The photon dose calculation algorithm used in breast radiotherapy has significant impact on the parameters of radiobiological models

Impact of Dose Calculation Algorithms and Radiobiological Parameters on Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Complications in Left Breast Radiation Therapy

Background

Breast cancer requires evaluating treatment plans using dosimetric and biological parameters. Considering radiation dose distribution and tissue response, healthcare professionals can optimize treatment plans for better outcomes.

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the different Dose Calculation Algorithms (DCAs) and Biologically Model-Related Parameters (BMRPs) on the prediction of cardiopulmonary complications due to left breast radiotherapy.

Material and Methods

In this practical study, the treatment plans of 21 female patients were simulated in the Monaco Treatment Planning System (TPS) with a prescribed dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Dose distribution was extracted using the three DCAs [Pencil Beam (PB), Collapsed Cone (CC), and Monte Carlo (MC)]. Cardiopulmonary complications were predicted by Normal Tissue Complication Probability (NTCP) calculations using different dosimetric and biological parameters. The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) and Relative-Seriality (RS) models were used to calculate NTCP. The endpoint for NTCP calculation was pneumonitis, pericarditis, and late cardiac mortality. The ANOVA test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

In calculating Tumor Control Probability (TCP), a statistically significant difference was observed between the results of DCAs in the Poisson model. The PB algorithm estimated NTCP as less than others for all Pneumonia BMRPs.

Conclusion

The impact of DCAs and BMRPs differs in the estimation of TCP and NTCP. DCAs have a stronger influence on TCP calculation, providing more effective results. On the other hand, BMRPs are more effective in estimating NTCP. Consequently, parameters for radiobiological indices should be cautiously used s to ensure the appropriate consideration of both DCAs and BMRPs.

The radiobiological effect of using Acuros XB vs anisotropic analytical algorithm on hepatocellular carcinoma stereotactic body radiation therapy

The purpose of this work was to study the radiobiological effect of using Acuros XB (AXB) vs Analytic Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Seventy SBRT volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for HCC were calculated using AAA and AXB respectively with the same treatment parameters. Published tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were used to quantify the effect of dosimetric difference between AAA and AXB on TCP, NTCP and uncomplicated tumor control probability (UTCP). There was an average decrease of 2.5% in 6-month TCP. Normal liver has the largest average decrease in NTCP which was 59.7%. Bowels followed with 26.6% average decrease in NTCP. Duodenum, stomach and esophagus had 10.2%, 5.1%, and 4.3% average decrease in NTCP. There was an average decrease of 1.8% and up to 7.2% in 6-month UTCP. There was an overall decrease in TCP, NTCP, and UTCP for HCC SBRT plans calculated using AXB compared to AAA which could be clinically significant.

The effect on tumour control probability of using AXB algorithm in replacement of AAA for SBRT of hepatocellular carcinoma located at lung-liver boundary region

Objective:

To retrospectively analyze the clinical impact on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located at lung–liver boundary due to the use of Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) in replacement of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA).

Methods:

23 SBRT volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for HCC located at lung–liver boundary were calculated using AAA and AXB respectively with the same treatment parameters. The dose–volume data of the planned target volumes (PTVs) were compared. A published tumour control probability (TCP) model was used to calculate the effect of dosimetric difference between AAA and AXB on tumour control probability.

Results:

For dose calculated by AXB (Dose to medium), the D95% and D98% of the PTV were on average 2.4 and 3.1% less than that calculated by AAA. For dose calculated by AXB (dose to water), the D95% and D98% of the PTV were on average 1.8%, and 2.7% less than that calculated by AAA. Up to 5% difference in D95% and 8% difference in D98% were observed in the worst cases. The significant decrease in D95% calculated by AXB compared to AAA could result in a % decrease in 2 year TCP up to 8% in the worst case (from 46.8 to 42.9%).

Conclusion:

The difference in dose calculated by AAA and AXB could lead to significant difference in TCP for HCC SBRT located at lung–liver boundary region.

Advances in knowledge:

The difference in calculated dose and tumour control probability for HCC SBRT between AAA and AXB algorithm at lung–liver boundary region was compared.

Clinical implication in the use of the AAA algorithm versus the AXB in nasopharyngeal carcinomas by comparison of TCP and NTCP values

Purpose

Retrospective analysis of volumetric modulated arc therapy treatment plans to investigate qualitative, possible, clinical consequences of the use of AAA versus AXB in nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) cases.

Methods

The dose distribution of 26 treatment plans, produced using RapidArc technique and AAA algorithm, were recalculated using AXB and the same number of monitor units provided by AAA and clinically delivered to each patient. The potential clinical effect of dosimetric differences in the planning target volume (PTV) and in organs at risk (OAR) were evaluated by comparing TCP and NTCP values. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was used for statistical comparison of all results obtained from the use of the two algorithms.

Results

The poorer coverage of the PTV, with higher prescribed dose, was reflected in the TCP, which was significantly lower when AXB was used, the median value was 81.55% (range: 74.90, 88.60%) and 84.10% (range: 77.70, 89.90%) for AAA (p < 0.001). OAR mean dose was lower in the AXB recalculated plan than the AAA plan and the difference was statistically significant for all the structures. The NTCP for developing mandible necrosis showed the largest median percentage difference between AAA and AXB (56.6%), the NTCP of risk for larynx edema of Grade ≥ 2 followed with 12.2%.

Conclusions

Differences in dose distribution of NPC treatment plans recalculated with AXB are of clinical significance in those situations where the PTV and OAR involve air or bone, media in which AXB has been shown to more accurately represent the true dose distribution. The availability of AXB algorithm could improve patient dose estimation, increasing the data consistency of clinical trials.

Dosimetric end-to-end tests in a national audit of 3D conformal radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Independent dosimetry audits improve quality and safety of radiation therapy. This work reports on design and findings of a comprehensive 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) Level III audit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The audit was conducted as onsite audit using an anthropomorphic thorax phantom in an end-to-end test by the Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service (ACDS). Absolute dose point measurements were performed with Farmer-type ionization chambers. The audited treatment plans included open and half blocked fields, wedges and lung inhomogeneities. Audit results were determined as Pass Optimal Level (deviations within 3.3%), Pass Action Level (greater than 3.3% but within 5%) and Out of Tolerance (beyond 5%), as well as Reported Not Scored (RNS). The audit has been performed between July 2012 and January 2018 on 94 occasions, covering approximately 90% of all Australian facilities.

RESULTS

The audit pass rate was 87% (53% optimal). Fifty recommendations were given, mainly related to planning system commissioning. Dose overestimation behind low density inhomogeneities by the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) was identified across facilities and found to extend to beam setups which resemble a typical breast cancer treatment beam placement. RNS measurements inside lung showed a variation in the opposite direction: AAA under-dosed a target beyond lung and over-dosed the lung upstream and downstream of the target. Results also highlighted shortcomings of some superposition and convolution algorithms in modelling large angle wedges.

CONCLUSIONS

This audit showed that 3D-CRT dosimetry audits remain relevant and can identify fundamental global and local problems that also affect advanced treatments.

Radiobiological analysis of stereotactic body radiation therapy for an evidence-based planning target volume of the lung using multiphase CT images obtained with a pneumatic abdominal compression apparatus: a case study

This study evaluated the efficiency of stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung (SBRT-Lung) in generating a treatment volume using conventional multiple-phase three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) of a patient immobilized with pneumatic abdominal compression. The institutional protocol for SBRT-Lung using the RapidArc technique relied on a planning target volume (PTV) delineated using 3D-CT and accounted for linear and angular displacement of the tumor during respiratory movements. The efficiency of the institutional protocol was compared with that of a conventional method for PTV delineation based on radiobiological estimates, such as tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), evaluated using dose-volume parameters. Pneumatic abdominal compression improved the TCP by 15%. This novel protocol improved the TCP by 0.5% but reduced the NTCP for lung pneumonitis (0.2%) and rib fracture (1.0%). Beyond the observed variations in the patient's treatment setup, the institutional protocol yielded a significantly consistent TCP (p < 0.005). The successful clinical outcome of this case study corroborates predictions based on radiobiological evaluation and deserves validation through an increased number of patients.

Radiobiological impact of dose calculation algorithms on biologically optimized IMRT lung stereotactic body radiation therapy plans

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the radiobiological impact of Acuros XB (AXB) vs. Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm (AAA) dose calculation algorithms in combined dose-volume and biological optimized IMRT plans of SBRT treatments for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Methods

Twenty eight patients with NSCLC previously treated SBRT were re-planned using Varian Eclipse (V11) with combined dose-volume and biological optimization IMRT sliding window technique. The total dose prescribed to the PTV was 60 Gy with 12 Gy per fraction. The plans were initially optimized using AAA algorithm, and then were recomputed using AXB using the same MUs and MLC files to compare with the dose distribution of the original plans and assess the radiobiological as well as dosimetric impact of the two different dose algorithms. The Poisson Linear-Quadatric (PLQ) and Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) models were used for estimating the tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), respectively. The influence of the model parameter uncertainties on the TCP differences and the NTCP differences between AAA and AXB plans were studied by applying different sets of published model parameters. Patients were grouped into peripheral and centrally-located tumors to evaluate the impact of tumor location.

Results

PTV dose was lower in the re-calculated AXB plans, as compared to AAA plans. The median differences of PTV(D_95%) were 1.7 Gy (range: 0.3, 6.5 Gy) and 1.0 Gy (range: 0.6, 4.4 Gy) for peripheral tumors and centrally-located tumors, respectively. The median differences of PTV(mean) were 0.4 Gy (range: 0.0, 1.9 Gy) and 0.9 Gy (range: 0.0, 4.3 Gy) for peripheral tumors and centrally-located tumors, respectively. TCP was also found lower in AXB-recalculated plans compared with the AAA plans. The median (range) of the TCP differences for 30 month local control were 1.6 % (0.3 %, 5.8 %) for peripheral tumors and 1.3 % (0.5 %, 3.4 %) for centrally located tumors. The lower TCP is associated with the lower PTV coverage in AXB-recalculated plans. No obvious trend was observed between the calculation-resulted TCP differences and tumor size or location. AAA and AXB yield very similar NTCP on lung pneumonitis according to the LKB model estimation in the present study.

Conclusion

AAA apparently overestimates the PTV dose; the magnitude of resulting difference in calculated TCP was up to 5.8 % in our study. AAA and AXB yield very similar NTCP on lung pneumonitis based on the LKB model parameter sets we used in the present study.

Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB with collapsed cone convolution/superposition and anisotropic analytic algorithm for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of thoracic spinal metastases

The aim of this study is to compare the recent Eclipse Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation engine with the Pinnacle collapsed cone convolution/superposition (CCC) dose calculation algorithm and the Eclipse anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SAbR) treatment planning of thoracic spinal (T‐spine) metastases using IMRT and VMAT delivery techniques. The three commissioned dose engines (CCC, AAA, and AXB) were validated with ion chamber and EBT2 film measurements utilizing a heterogeneous slab‐geometry water phantom and an anthropomorphic phantom. Step‐and‐shoot IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were developed and optimized for eight patients in Pinnacle, following our institutional SAbR protocol for spinal metastases. The CCC algorithm, with heterogeneity corrections, was used for dose calculations. These plans were then exported to Eclipse and recalculated using the AAA and AXB dose calculation algorithms. Various dosimetric parameters calculated with CCC and AAA were compared to that of the AXB calculations. In regions receiving above 50% of prescription dose, the calculated CCC mean dose is 3.1%–4.1% higher than that of AXB calculations for IMRT plans and 2.8%–3.5% higher for VMAT plans, while the calculated AAA mean dose is 1.5%–2.4% lower for IMRT and 1.2%–1.6% lower for VMAT. Statistically significant differences (p<0.05) were observed for most GTV and PTV indices between the CCC and AXB calculations for IMRT and VMAT, while differences between the AAA and AXB calculations were not statistically significant. For T‐spine SAbR treatment planning, the CCC calculations give a statistically significant overestimation of target dose compared to AXB. AAA underestimates target dose with no statistical significance compared to AXB. Further study is needed to determine the clinical impact of these findings.

PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.53.Ly

Comparison of Acuros (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) for dose calculation in treatment of oesophageal cancer: effects on modelling tumour control probability

AIM

To investigate systematic changes in dose arising when treatment plans optimised using the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) are recalculated using Acuros XB (AXB) in patients treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for locally advanced oesophageal cancers.

BACKGROUND

We have compared treatment plans created using AAA with those recalculated using AXB. Although the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) is currently more widely used in clinical routine, Acuros XB (AXB) has been shown to more accurately calculate the dose distribution, particularly in heterogeneous regions. Studies to predict clinical outcome should be based on modelling the dose delivered to the patient as accurately as possible.

METHODS

CT datasets from ten patients were selected for this retrospective study. VMAT (Volumetric modulated arc therapy) plans with 2 arcs, collimator rotation ± 5-10° and dose prescription 50 Gy / 25 fractions were created using Varian Eclipse (v10.0). The initial dose calculation was performed with AAA, and AXB plans were created by re-calculating the dose distribution using the same number of monitor units (MU) and multileaf collimator (MLC) files as the original plan. The difference in calculated dose to organs at risk (OAR) was compared using dose-volume histogram (DVH) statistics and p values were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. The potential clinical effect of dosimetric differences in the gross tumour volume (GTV) was evaluated using three different TCP models from the literature.

RESULTS

PTV Median dose was apparently 0.9 Gy lower (range: 0.5 Gy - 1.3 Gy; p < 0.05) for VMAT AAA plans re-calculated with AXB and GTV mean dose was reduced by on average 1.0 Gy (0.3 Gy -1.5 Gy; p < 0.05). An apparent difference in TCP of between 1.2% and 3.1% was found depending on the choice of TCP model. OAR mean dose was lower in the AXB recalculated plan than the AAA plan (on average, dose reduction: lung 1.7%, heart 2.4%). Similar trends were seen for CRT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in dose distribution are observed with VMAT and CRT plans recalculated with AXB particularly within soft tissue at the tumour/lung interface, where AXB has been shown to more accurately represent the true dose distribution. AAA apparently overestimates dose, particularly the PTV median dose and GTV mean dose, which could result in a difference in TCP model parameters that reaches clinical significance.