6X acuros algorithm validation in the presence of inhomogeneities for VMAT treatment planning

Correlation Between Dosimetric Parameters and Local Control in Definitive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancers

BACKGROUND/AIM

Radiotherapy (RT) outcomes are generally reported based on stage, patient background, and concomitant chemotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the effects of the prescribed dose to gross tumor volume (GTV) and the calculation algorithm on local control in definitive RT for head and neck (H&N) cancers using follow-up images after RT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included 154 patients with H&N cancers treated by Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy at the Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital. Patients were classified into those receiving definitive RT (70 Gy of irradiation) and those not receiving it. Follow-up images were used to categorize the patients into the responders and non-responders groups. In the non-responders group, follow-up images were imported into the treatment planning system, and the contours of the residual or recurrent areas (local failure) were extracted and fused with computed tomography-simulated images for treatment planning. Dose evaluation parameters included maximum dose, dose administered to 1% of the volume, dose administered to 50% of the volume, dose administered to 99% of the volume (D99%), and minimum dose (Dmin) administered to the GTV. The doses to the GTV were compared between responders and non-responders.

RESULTS

D99% exhibited significant differences between local failure and responders and between local failure and non-responders. Dmin showed significant differences between responders and non-responders and between responders and local failure.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the importance of verifying dose distribution in all slices of treatment planning, highlighting the need for precise assessment of the dose to the GTV in head and neck cancers.

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.

A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy

Background

This study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA ) calculations for prostate, head and neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT ), without primary modification to AA. At present, the well-known and validated AA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm.

Materials and method

Ninety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXB_w and dose-to-medium, AXB_m), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OA R). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius^®-4D phantom for different algorithms.

Results

The relative differences among AA, AXB_w and AXB_m, with respect to prostate, head and neck were less than 1% for PTV D_95%. However, PTV D_95% calculated by AA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXB_w and AA, AXB_m and AA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AA and AXB_m, respectively.

Conclusion

This study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXB_m algorithm is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AA to AXB does not require extra measurements.