriptions and planning objectives recommended by TG119 report were followed to generate the test plans in Eclipse Treatment Planning System. For each plan the point dose measurements were done using an ion chamber at high dose and low dose regions. The planar dose distribution was analysed for percentage of points passing the gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm, for both the composite plan and individual fields of each plan. The CLs were generated based on the results from the gamma analysis and point dose measurements. For IMRT plans, the CLs obtained were (1) from point dose measurements: 2.49% at high dose region and 2.95% for the low dose region (2) from gamma analysis: 2.12% for individual fields and 5.9% for the composite plan. For VMAT plans, the CLs obtained were (1) from point dose measurements: 2.56% at high dose region and 2.6% for the low dose region (2) from gamma analysis: 1.46% for individual fields and 0.8% for the composite plan. All these CLs were well within the TG119 recommended bench marks. Based on these analysis which were performed in line with the TG119 recommendations, it is evident that the local clinic has commissioned IMRT and VMAT techniques with adequate accuracy. These results compliment our clinical confidence of using IMRT and VMAT routinely and expanding to different clinical sites.

Evaluation of Acuros XB algorithm based on RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria for SBRT lung treatment with RapidArc

The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0813 protocol requires the use of dose calculation algorithms with tissue heterogeneity corrections to compute dose on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) plans. A new photon dose calculation algorithm called Acuros XB (AXB) has recently been implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The main purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric results of AXB with that of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for RTOG 0813 parameters. Additionally, phantom study was done to evaluate the dose prediction accuracy of AXB and AAA beyond low-density medium of different thicknesses by comparing the calculated results with the measurements. For the RTOG dosimetric study, 14 clinically approved SBRT NSCLC cases were included. The planning target volume (PTV) ranged from 3.2-43.0 cc. RapidArc treatment plans were generated in the Eclipse TPS following RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria, and treatment plans were calculated using AAA with heterogeneity correction (AAA plans). All the AAA plans were then recalculated using AXB with heterogeneity correction (AXB plans) for identical beam parameters and same number of monitor units. The AAA and AXB plans were compared for following RTOG 0813 parameters: ratio of prescription isodose volume to PTV (R100%), ratio of 50% prescription isodose volume to PTV (R50%), maximal dose 2 cm from the PTV in any direction as a percentage of prescription dose (D2cm), and the percentage of ipsilateral lung receiving dose equal to or larger than 20 Gy (V20). The phantom study showed that the results of AXB had better agreement with the measurements, and the difference ranged from -1.7% to 2.8%. The AAA results showed larger disagreement with the measurements, with differences from 4.1% to 12.5% for field size 5 × 5cm2 and from 1.4% to 6.8% for field size 10 × 10 cm2. The results from the RTOG SBRT lung cases showed that, on average, the AXB plans produced lower values for R100%, R50%, and D2cm by 4.96%, 1.15%, and 1.60%, respectively, but higher V20 of ipsilateral lung by 1.09% when compared with AAA plans. In the set of AAA plans, minor deviation was seen for R100% (six cases), R50% (nine cases), D2cm (four cases), and V20 (one case). Similarly, the AXB plans also showed minor deviation for R100% (one case), R50% (eight cases), D2cm (three cases), and V20 (one case). The dosimetric results presented in the current study show that both the AXB and AAA can meet the RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria.

Investigation on the effect of sharp phantom edges on point dose measurement during patient-specific dosimetry with Rapid Arc

The objective of this work was to investigate and quantify the effect of sharp edges of the phantom on the point dose measurement during patient-specific dosimetry with Rapid Arc (RA). Ten patients with carcinoma of prostate were randomly selected for this dosimetric study. Rapid Arc plans were generated with 6 MV X-rays in the Eclipse (v 8.6.14) with single arc (clockwise). Dosimetry verification plans were generated for two phantoms (cylindrical and rectangular). The cylindrical phantom was solid water (diameter 34 cm) and the rectangular phantom was a water phantom (25 cm × 25 cm × 10 cm). These phantoms were pre-scanned in computed tomography (CT) machine with cylindrical ionization chamber (FC65) in place. The plans were delivered with Novalis Tx linear accelerator with 6 MV X-rays for both the phantoms separately. The measured dose was compared with the planned dose for both the phantoms. Mean percentage deviation between measured and planned doses was found to be 4.19 (SD 0.82) and 3.63 (SD 0.89) for cylindrical and rectangular phantoms, respectively. No significant dosimetric variation was found due to the geometry (sharp edges) of the phantom. The sharp edges of the phantom do not perturb the patient specific Rapid Arc dosimetry significantly.