Differences in dose-volumetric data between the analytical anisotropic algorithm and the x-ray voxel Monte Carlo algorithm in stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer

Difference in target dose distributions between Acuros XB and collapsed cone convolution/superposition and the impact of the tumor locations in clinical cases of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for lung cancer

Objectives

The objective of the study is to analyze the difference in target dose distributions between Acuros XB (AXB) and collapsed cone convolution (CCC)/superposition and the impact of the tumor locations in clinical cases of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer.

Materials and Methods

Ninety-six patients underwent SABR for lung cancers Kyushu University Hospital from 2014 to 2017. We recalculated clinical plans originally calculated by AXB using CCC with the identical monitor units (MUs) and beam arrangements. We calculated the following dosimetric parameters: maximum dose (Dmax), minimum dose (Dmin), homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and D95 of the planning target volume (PTV). We investigated the difference between the results of two calculations and examined the impact of tumor location. Moreover, we determined the target central dose using a thorax phantom and assessed the calculation accuracy of the two algorithms for each fraction.

Results

CCC significantly overestimated the dose to PTV, compared to AXB (P < 0.05). The mean differences of Dmax, Dmin, and D95 were 1.17, 1.95, and 1.85 Gy, respectively. The mean differences of HI and CI were 0.02 and - 0.06. Dmin, HI, and D95 had significant correlations with the tumor location, and the difference was greater when the PTV was included the chest wall (P < 0.05). The discrepancy between the calculated and irradiated dose was 2.48% for CCC, whereas it was 0.14% for AXB.

Conclusions

We demonstrated that CCC significantly overestimated the dose to PTV relative to AXB in clinical cases of lung SABR.

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.

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

PURPOSE

This study aims to use GATE/Geant4 simulation code to evaluate the performance of dose calculations with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in the context of lung SBRT for complex treatments considering images of patients.

METHODS

Four cases of non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were selected for this study. Irradiation plans were created with AAA and recalculated end to end using Monte Carlo (MC) method maintaining field configurations identical to the original plans. Each treatment plan was evaluated in terms of PTV and organs at risk (OARs) using dose-volume histograms (DVH). Dosimetric parameters obtained from DVHs were used to compare AAA and MC.

RESULTS

The comparison between the AAA and MC DVH using gamma analysis with the passing criteria of 3%/3% showed an average passing rate of more than 90% for the PTV structure and 97% for the OARs. Tightening the criteria to 2%/2% showed a reduction in the average passing rate of the PTV to 86%. The agreement between the AAA and MC dose calculations for PTV dosimetric parameters (V₁₀₀; V₉₀; Homogeneity index; maximum, minimum and mean dose; CI_Paddick and D_2cm) was within 18.4%. For OARs, the biggest differences were observed in the spinal cord and the great vessels.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, we did not find significant differences between AAA and MC. The results indicate that AAA could be used in complex SBRT cases that involve a larger number of small treatment fields in the presence of tissue heterogeneities.

Evaluation of dose calculations with inhomogeneity correction in intensity-modulated radiation therapy for esophagus cancer

BACKGROUND

Differences often exist in the dose calculation accuracy caused by using different dose calculation algorithms in non-uniform tissues.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of dose calculation with inhomogeneity correction in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) by comparing dose calculated in Monaco with measurements in lung-chest phantom for esophagus cancer treatments.

METHODS

Finite size pencil beam (FSPB) and X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were used respectively for IMRT dose recalculations. Ten IMRT plans were recalculated and measured in the chest-lung phantom. The dose measurements using the Gafchromic ® (EBT3) dosimetry films were validated with open fields in the interfaces of materials with various physical densities. The accuracy of dose calculations was then evaluated by both point dose comparison and Gamma analysis against the film measurements.

RESULTS

For regular open fields, the discrepancies of the point doses were less than 3.0% and 2.0% between measurement and calculations by FSPB and XVMC, respectively. For 6 MV IMRT plans, the average passing rates based on 3% /3 mm Gamma criteria were 82.8±1.0% and 96.4±0.7% for FSPB and XVMC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The XVMC algorithms more accurate in IMRT dose calculations with inhomogeneity correction for esophagus cancer.

Use of a second-dose calculation algorithm to check dosimetric parameters for the dose distribution of a first-dose calculation algorithm for lung SBRT plans

PURPOSE

To verify lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans using a secondary treatment planning system (TPS) as an independent method of verification and to define tolerance levels (TLs) in lung SBRT between the primary and secondary TPSs.

METHODS

A total of 147 lung SBRT plans calculated using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were exported from iPlan to Eclipse in DICOM format. Dose distributions were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), while maintaining monitor units (MUs) and the beam arrangement. Dose to isocenter and dose-volumetric parameters, such as D₂, D₅₀, D₉₅ and D₉₈, were evaluated for each patient. The TLs of all parameters between XVMC and AXB (TL_AXB) and between XVMC and AAA (TL_AAA) were calculated as the mean±1.96 standard deviations.

RESULTS

AXB values agreed with XVMC values within 3.5% for all dosimetric parameters in all patients. By contrast, AAA sometimes calculated a 10% higher dose in PTV D₉₅ and D₉₈ than XVMC. The TL_AXB and TL_AAA of the dose to isocenter were -0.3±1.4% and 0.6±2.9%, respectively. Those of D₉₅ were 1.3±1.8% and 1.7±3.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study quantitatively demonstrated that the dosimetric performance of AXB is almost equal to that of XVMC, compared with that of AAA. Therefore, AXB is a more appropriate algorithm for an independent verification method for XVMC.

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) recommendations for planning and delivery of high-dose, high precision radiotherapy for lung cancer

PURPOSE

To update literature-based recommendations for techniques used in high-precision thoracic radiotherapy for lung cancer, in both routine practice and clinical trials.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify published articles that were considered clinically relevant and practical to use. Recommendations were categorised under the following headings: patient positioning and immobilisation, Tumour and nodal changes, CT and FDG-PET imaging, target volumes definition, radiotherapy treatment planning and treatment delivery. An adapted grading of evidence from the Infectious Disease Society of America, and for models the TRIPOD criteria, were used.

RESULTS

Recommendations were identified for each of the above categories.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for the clinical implementation of high-precision conformal radiotherapy and stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung tumours were identified from the literature. Techniques that were considered investigational at present are highlighted.

Difference in dose-volumetric data between the analytical anisotropic algorithm, the dose-to-medium, and the dose-to-water reporting modes of the Acuros XB for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in dose‐volumetric data between the analytical anisotropic algorithms (AAA) and the two dose reporting modes of the Acuros XB, namely, the dose to water (AXB−Dw) and dose to medium (AXB−Dm) in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Thirty‐eight plans were generated using the AXB−Dm in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) and then recalculated with the AXB−Dw and AAA, using identical beam setup. A dose of 50 Gy in 4 fractions was prescribed to the isocenter and the planning target volume (PTV) D95%. The isocenter was always inside the PTV. The following dose‐volumetric parameters were evaluated; D2%, D50%, D95%, and D98% for the internal target volume (ITV) and the PTV. Two‐tailed paired Student's t‐tests determined the statistical significance. Although for most of the parameters evaluated, the mean differences observed between the AAA, AXB−Dmand AXB−Dw were statistically significant (p<0.05), absolute differences were rather small, in general less than 5% points. The maximum mean difference was observed in the ITV D50% between the AXB−Dm and the AAA and was 1.7% points under the isocenter prescription and 3.3% points under the D95 prescription. AXB−Dm produced higher values than AXB−Dw with differences ranging from 0.4 to 1.1% points under isocenter prescription and 0.0 to 0.7% points under the PTV D95% prescription. The differences observed under the PTV D95% prescription were larger compared to those observed for the isocenter prescription between AXB−Dm and AAA, AXB−Dm and AXB−Dw, and AXB−Dw and AAA. Although statistically significant, the mean differences between the three algorithms are within 3.3% points.

PACS number(s): 87.55.x, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk

Correlation between target volume and electron transport effects affecting heterogeneity corrections in stereotactic body radiotherapy for lung cancer

Recently, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for lung cancer is conducted with heterogeneity-corrected treatment plans, as the correction greatly affects the dose delivery to the lung tumor. In this study, the correlation between the planning target volume (PTV) and the dose delivery is investigated by separation of the heterogeneity correction effects into photon attenuation and electron transport. Under Institutional Review Board exemption status, 74 patients with lung cancer who were treated with SBRT were retrospectively evaluated. All treatment plans were generated using an anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) of an Eclipse (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) treatment planning system. Two additional plans were created using the same treatment parameters (monitor units, beam angles and energy): a plan with no heterogeneity correction (NC), and a plan calculated with a pencil beam convolution algorithm (PBC). Compared with NC, AAA and PBC isocenter doses were on average 13.4% and 21.8% higher, respectively. The differences in the isocenter dose and the dose coverage for 95% of the PTV (D95%) between PBC and AAA were correlated logarithmically (ρ = 0.78 and ρ = 0.46, respectively) with PTV. Although D95% calculated with AAA was in general 2.9% larger than that for NC, patients with a small PTV showed a negative ΔD95% for AAA due to the significant effect of electron transport. The PTV volume shows logarithmic correlation with the effects of the lateral electron transport. These findings indicate that the dosimetric metrics and prescription, especially in clinical trials, should be clearly evaluated in the context of target volume characteristics and with proper heterogeneity correction.