Clinical impact of using the deterministic patient dose calculation algorithm Acuros XB for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

Dosimetric Impact of Prescription Point Placement in Heterogeneous Medium for Conformal Radiotherapy Dose Calculation with Various Algorithms

Objective

The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of dose calculation for different dose calculation algorithms with different prescription points (air, tissue, air-tissue interface in carcinoma lung patients and bone, tissue, and bone-tissue interface in carcinoma buccal Mucosa tumors).

Materials and Methods

Forty-one patients with carcinoma lung and buccal mucosa were retrospectively selected for this study. A three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy reference plan was created using the prescription point in the tissue with Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms for both the groups of patients. The reference plan was modified by changing the prescription point and algorithms in the tissue, air, air-tissue interface for lung patients and tissue, bone, and bone-tissue interface for buccal mucosa patients. The dose received by the target volume and other organs at risk (OAR) structures was compared. To find out the statistical difference between different prescription points and algorithms, the statistical tests were performed with repeated measures ANOVA.

Results

The target volume receiving 95% dose coverage in lung patients decreased to -3.08%, -5.75%, and -1.87% in the dose prescription point at the air-tissue interface with the dose calculation algorithms like MC, collapsed cone (CC), and pencil beam (PB), respectively, compared to that of the MC tissue. Spinal cord dose was increased in the CC and PB algorithms in all prescription points in patients with lung and buccal mucosa. OAR dose calculated by PB in all prescription points showed a significant deviation compared to MC tissue prescription point.

Conclusion

This study will help demonstrate the accuracy of dose calculation for the different dose prescription points with the different treatment algorithms in radiotherapy treatment planning.

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.

Planning issues on linac-based stereotactic radiotherapy

This work aims to summarize and evaluate the current planning progress based on the linear accelerator in stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT). The specific techniques include 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, dynamic conformal arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). They are all designed to deliver higher doses to the target volume while reducing damage to normal tissues; among them, VMAT shows better prospects for application. This paper reviews and summarizes several issues on the planning of SRT to provide a reference for clinical application.

Dosimetric comparison of analytical anisotropic algorithm and the two dose reporting modes of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is an important modality for radical radiotherapy of all major treatment sites. This study aims to compare Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and the two dose-reporting modes of Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm -the dose to medium option (D_m) and the dose to water option (D_w) in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate. We also compared the measured dose with Treatment Planning System calculated dose for AAA and the two dose reporting options of Acuros XB using Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and ArcCHECK phantom. Treatment plans of twenty patients each who have already undergone radiotherapy for cancer of lung and cancer of prostate were selected for the study. Three sets of VMAT plans were generated in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS), one with AAA and two plans with Acuros-D_m and Acuros-D_w options. The Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) were compared and analyzed for Planning Target Volume (PTV) and critical structures for all the plans. Verification plans were created for each plan and measured doses were compared with TPS calculated doses using EPID and ArcCHECK phantom for all the three algorithms. For lung plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 1.7% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 0.66% when compared to AAA plans. For prostate plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-D_w plans was higher by 3.0% and in the AXB-D_m plans by 1.6% when compared to AAA plans. There was no difference in the Conformity Index (CI) between AAA and AXB-D_m and between AAA and AXB-D_w plans for both sites. But the homogeneity worsened in AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m plans when compared to AAA plans for both sites. AXB-D_w calculated higher dose values for PTV and all the critical structures with significant differences with one or two exceptions. Point dose measurements in ArcCHECK phantom showed that AXB-D_m and AXB-D_w options showed very small deviations with measured dose distributions than AAA for both sites. Results of EPID QA also showed better pass rates for AXB-D_w and AXB-D_m than AAA for both sites when gamma analysis was done for 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. With reference to the results, it is always better to choose Acuros algorithm for dose calculations if it is available in the TPS. AXB-D_w plans showed very high dose values in the PTV when compared to AAA and AXB-D_m in both sites studied. Also, the volume of PTV receiving 107% dose was significantly high in AXB-D_w plans compared to AXB-D_m plans in sites involving high density bones. Considering the results of dosimetric comparison and QA measurements, it is always better to choose AXB-D_m algorithm for dose calculations for all treatment sites especially when high density bony structures and complex treatment techniques are involved. For patient specific QA purposes, choosing AXB-D_m or AXB-D_w does not make any significant difference between calculated and measured dose distributions.

Limits for the therapeutic application of the analytical anisotropic algorithm in the context of ablative lung radiotherapy near the minima of lung density and tumor size

Purpose

To systematically investigate the performance of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) within the extremes of small tumor volumes and near‐minimum lung and tumor tissue densities in order to identify combinations of these parameters where the use of AAA could result in a therapeutically unacceptable loss of tumor coverage on an energy and fractionation‐specific basis.

Methods

Clinically appropriate volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment plans were generated with AAA for 180 unique combinations of lung density (0.05–0.30 g/cm³), tumor density (0.30–1.00 g/cm³), tumor diameter (0.5–2.5 cm), and beam energy (6 and 10 MV) and recomputed using the AcurosXB algorithm. Regression analysis was used to identify the strongest predictors of a reduction in biologically effective dose at a clinically relevant level (100 Gy BED10) for commonly utilized 1–5 fraction treatment regimens. Measurements were performed within a phantom mimicking the lower extremes of lung and tumor densities to validate AcurosXB as the approximate ground truth within these scenarios.

Results

The strongest predictors of a statistically significant reduction in tumor coverage were lung density ≤0.15 g/cm³, tumor diameter ≤10 mm, tumor density equal to 0.30 g/cm³, and a beam energy of 10 MV. Overestimation of clinical target volume (CTV) D95% and CTV V100Gy (BED10) by AAA can exceed 30%–40% in some scenarios. Measurements supported AcurosXB as highly accurate even for these challenging scenarios.

Conclusions

The accuracy of AAA rapidly diminishes near the minima of clinical lung density, particularly in combination with small tumors and when using a photon energy of 10 MV. The magnitude of the effect can be more dramatic than previously reported data suggests and could potentially compromise the ablative qualities of treatments performed within these environments, particularly with less aggressive fractionation approaches.

New dosimetric guidelines for linear Boltzmann transport equations through comparative evaluation of stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung treatment planning

PURPOSE

To propose guidelines for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) when using Acuros XB (AXB) equivalent to the existing ones developed for convolution algorithms such as analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA), considering the difference between the algorithms.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 30 lung patients previously treated with SBRT. The original AAA plans, which were developed using dynamic conformal arcs, were recalculated and then renormalized for planning target volume (PTV) coverage using AXB. The recalculated and renormalized plans were compared to the original plans based on V100% and V90% PTV coverage, as well as V105%, conformality index, D2cm , Rx/Dmax , R50, and Dmin . These metrics were analyzed nominally and on variations according to RTOG and NRG guidelines. Based on the relative difference between each metric in the AAA and AXB plans, new guidelines were developed. The relative differences in our cohort were compared to previously documented AAA to AXB comparisons found in the literature.

RESULTS

AAA plans recalculated in AXB had a significant reduction in most dosimetric metrics. The most notable changes were in V100% (4%) and the conformality index (7.5%). To achieve equal PTV coverage, AXB required an average of 1.8% more monitor units (MU). This fits well with previously published data. Applying the new guidelines to the AXB plans significantly increased the number of minor violations with no change in major violations, making them comparable to those of the original AAA plans.

CONCLUSION

The relative difference found between AAA and AXB for SBRT lung plans has been shown to be consistent with previous works. Based on these findings, new guidelines for lung SBRT are recommended when planning with AXB.

Technical Note: End-to-end verification of an MR-Linac using a dynamic motion phantom

PURPOSE

MR-Linac integrates an MRI scanner and a linear accelerator to provide adaptive radiation treatment. Superior tissue contrast and real-time imaging can give the clinicians confidence to reduce the margins of the planning target volume (PTV). The purpose of this study was to verify the dosimetric accuracy of an MR-Linac system in treating a moving target and assess the error with different motion patterns and adaptation methods.

METHODS

We performed an end-to-end test for Elekta Unity (Elekta) using the 4D Dynamic Thorax Phantom (CIRS MRgRT 008Z), comparing the measured and planned dose. The moving phantom had four measurement locations in the tumor, liver, kidney, and spinal cord regions with a PTW30013 ion chamber. For seven different motion patterns, we first acquired simulation CT using a slow-scanning protocol, based on which we generated reference plans. The treatment technique was the standard intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We tested both adaptation workflows: the Adapt-to-Position (ATP) and the Adapt-to-Shape (ATS). The three-dimensional (3D) distribution was measured using a diode array phantom (Sun Nuclear Inc.) to check the dose distribution accuracy as part of the routine QA process. We also performed end-to-end tests on a conventional Linac. Finally, we used SPSS Statistics 22.0 (Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for data analysis.

RESULTS

All pretreatment reference plans and delivered plans had excellent QA results with a better than 95% passing rate of relative gamma analysis (2%/2 mm criteria). The adaptive planning for MR-Linac produced quality plans. The measured dose in the target agreed with the calculated dose.

CONCLUSIONS

The adaptive treatment on the MR-Linac system investigated met the expected performance with tumor motions. The outline of the target could be visualized and accurately contoured on the 3D MR for online planning. Under different motion patterns, the difference between the measured and calculated dose was acceptable clinically.

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.

Dosimetric Impact of Acuros XB Dose-to-Water and Dose-to-Medium Reporting Modes on Lung Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Its Dependency on Structure Composition

Purpose

Our purpose was to assess the dosimetric effect of switching from the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) to Acuros XB (AXB), with dose-to-medium (Dm) and dose-to-water (Dw) reporting modes, in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy patients and determine whether planning-target-volume (PTV) dose prescriptions and organ-at-risk constraints should be modified under these circumstances.

Methods and Materials

We included 54 lung stereotactic body radiation therapy patients. We delineated the PTV, the ipsilateral lung, the contralateral lung, the heart, the spinal cord, the esophagus, the trachea, proximal bronchi, the ribs, and the great vessels. We performed dose calculations with AAA and AXB, then compared clinically relevant dose-volume parameters. Paired t tests were used to analyze differences of means. We propose a method, based on the composition of the involved structures, for predicting differences between AXB Dw and Dm calculations.

Results

The largest difference between the algorithms was 4%. Mean dose differences between AXB Dm and AXB Dw depended on the average composition of the volumes. Compared with AXB, AAA underestimated all PTV dose-volume parameters (-0.7 Gy to -0.1 Gy) except for gradient index, which was significantly higher (4%). It also underestimated V₅ of the contralateral lung (-0.3%). Significant differences in near-maximum doses (D₂) to the ribs were observed between AXB Dm and AAA (1.7%) and between AXB Dw and AAA (-1.6%). AAA-calculated D₂ was slightly higher in the remaining organs at risk.

Conclusions

Differences between AXB and AAA are below the threshold of clinical detectability (5%) for most patients. For a small subgroup, the difference in maximum doses to the ribs between AXB Dw and AXB Dm may be clinically significant. The differences in dose volume parameters between AXB Dw and AXB Dm can be predicted with reference to structure composition.

The influence of Acuros XB on dose volume histogram metrics and tumour control probability modelling in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy plans are assessed using dose volume metrics derived from clinical toxicity and outcome data. In this study, plans for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC) are examined in the context of the implementation of the Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm focussing on the impact on common metrics.

METHODS

Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for twenty patients, using the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and recalculated with AXB for both dose to water (D_w) and dose to medium (D_m). Standard dose volume histogram (DVH) metrics for both targets and organs-at-risk (OARs) were extracted, in addition to tumour control probability (TCP) for targets.

RESULTS

Mean dose to the planning target volume (PTV) was not clinically different between the algorithms (within ±1.1 Gy) but differences were seen in the minimum dose, D_99% and D_98% as well as for conformity and homogeneity metrics. A difference in TCP was seen for AXB_Dm plans versus both AXB_Dw and AAA plans. No clinically relevant differences were seen in the lung metrics. For point doses to spinal cord and oesophagus, the AXB_Dm values were lower than AXB_Dw, by up to 1.0 Gy.

CONCLUSION

Normalisation of plans to the mean/median dose to the target does not need to be adjusted when moving from AAA to AXB. OAR point doses may decrease by up to 1 Gy with AXB_Dm, which can be accounted for in clinical planning. Other OAR metrics do not need to be adjusted.

Dosimetric comparison of different algorithms in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plan for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Purposes

The main aim of the study was to investigate the dosimetric difference between acuros XB algorithm (AXB), anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), and pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) plan for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Patients and Methods

Thirty-eight NSCLC patients were included. GTV, PTV, and organs at risk were delineated by the radiation oncologists. Three optimized SBRT plans for each patients were gained using three algorithms of AXB, AAA, and PBC with the identical plan parameters. Dosimetric endpoints were collected and compared among the three plans, including dosimetric criteria: V100%, V90%, PTV D_min, D_max, D_mean, homogeneity index (HI), and Paddick conformity index (CI).

Results

AXB plan resulted in decreased V100% with a mean difference 6.14% compared with PBC plan (For V100%, AXB vs AAA vs PBC=93.44% vs 95.54% vs 99.58%, P<0.05). Three plans showed no significant difference as to the parameter V90%. AXB plan leaded to reduced D_min of PTV compared with other two algorithms (For D_min of PTV, AXB vs AAA vs PBC=4048cGy vs 4365Gy vs 4873Gy, P<0.05). PBC induced the enhanced trend of D_max of PTV compared with other two algorithms (D_max among three algorithms, P>0.05); and increased the D_mean of PTV in three algorithms with significant difference (For D_mean of PTV, AXB vs AAA vs PBC=5332cGy vs 5330Gy vs 5785Gy, P<0.05). AXB algorithm achieved a similar plan conformity with other two algorithms (For CI, AXB vs AAA vs PBC=0.80 vs 0.85 vs 0.71, P>0.05).

Conclusion

For SBRT plan of NSCLC, AAA and PBC algorithms overestimate target coverage, AXB algorithm is recommended for the SBRT plan of NSCLC.

Deep inspiration breath-hold for left-sided breast irradiation: Analysis of dose-mass histograms and the impact of lung expansion

Background

The aim of this study was to compare dose-volume histogram (DVH) with dose-mass histogram (DMH) parameters for treatment of left-sided breast cancer in deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) and free breathing (FB). Additionally, lung expansion and anatomical factors were analyzed and correlated to dose differences.

Methods

For 31 patients 3D conformal radiation therapy plans were retrospectively calculated on FB and DIBH CTs in the treatment planning system. The calculated doses, structures and CT data were transferred into MATLAB and DVHs and DMHs were calculated. Mean doses (Dmean), volumes and masses receiving certain doses (Vx, Mx) were determined for the left lung and the heart. Additionally, expansion of the left lung was evaluated using deformable image registration. Differences in DVH and DMH dose parameters between FB and DIBH were statistically analyzed and correlated to lung expansion and anatomical factors.

Results

DIBH reduced Dmean (DVH) and relative V20 (V20 [%]) of the left lung in all patients, on average by − 19 ± 9% (mean ± standard deviation) and − 24 ± 10%. Dmean (DMH) and M20 [%] were also significantly reduced (− 12 ± 11%, − 16 ± 13%), however 4 patients had higher DMH values in DIBH than in FB. Linear regression showed good correlations between DVH and DMH parameters, e.g. a dosimetric benefit smaller than 8.4% for Dmean (DVH) in DIBH indicated more irradiated lung mass in DIBH than in FB. The mean expansion of the left lung between FB and DIBH was 1.5 ± 2.4 mm (left), 16.0 ± 4.0 mm (anterior) and 12.2 ± 4.6 mm (caudal). No significant correlations were found between expansions and differences in Dmean for the left lung. The heart dose in DIBH was reduced in all patients by 53% (Dmean) and this dosimetric benefit correlated to lung expansion in anterior.

Conclusions

Treatment of left-sided breast cancer in DIBH reduced dose to the heart and in most cases the lung dose, relative irradiated lung volume and lung mass. A mass related dosimetric benefit in DIBH can be achieved as long as the volume related benefit is about ≥8–9%. The lung expansion (breathing pattern) showed no impact on lung dose, but on heart dose. A stronger chest breathing (anterior expansion) for DIBH seems to be more beneficial than abdominal breathing.

On the use of AAA and AcurosXB algorithms for three different stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) techniques: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT), intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT)

Aim

The purpose of this study was to investigate the dosimetric characteristics of three stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) techniques using the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithm. The SABR techniques include coplanar volumetric modulated arc therapy (C-VMAT), non-coplanar intensity modulated radiation therapy (NC-IMRT) and non-coplanar three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (NC-3D CRT).

Background

SABR is a special type of radiotherapy where a high dose of radiation is delivered over a short time. The treatment outcome and accuracy of the dose delivered to cancer patients highly depend on the dose calculation algorithm and treatment technique.

Materials and methods

Twelve lung cancer patients underwent 4D CT scanning, and three different treatment plans were generated: C-VMAT, NC-IMRT, NC-3D CRT. Dose calculation was performed using the AAA and Acuros XB algorithm. The dosimetric indices, such as conformity index (CI), homogeneity index, dose fall-off index, doses received by organs at risk and planning target volume, were used to compare the plans. The accuracy of AAA and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms for the lung was validated against measured dose on a CIRS thorax phantom.

Results

The CIs for C-VMAT, NC-IMRT and NC-3D CRT were 1.21, 1.28 and 1.38 for the AAA, respectively, and 1.17, 1.26 and 1.36 for the Acuros XB algorithm, respectively. The overall dose computed by AcurosXB algorithm was close to the measured dose when compared to the AAA algorithm. The overall dose computed by the AcurosXB algorithm was close to the measured dose when compared to the AAA algorithm.

Conclusion

This study showed that the treatment planning results obtained using the Acuros XB algorithm was better than those using the AAA algorithm in SABR lung radiotherapy.

Calculation of absorbed dose in radiotherapy by solution of the linear Boltzmann transport equations

Over the last decade, dose calculations which solve the linear Boltzmann transport equations have been introduced into clinical practice and are now in widespread use. However, knowledge in the radiotherapy community concerning the details of their function is limited. This review gives a general description of the linear Boltzmann transport equations as applied to calculation of absorbed dose in clinical radiotherapy. The aim is to elucidate the principles of the method, rather than to describe a particular implementation. The literature on the performance of typical algorithms is then reviewed, in many cases with reference to Monte Carlo simulations. The review is completed with an overview of the emerging applications in the important area of MR-guided radiotherapy.

Evaluation of collimator rotation for volumetric modulated arc therapy lung stereotactic body radiation therapy using flattening filter free

The collimator in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning is rotated to minimize tongue-and-groove effect and interleaf leakage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of collimator angle on the dosimetric results of VMAT plan for patients with lung cancer undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) treatment. In the present investigation discrepancies between the calculated dose distributions with different collimators rotations have been studied. Six different collimators rotations (0, 10, 20, 30, 45 and 90 degrees), 6 MV x-ray non-flattened from a TrueBeam accelerator equipped with High-Definition 120MLC were used, as well as two planning technique: One full arc and two half arcs. For rotation between 10 and 45 degrees there were not found a significant variation meanwhile collimator rotation of 0 and 90° may impact on dose distribution resulting in unexpected dose variation. The homogeneity, conformity and gradient indexes as well as dose in organs at risk reached their best values with the half arcs technique and collimator angle between 20° and 45°.

Verification of Acuros XB dose algorithm using 3D printed low-density phantoms for clinical photon beams

The transport-based dose calculation algorithm Acuros XB (AXB) has been shown to accurately account for heterogeneities primarily through comparisons with Monte Carlo simulations. This study aims to provide additional experimental verification of AXB for clinically relevant flattened and unflattened beam energies in low density phantoms of the same material. Polystyrene slabs were created using a bench-top 3D printer. Six slabs were printed at varying densities from 0.23 to 0.68 g/cm3 , corresponding to different density humanoid tissues. The slabs were used to form different single and multilayer geometries. Dose was calculated with Eclipse™ AXB 11.0.31 for 6MV, 15MV flattened and 6FFF (flattening filter free) energies for field sizes of 2 × 2 and 5 × 5 cm2 . EBT3 film was inserted into the phantoms, which were irradiated. Absolute dose profiles and 2D Gamma analyses were performed for 96 dose planes. For all single slab configurations and energies, absolute dose differences between the AXB calculation and film measurements remained <3% for both fields in the high-dose region, however, larger disagreement was seen within the penumbra. For the multilayered phantom, percentage depth dose with AXB was within 5% of discrete film measurements. The Gamma index at 2%/2 mm averaged 98% in all combinations of fields, phantoms and photon energies. The transport-based dose algorithm AXB is in good agreement with the experimental measurements for small field sizes using 6MV, 6FFF and 15MV beams adjacent to various low-density heterogeneous media. This work provides preliminary experimental grounds to support the use of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation purposes.

Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: Plan quality and subvolume analysis

Purpose

Two dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse‐based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequently, clinical practice is necessary prior to implementation. We characterized the difference in breast plan quality between AXB and AAA for dissemination to clinicians during implementation.

Methods

Locoregional irradiation plans were created with AAA for 30 breast cancer patients with a prescription dose of 50 Gy to the breast and 45 Gy to the regional node, in 25 fractions. The internal mammary chain (IMC_CTV) nodes were covered by 80% of the breast dose. AXB, both dose‐to‐water and dose‐to‐medium reporting, was used to recalculate plans while maintaining constant monitor units. Target coverage and organ‐at‐risk doses were compared between the two algorithms using dose–volume parameters. An analysis to assess location‐specific changes was performed by dividing the breast into nine subvolumes in the superior–inferior and left–right directions.

Results

There were minimal differences found between the AXB and AAA calculated plans. The median difference between AXB and AAA for breast_CTVV_95%, was <2.5%. For IMC_CTV, the median differences V_95%, and V_80% were <5% and 0%, respectively; indicating IMC_CTV coverage only decreased when marginally covered. Mean superficial dose increased by a median of 3.2 Gy. In the subvolume analysis, the medial subvolumes were “hotter” when recalculated with AXB and the lateral subvolumes “cooler” with AXB; however, all differences were within 2 Gy.

Conclusion

We observed minimal difference in magnitude and spatial distribution of dose when comparing the two algorithms. The largest observable differences occurred in superficial dose regions. Therefore, clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast radiotherapy is not expected to result in changes in clinical practice for prescribing or planning breast radiotherapy.

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.

Dosimetric comparison of peripheral NSCLC SBRT using Acuros XB and AAA calculation algorithms

There is a concern for dose calculation in highly heterogenous environments such as the thorax region. This study compares the quality of treatment plans of peripheral non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) using 2 calculation algorithms, namely, Eclipse Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB), for 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) data from 20 anonymized patients were studied using Varian Eclipse planning system, AXB, and AAA version 10.0.28. A 3DCRT plan and a VMAT plan were generated using AAA and AXB with constant plan parameters for each patient. The prescription and dose constraints were benchmarked against Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0915 protocol. Planning parameters of the plan were compared statistically using Mann-Whitney U tests. Results showed that 3DCRT and VMAT plans have a lower target coverage up to 8% when calculated using AXB as compared with AAA. The conformity index (CI) for AXB plans was 4.7% lower than AAA plans, but was closer to unity, which indicated better target conformity. AXB produced plans with global maximum doses which were, on average, 2% hotter than AAA plans. Both 3DCRT and VMAT plans were able to achieve D95%. VMAT plans were shown to be more conformal (CI = 1.01) and were at least 3.2% and 1.5% lower in terms of PTV maximum and mean dose, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference for doses received by organs at risk (OARs) regardless of calculation algorithms and treatment techniques. In general, the difference in tissue modeling for AXB and AAA algorithm is responsible for the dose distribution between the AXB and the AAA algorithms. The AXB VMAT plans could be used to benefit patients receiving peripheral NSCLC SBRT.

Clinical implications of Eclipse analytical anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm for the treatment of lung cancer

The aim of the present study was to investigate the dose-volume variations of planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risks (OARs) in 15 left lung cancer patients comparing analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) versus Acuros XB algorithm. Originally, all plans were created using AAA with a template of dose constraints and optimization parameters, and the patients were treated using intensity modulated radiotherapy. In addition, another set of plans was created by performing only dose calculations using Acuros algorithm without doing any reoptimization. Thereby, in both set of plans, the entire plan parameters, namely, beam angle, beam weight, number of beams, prescribed dose, normalization point, region of interest constraints, number of monitor units, and plan optimization were kept constant. The evaluated plan parameters were PTV coverage at dose at 95% volume (TV95) of PTV (D95), the dose at 5% of PTV (D5), maximum dose (D_max), the mean dose (D_mean), the percent volume receiving 5 Gy (V5), 20 Gy (V20), 30 Gy (V30) of normal lung at risk (left lung- gross target volume [GTV], the dose at 33% volume (D33), at 67% volume (D67), and the D_mean (Gy) of the heart, the D_max of the spinal cord. Furthermore, homogeneity index (HI) and conformity index were evaluated to check the quality of the plans. Significant statistical differences between the two algorithms, P < 0.05, were found in D95, D_max, TV95, and HI of PTV. Furthermore, significant statistical differences were found in the dose parameters for the OARs, namely, V5, V20, and V30 of left lung-GTV, right lung (D_mean), D33, and D_mean of the heart, and D_max of the spine, respectively. Although statistical differences do exist, the magnitude of the differences is too small to cause any clinically observable effect.

Dosimetric impact of different CT datasets for stereotactic treatment planning using 3D conformal radiotherapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the impact on dose to the planning target volume (PTV) and organs at risk (OAR) by using four differently generated CT datasets for dose calculation in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) of lung and liver tumors. Additionally, dose differences between 3D conformal radiotherapy and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans calculated on these CT datasets were determined.

Methods

Twenty SBRT patients, ten lung cases and ten liver cases, were retrospectively selected for this study. Treatment plans were optimized on average intensity projection (AIP) CTs using 3D conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Afterwards, the plans were copied to the planning CTs (PCT), maximum intensity projection (MIP) and mid-ventilation (MidV) CT datasets and dose was recalculated keeping all beam parameters and monitor units unchanged. Ipsilateral lung and liver volumes and dosimetric parameters for PTV (D_mean, D₂, D₉₈, D₉₅), ipsilateral lung and liver (D_mean, V₃₀, V₂₀, V₁₀) were determined and statistically analysed using Wilcoxon test.

Results

Significant but small mean differences were found for PTV dose between the CTs (lung SBRT: ≤2.5 %; liver SBRT: ≤1.6 %). MIPs achieved the smallest lung and the largest liver volumes. OAR mean doses in MIP plans were distinctly smaller than in the other CT datasets. Furthermore, overlapping of tumors with the diaphragm results in underestimated ipsilateral lung dose in MIP plans. Best agreement was found between AIP and MidV (lung SBRT). Overall, differences in liver SBRT were smaller than in lung SBRT and VMAT plans achieved slightly smaller differences than 3D-CRT plans.

Conclusions

Only small differences were found for PTV parameters between the four CT datasets. Larger differences occurred for the doses to organs at risk (ipsilateral lung, liver) especially for MIP plans. No relevant differences were observed between 3D-CRT or VMAT plans. MIP CTs are not appropriate for OAR dose assessment. PCT, AIP and MidV resulted in similar doses. If a 4DCT is acquired PCT can be omitted using AIP or MidV for treatment planning.

Dosimetric study of the AAA algorithm for the VMAT technique using an anthropomorphic phantom in the pelvic region

Purpose

The objective of this work was to investigate the accuracy of AAA dose calculation algorithm for RapidArc volumetric modulated technique (VMAT) in the presence of anatomical heterogeneities in the pelvic region.

Material and methods

An anthropomorphic phantom was used to simulate a prostate case, delineating planning target volumes (PTVs) and organs at risk. VMAT plans were optimised in eclipse (v10·0) treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated by the AAA dose calculation algorithm. A total of 49 thermoluminiscent dosimeters were inserted into the anthropomorphic phantom and dose measurements were compared with the predicted TPS doses.

Results

The average dose variation was −1·5% for planning target volume corresponding to the prostate and −0·3% for planning target volume corresponding to the pelvic nodes, −0·2% for the rectum, +2·4% for the bladder, −2·0% for the femoral heads and +1·0% for the intestinal package.

Conclusion

AAA is a reliable dose calculation for the treatment with VMAT in the anatomy of the pelvis.

Dose calculation of Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment with flattening filter free beams and the potential role of calculation grid size

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to appraise the dose differences between Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) treatment for lung cancer with flattening filter free (FFF) beams. Additionally, the potential role of the calculation grid size (CGS) on the dose differences between the two algorithms was also investigated.

METHODS

SBRT plans with 6X and 10X FFF beams produced from the CT scan data of 10 patients suffering from stage I lung cancer were enrolled in this study. Clinically acceptable treatment plans with AAA were recalculated using AXB with the same monitor units (MU) and identical multileaf collimator (MLC) settings. Furthermore, different CGS (2.5 mm and 1 mm) in the two algorithms was also employed to investigate their dosimetric impact. Dose to planning target volumes (PTV) and organs at risk (OARs) between the two algorithms were compared. PTV was separated into PTV_soft (density in soft-tissue range) and PTV_lung (density in lung range) for comparison.

RESULTS

The dose to PTV_lung predicted by AXB was found to be 1.33 ± 1.12% (6XFFF beam with 2.5 mm CGS), 2.33 ± 1.37% (6XFFF beam with 1 mm CGS), 2.81 ± 2.33% (10XFFF beam with 2.5 mm CGS) and 3.34 ± 1.76% (10XFFF beam with 1 mm CGS) lower compared with that by AAA, respectively. However, the dose directed to PTV_soft was comparable. For OARs, AXB predicted a slightly lower dose to the aorta, chest wall, spinal cord and esophagus, regardless of whether the 6XFFF or 10XFFF beam was utilized. Exceptionally, dose to the ipsilateral lung was significantly higher with AXB.

CONCLUSIONS

AXB principally predicts lower dose to PTV_lung compared to AAA and the CGS contributes to the relative dose difference between the two algorithms.

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.

A dosimetric comparison of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, volumetric-modulated arc therapy, and dynamic conformal arc therapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer using stereotactic body radiotherapy

This study evaluates three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D CRT), volumetric‐ modulated arc therapy (VMAT), and dynamic conformal arc therapy (DCAT) planning techniques using dosimetric indices from Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) protocols 0236, 0813, and 0915 for the treatment of early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). Twenty‐five clinical patients, five per lung lobe, previously treated for NSCLC using 3D CRT SBRT under respective RTOG protocols were replanned with VMAT and DCAT techniques. All plans were compared using respective RTOG dosimetric indices. High‐ and low‐dose spillage improved for VMAT and DCAT plans, though only VMAT was able to improve dose to all organs at risk (OARs). DCAT was only able to provide a minimal improvement in dose to the heart and ipsilateral brachial plexus. Mean bilateral, contralateral, and V20 (percentage of bilateral lung receiving at least 20 Gy dose) doses were reduced with VMAT in comparison with respective 3D CRT clinical plans. Though some of the DCAT plans had values for the above indices slightly higher than their respective 3D CRT plans, they still were able to meet the RTOG constraints. VMAT and DCAT were able to offer improved skin dose by 1.1% and 11%, respectively. Monitor units required for treatment delivery increased with VMAT by 41%, but decreased with DCAT by 26%. VMAT and DCAT provided improved dose distributions to the PTV, but only VMAT was consistently superior in sparing dose to OARs in all the five lobes. DCAT should still remain an alternative to 3D CRT in facilities that do not have VMAT or intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) capabilities.

PACS numbers: 87.53.Ly, 87.55.dk, 87.55.D‐

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

The comparison of the pencil beam dose calculation algorithm with modified Batho heterogeneity correction (PBC-MB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and the mutual comparison of advanced dose calculation algorithms used in breast radiotherapy have focused on the differences between the physical dose distributions. Studies on the radiobiological impact of the algorithm (both on the tumor control and the moderate breast fibrosis prediction) are lacking. We, therefore, investigated the radiobiological impact of the dose calculation algorithm in whole breast radiotherapy. The clinical dose distributions of 30 breast cancer patients, calculated with PBC-MB, were recalculated with fixed monitor units using more advanced algorithms: AAA and Acuros XB. For the latter, both dose reporting modes were used (i.e., dose-to-medium and dose-to-water). Next, the tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of each dose distribution were calculated with the Poisson model and with the relative seriality model, respectively. The endpoint for the NTCP calculation was moderate breast fibrosis five years post treatment. The differences were checked for significance with the paired t-test. The more advanced algorithms predicted a significantly lower TCP and NTCP of moderate breast fibrosis then found during the corresponding clinical follow-up study based on PBC calculations. The differences varied between 1% and 2.1% for the TCP and between 2.9% and 5.5% for the NTCP of moderate breast fibrosis. The significant differences were eliminated by determination of algorithm-specific model parameters using least square fitting. Application of the new parameters on a second group of 30 breast cancer patients proved their appropriateness. In this study, we assessed the impact of the dose calculation algorithms used in whole breast radiotherapy on the parameters of the radiobiological models. The radiobiological impact was eliminated by determination of algorithm specific model parameters.

Effect of Acuros XB algorithm on monitor units for stereotactic body radiotherapy planning of lung cancer

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a curative regimen that uses hypofractionated radiation-absorbed dose to achieve a high degree of local control in early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the presence of heterogeneities, the dose calculation for the lungs becomes challenging. We have evaluated the dosimetric effect of the recently introduced advanced dose-calculation algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), for SBRT of NSCLC. A total of 97 patients with early-stage lung cancer who underwent SBRT at our cancer center during last 4 years were included. Initial clinical plans were created in Aria Eclipse version 8.9 or prior, using 6 to 10 fields with 6-MV beams, and dose was calculated using the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) as implemented in Eclipse treatment planning system. The clinical plans were recalculated in Aria Eclipse 11.0.21 using both AAA and AXB algorithms. Both sets of plans were normalized to the same prescription point at the center of mass of the target. A secondary monitor unit (MU) calculation was performed using commercial program RadCalc for all of the fields. For the planning target volumes ranging from 19 to 375cm(3), a comparison of MUs was performed for both set of algorithms on field and plan basis. In total, variation of MUs for 677 treatment fields was investigated in terms of equivalent depth and the equivalent square of the field. Overall, MUs required by AXB to deliver the prescribed dose are on an average 2% higher than AAA. Using a 2-tailed paired t-test, the MUs from the 2 algorithms were found to be significantly different (p < 0.001). The secondary independent MU calculator RadCalc underestimates the required MUs (on an average by 4% to 5%) in the lung relative to either of the 2 dose algorithms.