Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB dose-to-water and dose-to-medium reporting modes on VMAT planning for head and neck cancer

Voxel-Level Dosimetry for Combined Iodine 131 Radiopharmaceutical Therapy and External Beam Radiation Therapy Treatment Paradigms for Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE

Targeted radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) in combination with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) shows promise as a method to increase tumor control and mitigate potential high-grade toxicities associated with re-treatment for patients with recurrent head and neck cancer. This work establishes a patient-specific dosimetry framework that combines Monte Carlo-based dosimetry from the 2 radiation modalities at the voxel level using deformable image registration (DIR) and radiobiological constructs for patients enrolled in a phase 1 clinical trial combining EBRT and RPT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Serial single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) patient scans were performed at approximately 24, 48, 72, and 168 hours postinjection of 577.2 MBq/m2 (15.6 mCi/m2) CLR 131, an iodine 131-containing RPT agent. Using RayStation, clinical EBRT treatment plans were created with a treatment planning CT (TPCT). SPECT/CT images were deformably registered to the TPCT using the Elastix DIR module in 3D Slicer software and assessed by measuring mean activity concentrations and absorbed doses. Monte Carlo EBRT dosimetry was computed using EGSnrc. RPT dosimetry was conducted using RAPID, a GEANT4-based RPT dosimetry platform. Radiobiological metrics (biologically effective dose and equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions) were used to combine the 2 radiation modalities.

RESULTS

The DIR method provided good agreement for the activity concentrations and calculated absorbed dose in the tumor volumes for the SPECT/CT and TPCT images, with a maximum mean absorbed dose difference of -11.2%. Based on the RPT absorbed dose calculations, 2 to 4 EBRT fractions were removed from patient EBRT treatments. For the combined treatment, the absorbed dose to target volumes ranged from 57.14 to 75.02 Gy. When partial volume corrections were included, the mean equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions to the planning target volume from EBRT + RPT differed -3.11% to 1.40% compared with EBRT alone.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates the clinical feasibility of performing combined EBRT + RPT dosimetry on TPCT scans. Dosimetry guides treatment decisions for EBRT, and this work provides a bridge for the same paradigm to be implemented within the rapidly emerging clinical RPT space.

Essentially unedited deep-learning-based OARs are suitable for rigorous oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer treatment planning

Quality of organ at risk (OAR) autosegmentation is often judged by concordance metrics against the human-generated gold standard. However, the ultimate goal is the ability to use unedited autosegmented OARs in treatment planning, while maintaining the plan quality. We tested this approach with head and neck (HN) OARs generated by a prototype deep-learning (DL) model on patients previously treated for oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer. Forty patients were selected, with all structures delineated by an experienced physician. For each patient, a set of 13 OARs were generated by the DL model. Each patient was re-planned based on original targets and unedited DL-produced OARs. The new dose distributions were then applied back to the manually delineated structures. The target coverage was evaluated with inhomogeneity index (II) and the relative volume of regret. For the OARs, Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) of areas under the DVH curves, individual DVH objectives, and composite continuous plan quality metric (PQM) were compared. The nearly identical primary target coverage for the original and re-generated plans was achieved, with the same II and relative volume of regret values. The average DSC of the areas under the corresponding pairs of DVH curves was 0.97 ± 0.06. The number of critical DVH points which met the clinical objectives with the dose optimized on autosegmented structures but failed when evaluated on the manual ones was 5 of 896 (0.6%). The average OAR PQM score with the re-planned dose distributions was essentially the same when evaluated either on the autosegmented or manual OARs. Thus, rigorous HN treatment planning is possible with OARs segmented by a prototype DL algorithm with minimal, if any, manual editing.

Comparing Dose Calculation Algorithms for Heterogeneous Media: Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm Versus Acuros XB (Dm/Dw) With Continuous CT Value Variation

BACKGROUND

To compare the doses calculated by the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and two dose reporting modes of Acuros XB (AXB(Dm) and AXB(Dw)) with varied CT values on the Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Virtual phantoms with a central layer of heterogeneous material (thickness = 2 or 5 cm) were created with Eclipse. Using single or opposed fields, the field sizes were 5 x 5 cm2 or 10 x 10 cm2. The photon energies were 6 or 10 MV, and the source-to-target distance was 100 cm. The relative doses at the center of the heterogeneous material layer were evaluated with varied CT values, from -1000 to 3000 HU. Values were normalized with the dose at 0 HU (100%) for comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The results obtained from continuous data for a single field, 6 MV, 5 x 5 cm2, and the heterogeneous material 5 cm, where the differences between algorithms were most pronounced, were as follows. In the low-density region (-1000 HU and -800 HU), the dose differences for AXB with reference to AAA were, respectively, -54.5% and +4.6% (AXB(Dm)) and -47.0% and +3.5% (AXB(Dw)), and in the high-density regions (1000 HU and 3000 HU) were -5.7% and -8.8% (AXB(Dm)) and +7.4% and +3.5% (AXB(Dw)), respectively. Consequently, dose differences at arbitrary CT values could be obtained.

CONCLUSION

Dose differences between these algorithms were clarified for heterogeneous materials. The risk of dose reduction or escalation in clinical use was clearly visible between CT values from -1000 to 3000 HU.

Dosimetric comparison and evaluation of two computational algorithms in VMAT treatment plans

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the accuracy and dosimetric impact of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in two situations. First, simple phantom geometries were set and analyzed; moreover, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) clinical plans for Head & Neck and lung cases were calculated and compared.

METHODS

First, a phantom study was performed to compare the algorithms with radiochromic EBT3 film doses using one PMMA slab phantom and two others containing foam or air gap. Subsequently, a clinical study was conducted, including 20 Head & Neck and 15 lung cases irradiated with the VMAT technique. The treatment plans calculated by AXB and AAA were evaluated in terms of planning target volume (PTV) coverage (V95% ), dose received by relevant organs at risk (OARs), and the impact of using AXB with a grid size of 1 mm. Finally, patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) was performed and compared for 17 treatment plans.

RESULTS

Phantom dose calculations showed a better agreement of AXB with the film measurements. In the clinical study, AXB plans exhibited lower Conformity Index and PTV V95% , higher maximum PTV dose, and lower mean and minimum PTV doses for all anatomical sites. The most notable differences were detected in regions of intense heterogeneity. AXB predicted lower doses for the OARs, while the calculation time with a grid size of 1 mm was remarkably higher. Regarding PSQA, although AAA was found to exhibit slightly higher gamma passing rates, the difference did not affect the AXB treatment plan quality.

CONCLUSIONS

AXB demonstrated higher accuracy than AAA in dose calculations of both phantom and clinical conditions, specifically in interface regions, making it suitable for sites with large heterogeneities. Hence, such dosimetric differences between the two algorithms should always be considered in clinical practice.

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.

Considerations for radiotherapy planning with MV photons using dose-to-medium

Background and purpose

Radiotherapy planning considerations were developed for the previous calculation algorithms yielding dose to water-in-water (D_w,w). Advanced algorithms improve accuracy, but their dose values in terms of dose to medium-in-medium (D_m,m) depend on the medium considered. This work aimed to show how mimicking D_w,w planning with D_m,m can introduce new issues.

Materials and methods

A head and neck case involving bone and metal heterogeneities outside the CTV was considered. Two different commercial algorithms were used to obtain D_m,m and D_w,w distributions. First, a plan was optimised to irradiate the PTV uniformly and get a homogeneous D_w,w distribution. Second, another plan was optimised to achieve homogeneous D_m,m. Both plans were calculated with D_w,w and D_m,m, and the differences between their dose distributions, clinical impact, and robustness were evaluated.

Results

Uniform irradiation produced D_m,m cold spots in bone (-4%) and implants (-10%). Uniform D_m,m compensated them by increasing fluence but, when recalculated in D_w,w, the fluence compensations produced higher doses that affected homogeneity. Additionally, doses were 1% higher for the target, and + 4% for the mandible, thus increasing toxicity risk. Robustness was impaired when increased fluence regions and heterogeneities mismatched.

Conclusion

Planning with D_m,m as with D_w,w can impact clinical outcome and impair robustness. In optimisation, uniform irradiation instead of homogeneous D_m,m distributions should be pursued when media with different D_m,m responses are involved. However, this requires adapting evaluation criteria or avoiding medium effects. Regardless of the approach, there can be systematic differences in dose prescription and constraints.

Dosimetric accuracy of Acuros® XB and AAA algorithms for stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) lung treatments: evaluation with PRIMO Monte Carlo code

Purpose:

The study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of Acuros® XB (AXB) and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for lung SBRT plans using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

Methods:

We compared the dose calculation algorithms AAA and either of the dose reporting modes of AXB (dose to medium (AXB-Dm) or dose to water (AXB-Dw)) algorithms implemented in Eclipse® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) Treatment planning system (TPS) with MC. PRIMO code was used for the MC simulations. The TPS-calculated dose profiles obtained with a multi-slab heterogeneity phantom were compared to MC. A lung phantom with a tumour was used to validate TPS algorithms using different beam delivery techniques. 2D gamma values obtained from Gafchromic film measurements in the tumour isocentre plane were compared with TPS algorithms and MC. Ten VMAT SBRT plans generated in TPS with each algorithm were recalculated with a PRIMO MC system for identical beam parameters for the clinical plan validation. A dose–volume histogram (DVH) based plan comparison and a 3D global gamma analysis were performed.

Results:

AXB demonstrated better agreement with MC and film measurements in the lung phantom validation, with good agreement in PDD, profiles and gamma analysis. AAA showed an overestimated PDD, a significant difference in dose profiles and a lower gamma pass rate near the field borders. With AAA, there was a dose overestimation at the periphery of the tumour. For clinical plan validation, AXB demonstrated higher agreement with MC than AAA.

Conclusions:

AXB provided better agreement with MC than AAA in the phantom and clinical plan evaluations.

Radiobiological Comparison of Acuros External Beam and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm on Esophageal Carcinoma Radiotherapy Treatment Plans

Objective

The present study aimed to investigate the dose differences and radiobiological assessment between Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB) with its 2 calculation models, namely, dose-to-water (AXB-Dw) and dose-to-medium (AXB-Dm), on esophageal carcinoma radiotherapy treatment plans.

Materials and methods

The AXB-Dw and AXB-Dm plans were generated by recalculating the initial 66 AAA plans using the AXB algorithm with the same monitor units and beam parameters as those in the original plan. The dosimetric and radiobiological assessment parameters were calculated for the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs). The gamma agreement for the PTV and the correlation between it and the volume of the air cavity and bone among the different algorithms were compared simultaneously. The dose discrepancy between the theoretical calculation and treatment planning system (TPS) when switching from AXB-Dm to AXB-Dw was analyzed according to the composition of the structures.

Results

The PTV dose of AXB-Dm plans was significantly smaller than that of the AAA and AXB-Dw plans (P < .05), except for D₂. The difference values for AAA vs AXB-Dm (∆D_{x,(AAA-AXB,Dm)}) and AXB-Dw vs AXB-Dm (∆D_{x,(AXB,Dw-AXB,Dm)}) were 1.94% [1.27%, 2.64%] and 1.95% [1.56%, 2.27%], respectively. For the spinal cord and heart, there were obvious differences between the AAA vs AXB-Dm (spinal cord: 1.15%, heart: 2.89%) and AXB-Dw vs AXB-Dm (spinal cord: 1.88%, heart: 3.25%) plans. For the lung, the differences between AAA vs AXB-Dm and AAA vs AXB-Dw were significantly larger than those of AXB-Dm vs AXB-Dw. Compared to the case of AAA and AXB-Dw, the decrease in biologically effective dose (BED¹⁰, αβ=10 ) of AXB-Dm due to dose non-uniformity exceeded 6.5%, even for a small σ. The average values of equivalent uniform dose in the AAA, AXB-Dw, and AXB-Dm plans were 52.03±.39 Gy, 52.24 ± .81 Gy, and 51.13 ± .47 Gy, respectively. The tumor control probability (TCP) results for PTV in the AAA, AXB-Dw, and AXB-Dm plans were 62.29 ± 1.57%, 62.82 ± 1.69%, and 58.68±1.88%, respectively. With the 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm acceptance criteria, the mean values of  ΔγAAAAXB−Dw, ΔγAAAAXB−Dm, and  ΔγAXB−DmAXB−Dw were 87.24, 63.3, and 64.81% vs 97.86, 91.77, and 89.25%, respectively. The dose discrepancy between the theoretical calculation and TPS when switching from AXB-Dm to AXB-Dw was approximately 1.63%.

Conclusions

The AAA and AXB-Dw algorithms overestimated the radiobiological parameters when the tumor particularly consisted of nonuniform tissues. A relatively small dose difference could cause a significant reduction in the corresponding TCP. Dose distribution algorithms should be carefully chosen by physicists and oncologists to improve tumor control, as well as to optimize OARs protection.

Maintaining dosimetric quality when switching to a Monte Carlo dose engine for head and neck volumetric-modulated arc therapy planning

Head and neck cancers present challenges in radiation treatment planning due to the large number of critical structures near the target(s) and highly heterogeneous tissue composition. While Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations currently offer the most accurate approximation of dose deposition in tissue, the switch to MC presents challenges in preserving the parameters of care. The differences in dose‐to‐tissue were widely discussed in the literature, but mostly in the context of recalculating the existing plans rather than reoptimizing with the MC dose engine. Also, the target dose homogeneity received less attention. We adhere to strict dose homogeneity objectives in clinical practice. In this study, we started with 21 clinical volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans previously developed in Pinnacle treatment planning system. Those plans were recalculated “as is” with RayStation (RS) MC algorithm and then reoptimized in RS with both collapsed cone (CC) and MC algorithms. MC statistical uncertainty (0.3%) was selected carefully to balance the dose computation time (1–2 min) with the planning target volume (PTV) dose‐volume histogram (DVH) shape approaching that of a “noise‐free” calculation. When the hot spot in head and neck MC‐based treatment planning is defined as dose to 0.03 cc, it is exceedingly difficult to limit it to 105% of the prescription dose, as we were used to with the CC algorithm. The average hot spot after optimization and calculation with RS MC was statistically significantly higher compared to Pinnacle and RS CC algorithms by 1.2 and 1.0 %, respectively. The 95% confidence interval (CI) observed in this study suggests that in most cases a hot spot of ≤107% is achievable. Compared to the 95% CI for the previous clinical plans recalculated with RS MC “as is” (upper limit 108%), in real terms this result is at least as good or better than the historic plans.

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

Aim:

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

Materials and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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

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 impact of Acuros XB on cervix radiotherapy using RapidArc technique: a dosimetric study

Background

Acuros XB (AXB) may predict better rectal toxicities and treatment outcomes in cervix carcinoma. The aim of the study was to quantify the potential impact of AXB computations on the cervix radiotherapy using the RapidArc (RA ) technique as compared to anisotropic analytical algorithm (AA) computations.

Materials and methods

A cohort of 30 patients previously cared for cervix carcinoma (stages II-IIIB) was selected for the present analysis. The RA plans were computed using AA and AXB dose computation engines under identical beam setup and MLC pattern.

Results

There was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in D_95% and D_98% to the planning target volume (PTV); moreover, a significant (p < 0.05) rise was noticed for mean dose to the PTV (0.26%), D_50% (0.26%), D_2% (0.80%) and V_110% (44.24%) for AXB computation as compared to AA computations. Further, AXB estimated a significantly (p < 0.05) lower value for maximum and minimum dose to the PTV. Additionally, there was a significant (p < 0.05) reduction observed in mean dose to organs at risk (OARs) for AXB computation as compared to AA, though the reduction in mean dose was non-significant (p > 0.05) for the rectum. The maximum difference observed was 4.78% for the rectum V_50Gy, 1.72%, 1.15% in mean dose and 2.22%, 1.48% in D_2% of the left femur and right femur, respectively, between AA and AXB dose estimations.

Conclusion

For similar target coverage, there were significant differences observed between the AAA and AXB computations. AA underestimates the V_50Gy of the rectum and overestimates the mean dose and D_2% for femoral heads as compared to AXB. Therefore, the use of AXB in the case of cervix carcinoma may predict better rectal toxicities and treatment outcomes in cervix carcinoma using the RA technique.

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.

The influence of Acuros XB on dose volume histogram metrics and tumour control probability modelling in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy plans are assessed using dose volume metrics derived from clinical toxicity and outcome data. In this study, plans for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) are examined in the context of the implementation of the Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm focussing on the impact on common metrics.

METHODS

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for twenty patients, using the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and recalculated with AXB for both dose to water (D_w) and dose to medium (D_m). Standard dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics for both targets and organs-at-risk (OARs) were extracted, in addition to tumour control probability (TCP) for targets.

RESULTS

Mean dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was not clinically different between the algorithms (within ±1.1 Gy) but differences were seen in the minimum dose, D_99% and D_98% as well as for conformity and homogeneity metrics. A difference in TCP was seen for AXB_Dm plans versus both AXB_Dw and AAA plans. No clinically relevant differences were seen in the lung metrics. For point doses to spinal cord and oesophagus, the AXB_Dm values were lower than AXB_Dw, by up to 1.0 Gy.

CONCLUSION

Normalisation of plans to the mean/median dose to the target does not need to be adjusted when moving from AAA to AXB. OAR point doses may decrease by up to 1 Gy with AXB_Dm, which can be accounted for in clinical planning. Other OAR metrics do not need to be adjusted.

A new dose quantity for evaluation and optimisation of MV photon dose distributions when using advanced algorithms: proof of concept and potential applications

Advanced algorithms used in MV photon radiotherapy model radiation transport in any media. They represent a step forward but introduce new uncertainties and questions, including whether to report the doses to water (D_w,m) or medium (D_m,m) voxels, and the impact of fluence changes introduced by surrounding media. These aspects can compromise consistency between both reporting modes and with previous algorithms in which clinical experience is based. This study introduces a new dose quantity, the dose-to-reference-like medium, to overcome the aforementioned shortcomings. It is linked to a reference medium, water in this study (D_w,m*), and defined as the absorbed dose in a voxel of this reference medium surrounded by a reference-like medium with the same radiation transport characteristics as the original one. We propose to derive D_w,m* distributions by post-processing D_w,m or D_m,m applying a correction factor (CF) to each voxel which depends on its composition. We present and justify a simple and straightforward method to obtain CFs that only involves two phantoms with the same density: one with the considered composition and the other with that of the reference medium. A proof of concept was performed in a clinical environment for Acuros XB (AXB) advanced algorithm and 6 MV photon beams. The CFs were derived for the tissues characterised in Acuros. D_w,m* was compared to D_w,m, D_m,m, and D_w,w from AAA analytical algorithm for some virtual and clinical cases. All the previous quantities presented limitations that can be solved by D_w,m*. This new quantity allows the applicability of evaluation parameters, traceability to clinical experience, and isolation of heterogeneity effects to identify optimum plans, offering useful characteristics for plan evaluation and optimisation in clinical practice. Additionally, it also has potential applications in automated treatment planning and multi-centre activities such as clinical trials, audits, benchmarking, and shared models for automation.

Dosimetric comparison of analytic anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm in VMAT plans for high-grade glioma

PURPOSE

To investigate the dosimetric impact between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for high-grade glioma (HGG).

METHODS

We used a heterogeneous phantom to quantify the agreement between the measured and calculated doses from the AAA and from the AXB. We then analyzed 14 patients with HGG treated by VMAT, using the AAA. We newly created AXB plans for each corresponding AAA plan under the following conditions: (1) re-calculation for the same number of monitor units with an identical beam and leaf setup, and (2) re-optimization under the same conditions of dose constraints. The dose coverage for the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated by dividing the coverage into the skull, air, and soft-tissue regions.

RESULTS

Compared to the results obtained with the AAA, the AXB results were in good agreement with the measured profiles. The dose differences in the PTV between the AAA and re-calculated AXB plans were large in the skull region contained in the target. The dose difference in the PTV in both types of plan was significantly correlated with the volume of the skull contained in the target (r = 0.71, p = 0.0042). A re-optimized AXB plan's dose difference was lower vs. the re-calculated AXB plan's.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed dose differences between the AAA and AXB plans, in particular in the cases in which the skull region of the target was large. Considering the phantom measurement results, the AXB algorithm should be used in VMAT plans for HGG.

Evaluation of Grass Quality under Different Soil Management Scenarios Using Remote Sensing Techniques

Hyperspectral and multispectral imagery have been demonstrated to have a considerable potential for near real-time monitoring and mapping of grass quality indicators. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of remote sensing techniques for quantification of aboveground grass biomass (BM) and crude protein (CP) in a temperate European climate such as Ireland. The experiment was conducted on 64 plots and 53 paddocks with varying quantities of nitrogen applied. Hyperspectral imagery (HSI) and multispectral imagery (MSI) were analyzed to develop the prediction models. The MSI data used in this study were captured using an unmanned aircraft vehicle (UAV) and the satellite Sentinel-2, while the HSI data were obtained using a handheld hyperspectral camera. The prediction models were developed using partial least squares regression (PLSR) and stepwise multi-linear regression (MLR). Eventually, the spatial distribution of grass biomass over plots and paddocks was mapped to assess the within-field variability of grass quality metrics. An excellent accuracy was achieved for the prediction of BM and CP using HSI (RPD > 2.5 and R2 > 0.8), and a good accuracy was obtained via MSI-UAV (2 < RPD < 2.5 and R2 > 0.7) for the grass quality indicators. The accuracy of the models calculated using MSI-Sentinel-2 was reasonable for BM prediction and insufficient for CP estimation. The red-edge range of the wavelengths showed the maximum impact on the predictability of grass BM, and the NIR range had the greatest influence on the estimation of grass CP. Both the PLSR and MLR techniques were found to be sufficiently robust for spectral modelling of aboveground BM and CP. The PLSR yielded a slightly better model than MLR. This study suggested that remote sensing techniques can be used as a rapid and reliable approach for near real-time quantitative assessment of fresh grass quality under a temperate European climate.

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.