Clinical verification of treatment planning dose calculation in lung SBRT with GATE Monte Carlo simulation code

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 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.