Evaluating small field dosimetry with the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) dose calculation algorithms in the eclipse treatment planning system

Particular issues to be considered in small field dosimetry for TrueBeam STx commissioning

This study aims to report the relevant issues concerning small fields in the commissioning of a TrueBeam STx for photon energies of 6MV, 10MV, 6FFF, and 10FFF. Percent depth doses, profiles, and field output factors were measured according to the beam model configuration of the treatment planning system. Multiple detectors were used based on the IAEA TRS-483 protocol as well as EBT3 radiochromic film. Analytical Anisotropic and Acuros XB algorithms, were configured and validated through basic dosimetry comparisons and end-to-end clinical tests.

Monitor unit verification for Varian TrueBeam VMAT plans using Monte Carlo calculations and phase space data

To use the open-source Monte Carlo (MC) software calculations for TPS monitor unit verification of VMAT plans, delivered with the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator, and compare the results with a commercial software product, following the guidelines set in AAPM Task Group 219. The TrueBeam is modeled in EGSnrc using the Varian-provided phase-space files. Thirteen VMAT TrueBeam treatment plans representing various anatomical regions were evaluated, comprising 37 treatment arcs. VMAT plans simulations were performed on a computing cluster, using 107 -109 particle histories per arc. Point dose differences at five reference points per arc were compared between Eclipse, MC, and the commercial software, MUCheck. MC simulation with 5 × 107 histories per arc offered good agreement with Eclipse and a reasonable average calculation time of 9-18 min per full plan. The average absolute difference was 3.0%, with only 22% of all points exceeding the 5% action limit. In contrast, the MUCheck average absolute difference was 8.4%, with 60% of points exceeding the 5% dose difference. Lung plans were particularly problematic for MUCheck, with an average absolute difference of approximately 16%. Our EGSnrc-based MC framework can be used for the MU verification of VMAT plans calculated for the Varian TrueBeam; furthermore, our phase space approach can be adapted to other treatment devices by using appropriate phase space files. The use of 5 × 107 histories consistently satisfied the 5% action limit across all plan types for the majority of points, performing significantly better than a commercial MU verification system, MUCheck. As faster processors and cloud computing facilities become even more widely available, this approach can be readily implemented in clinical settings.

Extending the EclipseTM AcurosXB output factor table for small field radiosurgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the necessity of extending the output factor table (OF Table) of the Varian Eclipse^TM Treatment Planning System for small field stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiosurgery (SBRT) treatments.

METHODS

A new AcurosXB 15.6 beam model was created in the Eclipse Beam Configuration, which is identical to the one that has been used in the clinic with a default 3 × 3 cm to 40 × 40 cm OF Table, except the OF Table in the new model was extended to cover the range from 1 × 1 cm to 40 × 40 cm. 80 small square and rectangular output factors were measured on a Varian TrueBeam utilizing a Standard Imaging Exradin W2-1×1 scintillator detector, inside a PTW BeamScan water tank with 95 cm SSD at 5 cm depth. Cerenkov contamination was corrected using a rectangular field method (2 cm × 15 cm field). Nine Radiosurgery plans with primary jaw setting ranging from 0.7 cm to 2.0 cm were evaluated by both beam models. The monitor unit (MU) differences between the two beam models were calculated for identical 3-dimensional (3D) absolute dose distributions. Output factors, measured versus Eclipse calculated, were compared down to 0.5 × 0.5 cm primary jaw setting.

RESULTS

For the 6FFF beam, the difference between the two beam models was ∼ 6% for 1 × 1 cm jaw settings and 4% at 1.5 × 1.5 cm, with the extended OF Table requiring higher MUs for the same dose prescription and same 3-dimensional isodose distribution. For the 6MV beam, the corresponding difference is ∼7.5% for 1 × 1 cm, 5% for 1.5 × 1.5 cm, and 3% for 2 × 2 cm jaw settings, with the extended OF Table requiring higher MUs. For jaw settings smaller than 1 × 1 cm, measured dose can be considerably smaller than Eclipse predicted dose, even with the OF Table extension. This is reflected by the fact that the output factor for 0.5 × 0.5 cm, calculated via Eclipse external beam, was more than 30% greater than that measured for both 6FFF and 6MV beams.

CONCLUSIONS

Eclipse does a satisfactory job for primary jaw sizes down to 2 cm. For jaw settings smaller than 1.5 cm, the OF Table in Eclipse should be extended to improve the dose calculation accuracy.

Dosimetric comparison and validation of Eclipse Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms in RapidArc-based radiosurgery plans of patients with solitary brain metastasis

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is increasingly being used to manage solitary or multiple brain metastasis. This study aims to compare and validate Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms of Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) in RapidArc-based SRS plans of patients with solitary brain metastasis. Twenty patients with solitary brain metastasis who have been already treated with RapidArc SRS plans calculated using AAA plans were selected for this study. These plans were recalculated using AXB algorithm keeping the same arc orientations, multi-leaf collimator apertures, and monitor units. The two algorithms were compared for target coverage parameters, isodose volumes, plan quality metrics, dose to organs at risk and integral dose. The dose calculated by the TPS using AAA and AXB algorithms was validated against measured dose for all patient plans using an in-house developed cylindrical phantom. An Exradin A14SL ionization chamber was positioned at the center of this phantom to measure the in-field dose. NanoDot Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeters (OSLDs) (Landauer Inc.) were placed at distances 3.0 cm, 4.0 cm, 5.0 cm, and 6.0 cm respectively from the center of the phantom to measure the non-target dose. In addition, the planar dose distribution was measured using amorphous silicon aS1000 Electronic Portal Imaging Device. The measured 2D dose distribution was compared against AAA and AXB estimated 2D distribution using gamma analysis. All results were tested for significance using the paired t-test at 5% level of significance. Significant differences between the AAA and AXB plans were found only for a few parameters analyzed in this study. In the experimental verification using cylindrical phantom, the difference between the AAA calculated dose and the measured dose was found to be highly significant (p < 0.001). However, the difference between the AXB calculated dose and the measured dose was not significant (p = 0.197). The difference between AAA/AXB calculated and measured at non-target locations was statistically insignificant at all four non-target locations and the dose calculated by both AAA and AXB algorithms shows a strong positive correlation with the measured dose. The results of the gamma analysis show that the AXB calculated planar dose is in better agreement with measurements compared to the AAA. Even though the results of the dosimetric comparison show that the differences are mostly not significant, the measurements show that there are differences between the two algorithms within the target volume. The AXB algorithm may be therefore more accurate in the dose calculation of VMAT plans for the treatment of small intracranial targets. For non-target locations either algorithm can be used for the estimation of dose accounting for their limitations in non-target dose estimations.

Dose calculation accuracy for photon small fields in treatment planning systems with comparison by Monte Carlo simulations

Purpose: Advanced radiation therapy techniques use small fields in treatment planning and delivery. Small fields have the advantage of more accurate dose delivery, but with the cost of some complications in dosimetry. Different dose calculation algorithms imported in various treatment planning systems (TPSs) which each of them has different accuracy. Monte Carlo (MC) simulation has been reported as one of the accurate methods for calculating dose distribution in radiation therapy. The aim of this study was the evaluation of TPS dose calculation algorithms in small fields against 2 MC codes.

Methods: A linac head was simulated in 2 MC codes, MCNPX, and GATE. Then three small fields (0.5×0.5, 1×1 and 1.5×1.5 cm2) were simulated with 2 MC codes, and also these fields were planned with different dose calculation algorithms in Isogray and Monaco TPS. PDDs and lateral dose profiles were extracted and compared between MC simulations and dose calculation algorithms.

Results: For 0.5×0.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 2.28, 4.6, 5.3, and 7.4% and with GATE were -0.29, 2.3, 3 and 5% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1×1 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 1.58, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.4% and with GATE were 0.77, 0.1, 0.6 and 0.9% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively. For 1.5×1.5 cm2 field mean differences in PDDs with MCNPX were 0.82, 0.4, 0.6 and -0.4% and with GATE were 2.38, 2.5, 2.7 and 1.7% for CCC, superposition, FFT and Clarkson algorithms respectively.

Conclusions: Different dose calculation algorithms were evaluated and compared with MC simulation in small fields. Mean differences with MC simulation decreased with the increase of field sizes for all algorithms.

The influence of small field output factors simulated uncertainties on the calculated dose in VMAT plans for brain metastases: a multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

This multicentric study was carried out to investigate the impact of small field output factors (OFs) inaccuracies on the calculated dose in volumetric arctherapy (VMAT) radiosurgery brain plans.

METHODS

Nine centres, realised the same five VMAT plans with common planning rules and their specific clinical equipment Linac/treatment planning system commissioned with their OFs measured values (OFbaseline). In order to simulate OFs errors, two new OFs sets were generated for each centre by changing only the OFs values of the smallest field sizes (from 3.2 × 3.2 cm² to 1 × 1 cm²) with well-defined amounts (positive and negative). Consequently, two virtual machines for each centre were recommissioned using the new OFs and the percentage dose differences ΔD (%) between the baseline plans and the same plans recalculated using the incremented (OFup) and decremented (OFdown) values were evaluated. The ΔD (%) were analysed in terms of planning target volume (PTV) coverage and organs at risk (OARs) sparing at selected dose/volume points.

RESULTS

The plans recalculated with OFdown sets resulted in higher variation of doses than baseline within 1.6 and 3.4% to PTVs and OARs respectively; while the plans with OFup sets resulted in lower variation within 1.3% to both PTVs and OARs. Our analysis highlights that OFs variations affect calculated dose depending on the algorithm and on the delivery mode (field jaw/MLC-defined). The Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm resulted significantly more sensitive to OFs variations than all of the other algorithms.

CONCLUSION

The aim of our study was to evaluate how small fields OFs inaccuracies can affect the dose calculation in VMAT brain radiosurgery treatments plans. It was observed that simulated OFs errors, return dosimetric calculation accuracies within the 3% between concurrent plans analysed in terms of percentage dose differences at selected dose/volume points of the PTV coverage and OARs sparing.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

First multicentre study involving different Planning/Linacs about undetectable errors in commissioning output factor for small fields.