Heterogeneity correction for intensity-modulated frameless SRS in pituitary and cavernous sinus tumors: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Frameless immobilization allows for planning and quality assurance of intensity-modulated radiosurgery (IM-SRS) plans. We tested the hypothesis that IM-SRS planning with uniform tissue density corrections results in dose inaccuracy compared to heterogeneity-corrected algorithms.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with tumors of the pituitary or cavernous sinus underwent frameless IM-SRS. Treatment planning CT and MRI scans were obtained and fused to delineate the tumor, optic nerves, chiasm, and brainstem. The plan was developed with static gantry IM-SRS fields using a pencil beam (PB), analytical anisotropic (AAA), and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms. We evaluated measures of target coverage as well as doses to organs at risk (OAR) for each algorithm. We compared the results of each algorithm in the cases where PTV overlapped OAR (n = 10) to cases without overlapping OAR with PTV (n = 5). Utilizing film dosimetry, we measured the dose distribution for each algorithm through a uniform density target to a rando phantom with non-uniform density of air, tissue, and bone.

RESULTS

There was no difference in target coverage measured by DMaxPTV, DMinPTV, D95%PTV, or the isodose surface (IDS) covering 95% of the PTV regardless of algorithm. However, there were differences in dose to OAR. PB predicted higher (p < 0.05) Dmax for the brainstem, chiasm, right optic nerve, and left optic nerve. In cases of PTV overlapping an optic nerve (n = 7), PB was unable to limit dose to 8 Gy while achieving PTV coverage (PB 855 cGy vs. AAA 769 cGy, p = 0.05 vs. AXB 658 cGy, p = 0.03). Within the rando phantom, the PB and AAA algorithms over-estimated the dose delivered in the bone-tissue-air interface of the sinus (+17%), while the AXB algorithm closely predicted the actual dose delivered through the inhomogeneous tissue (+/- 1 % max, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing frameless SRS benefit from heterogeneity corrected dose plans when the lesion lies in areas of widely varying tissue density and near critical normal structures such as the skull base. Film dosimetry confirms that the AXB dose calculation algorithm more accurately predicts actual dose delivered though tissues of varying densities than PB or AAA dose calculation algorithms.

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport algorithm for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer

PURPOSE

The novel deterministic radiation transport algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), has shown great potential for accurate heterogeneous dose calculation. However, the clinical impact between AXB and other currently used algorithms still needs to be elucidated for translation between these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

METHODS

The thorax phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) was used for this study. IMRT and VMAT plans were created for the phantom in the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator to ensure reproducibility. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 film were placed inside the phantom to measure delivered doses. The measurements were compared with dose calculations from AXB 11.0.21 and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 11.0.21. Two dose reporting modes of AXB, dose-to-medium in medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water in medium (Dw,m), were studied. Point doses, dose profiles, and gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between measurements and calculations from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.

RESULTS

For the RPC lung phantom, AAA and AXB dose predictions were found in good agreement to TLD and film measurements for both IMRT and VMAT plans. TLD dose predictions were within 0.4%-4.4% to AXB doses (both Dm,m and Dw,m); and within 2.5%-6.4% to AAA doses, respectively. For the film comparisons, the gamma indexes (± 3%∕3 mm criteria) were 94%, 97%, and 98% for AAA, AXB_Dm,m, and AXB_Dw,m, respectively. The differences between AXB and AAA in dose-volume histogram mean doses were within 2% in the planning target volume, lung, heart, and within 5% in the spinal cord. However, differences up to 8% between AXB and AAA were found at lung∕soft tissue interface regions for individual IMRT fields. AAA was found to be 5-6 times faster than AXB for IMRT, while AXB was 4-5 times faster than AAA for VMAT plan.

CONCLUSIONS

AXB is satisfactorily accurate for the dose calculation in lung cancer for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The differences between AXB and AAA are generally small except in heterogeneous interface regions. AXB Dw,m and Dm,m calculations are similar inside the soft tissue and lung regions. AXB can benefit lung VMAT plans by both improving accuracy and reducing computation time.

Experimental validation of deterministic Acuros XB algorithm for IMRT and VMAT dose calculations with the Radiological Physics Center's head and neck phantom

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to verify the dosimetric performance of Acuros XB (AXB), a grid-based Boltzmann solver, in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

METHODS

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck (H&N) phantom was used for all calculations and measurements in this study. Clinically equivalent IMRT and VMAT plans were created on the RPC H&N phantom in the Eclipse treatment planning system (version 10.0) by using RPC dose prescription specifications. The dose distributions were calculated with two different algorithms, AXB 11.0.03 and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 10.0.24. Two dose report modes of AXB were recorded: dose-to-medium in medium (D(m,m)) and dose-to-water in medium (D(w,m)). Each treatment plan was delivered to the RPC phantom three times for reproducibility by using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator. Absolute point dose and planar dose were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and GafChromic® EBT2 film, respectively. Profile comparison and 2D gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between the film measurements and the calculated dose distributions from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Good agreement was observed between measured doses and those calculated with AAA or AXB. Both AAA and AXB calculated doses within 5% of TLD measurements in both the IMRT and VMAT plans. Results of AXB_D(m,m) (0.1% to 3.6%) were slightly better than AAA (0.2% to 4.6%) or AXB_D(w,m) (0.3% to 5.1%). The gamma analysis for both AAA and AXB met the RPC 7%/4 mm criteria (over 90% passed), whereas AXB_D(m,m) met 5%/3 mm criteria in most cases. AAA was 2 to 3 times faster than AXB for IMRT, whereas AXB was 4-6 times faster than AAA for VMAT.

CONCLUSIONS

AXB was found to be satisfactorily accurate when compared to measurements in the RPC H&N phantom. Compared with AAA, AXB results were equal to or better than those obtained with film measurements for IMRT and VMAT plans. The AXB_D(m,m) reporting mode was found to be closer to TLD and film measurements than was the AXB_D(w,m) mode. AXB calculation time was found to be significantly shorter (× 4) than AAA for VMAT.