Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Martin-Martin G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8086705 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this study, we assessed the differences in the dose distribution of a 4 MV photon beam among different calculation algorithms: the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm, the analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA), and the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm (ver. 11.0.31), in phantoms and in clinical intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans. Homogeneous and heterogeneous, including middle-, low-, and high-density, phantoms were combined to assess the percentage depth dose and lateral dose profiles among AXB, AAA, and PBC. For the phantom containing the low-density area, AXB was in agreement with measurement within 0.5%, while the greatest differences between the AAA and PBC calculations and measurement were 2.7% and 3.6%, respectively. AXB showed agreement with measurement within 2.5% at the high-density area, while AAA and PBC overestimated the dose by more than 4.5% and 4.0%, respectively. Furthermore, 15 IMRT plans, calculated using AXB, for oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinomas were analyzed. The dose prescription was 70 Gy to 50% of the planning target volume (PTV70). Subsequently, each plan was recalculated using AAA and PBC while maintaining the AXB-calculated monitor units, leaf motion, and beam arrangement. Additionally, nine hypopharyngeal and laryngeal cancer patients were analyzed in terms of PTV70 for cartilaginous structures (PTV(70_cartilage)). The doses covering 50% to PTV70 calculated by AAA and PBC were 2.1% ± 1.0% and 3.7% ± 0.8% significantly higher than those using AXB, respectively (p < 0.01). The increases in doses to PTV(70_cartilage) calculated by AAA and PBC relative to AXB were 3.9% and 5.3% on average, respectively, and were relatively greater than those in the entire PTV70. AXB was found to be in better agreement with measurement in phantoms in heterogeneous areas for the 4 MV photon beam. Considering AXB as the standard, AAA and PBC overestimated the IMRT dose for head and neck cancer. The dosimetric differences should not be ignored, particularly with cartilaginous structures in PTV.

Project description:The purpose of this study was to verify the dosimetric performance of Acuros XB (AXB), a grid-based Boltzmann solver, in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom was used for all calculations and measurements in this study. Clinically equivalent IMRT and VMAT plans were created on the RPC H&N phantom in the Eclipse treatment planning system (version 10.0) by using RPC dose prescription specifications. The dose distributions were calculated with two different algorithms, AXB 11.0.03 and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 10.0.24. Two dose report modes of AXB were recorded: dose-to-medium in medium (D(m,m)) and dose-to-water in medium (D(w,m)). Each treatment plan was delivered to the RPC phantom three times for reproducibility by using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator. Absolute point dose and planar dose were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and GafChromic® EBT2 film, respectively. Profile comparison and 2D gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between the film measurements and the calculated dose distributions from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.Good agreement was observed between measured doses and those calculated with AAA or AXB. Both AAA and AXB calculated doses within 5% of TLD measurements in both the IMRT and VMAT plans. Results of AXB_D(m,m) (0.1% to 3.6%) were slightly better than AAA (0.2% to 4.6%) or AXB_D(w,m) (0.3% to 5.1%). The gamma analysis for both AAA and AXB met the RPC 7%/4 mm criteria (over 90% passed), whereas AXB_D(m,m) met 5%/3 mm criteria in most cases. AAA was 2 to 3 times faster than AXB for IMRT, whereas AXB was 4-6 times faster than AAA for VMAT.AXB was found to be satisfactorily accurate when compared to measurements in the RPC H&N phantom. Compared with AAA, AXB results were equal to or better than those obtained with film measurements for IMRT and VMAT plans. The AXB_D(m,m) reporting mode was found to be closer to TLD and film measurements than was the AXB_D(w,m) mode. AXB calculation time was found to be significantly shorter (× 4) than AAA for VMAT.

Project description:BackgroundMany dose calculation algorithms for radiotherapy planning need to be configured for each clinical beam using pre-defined measurements. An optimization process adjusts the physical parameters able to estimate the energy released in the medium in any geometrical condition. This work investigates the impact of measured input data quality on the configuration of the type "c" Acuros-XB dose calculation algorithm in the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems) treatment planning system.MethodsDifferent datasets were acquired with the BeamScan water phantom (PTW) to configure 6 MV beams, for both flattened (6X) and flattening filter free mode (6FFF) for a Varian TrueBeam: (i) a correct dataset measured using a Semiflex-3D ion chamber, (ii) a set in missing lateral scatter conditions (MLS), (iii) a set with incorrect effective point of measurement (EPoM), (iv) sets acquired with PinPoint-3D chamber, DiodeP, microDiamond detectors. The Acuros-XB dose calculation algorithm (version 15.6) was configured using the reference dataset, the sets measured with the different detectors, with intentional errors, and using the representative beam data (RBD) made available by the vendor. The physical parameters obtained from each optimization process (spectrum, mean radial energy, electron contamination), were analyzed and compared. Calculated data were finally compared against the input and reference measurements.ResultsConcerning the physical parameters, the configurations presenting the largest differences were the MLS conditions (mean radial energy) and the incorrect EPoM (electron contamination). The calculation doses relative to the input data present low accuracy, with mean differences > 2% in some conditions. The PinPoint-3D ion chamber presented lower accuracy for the 6FFF beam. Regarding the RBD, calculations compared well with the input data used for the configuration, but not with the reference data.ConclusionThe MLS conditions and the incorrect setting of the EPoM lead to erroneous configurations and should be avoided. The choice of an appropriate detector is important. Whenever the representative beam data is used, a careful check under more clinical geometrical conditions is advised.

Project description: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.