Dataset Information

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport algorithm for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer.

ABSTRACT: The novel deterministic radiation transport algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), has shown great potential for accurate heterogeneous dose calculation. However, the clinical impact between AXB and other currently used algorithms still needs to be elucidated for translation between these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).The thorax phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) was used for this study. IMRT and VMAT plans were created for the phantom in the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator to ensure reproducibility. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 film were placed inside the phantom to measure delivered doses. The measurements were compared with dose calculations from AXB 11.0.21 and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 11.0.21. Two dose reporting modes of AXB, dose-to-medium in medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water in medium (Dw,m), were studied. Point doses, dose profiles, and gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between measurements and calculations from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.For the RPC lung phantom, AAA and AXB dose predictions were found in good agreement to TLD and film measurements for both IMRT and VMAT plans. TLD dose predictions were within 0.4%-4.4% to AXB doses (both Dm,m and Dw,m); and within 2.5%-6.4% to AAA doses, respectively. For the film comparisons, the gamma indexes (± 3%∕3 mm criteria) were 94%, 97%, and 98% for AAA, AXB_Dm,m, and AXB_Dw,m, respectively. The differences between AXB and AAA in dose-volume histogram mean doses were within 2% in the planning target volume, lung, heart, and within 5% in the spinal cord. However, differences up to 8% between AXB and AAA were found at lung∕soft tissue interface regions for individual IMRT fields. AAA was found to be 5-6 times faster than AXB for IMRT, while AXB was 4-5 times faster than AAA for VMAT plan.AXB is satisfactorily accurate for the dose calculation in lung cancer for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The differences between AXB and AAA are generally small except in heterogeneous interface regions. AXB Dw,m and Dm,m calculations are similar inside the soft tissue and lung regions. AXB can benefit lung VMAT plans by both improving accuracy and reducing computation time.

SUBMITTER: Han T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3651262 | biostudies-other | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The deterministic Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was recently implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system. The goal of this study was to compare AXB performance to Monte Carlo (MC) and two standard clinical convolution methods: the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the collapsed-cone convolution (CCC) method.Homogeneous water and multilayer slab virtual phantoms were used for this study. The multilayer slab phantom had three different materials, representing soft tissue, bone, and lung. Depth dose and lateral dose profiles from AXB v10 in Eclipse were compared to AAA v10 in Eclipse, CCC in Pinnacle3, and EGSnrc MC simulations for 6 and 18 MV photon beams with open fields for both phantoms. In order to further reveal the dosimetric differences between AXB and AAA or CCC, three-dimensional (3D) gamma index analyses were conducted in slab regions and subregions defined by AAPM Task Group 53.The AXB calculations were found to be closer to MC than both AAA and CCC for all the investigated plans, especially in bone and lung regions. The average differences of depth dose profiles between MC and AXB, AAA, or CCC was within 1.1, 4.4, and 2.2%, respectively, for all fields and energies. More specifically, those differences in bone region were up to 1.1, 6.4, and 1.6%; in lung region were up to 0.9, 11.6, and 4.5% for AXB, AAA, and CCC, respectively. AXB was also found to have better dose predictions than AAA and CCC at the tissue interfaces where backscatter occurs. 3D gamma index analyses (percent of dose voxels passing a 2%/2 mm criterion) showed that the dose differences between AAA and AXB are significant (under 60% passed) in the bone region for all field sizes of 6 MV and in the lung region for most of field sizes of both energies. The difference between AXB and CCC was generally small (over 90% passed) except in the lung region for 18 MV 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 26% passed) and in the bone region for 5 x 5 and 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 64% passed). With the criterion relaxed to 5%/2 mm, the pass rates were over 90% for both AAA and CCC relative to AXB for all energies and fields, with the exception of AAA 18 MV 2.5 x 2.5 cm2 field, which still did not pass.In heterogeneous media, AXB dose prediction ability appears to be comparable to MC and superior to current clinical convolution methods. The dose differences between AXB and AAA or CCC are mainly in the bone, lung, and interface regions. The spatial distributions of these differences depend on the field sizes and energies.

Project description:Pencil beam algorithms are commonly used for proton therapy dose calculations. Szymanowski and Oelfke ["Two-dimensional pencil beam scaling: An improved proton dose algorithm for heterogeneous media," Phys. Med. Biol. 47, 3313-3330 (2002)] developed a two-dimensional (2D) scaling algorithm which accurately models the radial pencil beam width as a function of depth in heterogeneous slab geometries using a scaled expression for the radial kernel width in water as a function of depth and kinetic energy. However, an assumption made in the derivation of the technique limits its range of validity to cases where the input expression for the radial kernel width in water is derived from a local scattering power model. The goal of this work is to derive a generalized form of 2D pencil beam scaling that is independent of the scattering power model and appropriate for use with any expression for the radial kernel width in water as a function of depth.Using Fermi-Eyges transport theory, the authors derive an expression for the radial pencil beam width in heterogeneous slab geometries which is independent of the proton scattering power and related quantities. The authors then perform test calculations in homogeneous and heterogeneous slab phantoms using both the original 2D scaling model and the new model with expressions for the radial kernel width in water computed from both local and nonlocal scattering power models, as well as a nonlocal parameterization of Molière scattering theory. In addition to kernel width calculations, dose calculations are also performed for a narrow Gaussian proton beam.Pencil beam width calculations indicate that both 2D scaling formalisms perform well when the radial kernel width in water is derived from a local scattering power model. Computing the radial kernel width from a nonlocal scattering model results in the local 2D scaling formula under-predicting the pencil beam width by as much as 1.4 mm (21%) at the depth of the Bragg peak for a 220 MeV proton beam in homogeneous water. This translates into a 32% dose discrepancy for a 5 mm Gaussian proton beam. Similar trends were observed for calculations made in heterogeneous slab phantoms where it was also noted that errors tend to increase with greater beam penetration. The generalized 2D scaling model performs well in all situations, with a maximum dose error of 0.3% at the Bragg peak in a heterogeneous phantom containing 3 cm of hard bone.The authors have derived a generalized form of 2D pencil beam scaling which is independent of the proton scattering power model and robust to the functional form of the radial kernel width in water used for the calculations. Sample calculations made with this model show excellent agreement with expected values in both homogeneous water and heterogeneous phantoms.

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:To investigate the dosimetric impact of the heterogeneity dose calculation Acuros (Transpire Inc., Gig Harbor, WA), a grid-based Boltzmann equation solver (GBBS), for brachytherapy in a cohort of cervical cancer patients.The impact of heterogeneities was retrospectively assessed in treatment plans for 26 patients who had previously received (192)Ir intracavitary brachytherapy for cervical cancer with computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance-compatible tandems and unshielded colpostats. The GBBS models sources, patient boundaries, applicators, and tissue heterogeneities. Multiple GBBS calculations were performed with and without solid model applicator, with and without overriding the patient contour to 1 g/cm(3) muscle, and with and without overriding contrast materials to muscle or 2.25 g/cm(3) bone. Impact of source and boundary modeling, applicator, tissue heterogeneities, and sensitivity of CT-to-material mapping of contrast were derived from the multiple calculations. American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 43 (TG-43) guidelines and the GBBS were compared for the following clinical dosimetric parameters: Manchester points A and B, International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) report 38 rectal and bladder points, three and nine o'clock, and (D2cm3) to the bladder, rectum, and sigmoid.Points A and B, D(2) cm(3) bladder, ICRU bladder, and three and nine o'clock were within 5% of TG-43 for all GBBS calculations. The source and boundary and applicator account for most of the differences between the GBBS and TG-43 guidelines. The D(2cm3) rectum (n = 3), D(2cm3) sigmoid (n = 1), and ICRU rectum (n = 6) had differences of >5% from TG-43 for the worst case incorrect mapping of contrast to bone. Clinical dosimetric parameters were within 5% of TG-43 when rectal and balloon contrast were mapped to bone and radiopaque packing was not overridden.The GBBS has minimal impact on clinical parameters for this cohort of patients with unshielded applicators. The incorrect mapping of rectal and balloon contrast does not have a significant impact on clinical parameters. Rectal parameters may be sensitive to the mapping of radiopaque packing.

Project description:This paper compares the calculated dose to target and normal tissues when using pencil beam (PBC), superposition/convolution (AAA) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for whole breast (WBI) and accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) treatment plans.Plans for 10 patients who met all dosimetry constraints on a prospective APBI protocol when using PBC calculations were recomputed with AAA and MC, keeping the monitor units and beam angles fixed. Similar calculations were performed for WBI plans on the same patients. Doses to target and normal tissue volumes were tested for significance using the paired Student's t-test.For WBI plans the average dose to target volumes when using PBC calculations was not significantly different than AAA calculations, the average PBC dose to the ipsilateral breast was 10.5% higher than the AAA calculations and the average MC dose to the ipsilateral breast was 11.8% lower than the PBC calculations. For ABPI plans there were no differences in dose to the planning target volume, ipsilateral breast, heart, ipsilateral lung, or contra-lateral lung. Although not significant, the maximum PBC dose to the contra-lateral breast was 1.9% higher than AAA and the PBC dose to the clinical target volume was 2.1% higher than AAA. When WBI technique is switched to APBI, there was significant reduction in dose to the ipsilateral breast when using PBC, a significant reduction in dose to the ipsilateral lung when using AAA, and a significant reduction in dose to the ipsilateral breast and lung and contra-lateral lung when using MC.There is very good agreement between PBC, AAA and MC for all target and most normal tissues when treating with APBI and WBI and most of the differences in doses to target and normal tissues are not clinically significant. However, a commonly used dosimetry constraint, as recommended by the ASTRO consensus document for APBI, that no point in the contra-lateral breast volume should receive >3% of the prescribed dose needs to be relaxed to >5%.

Dataset Information

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport algorithm for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets