The impact of dose calculation algorithm for SBRT lung cancer radiotherapy treatment

In this study, dose prediction accuracy of Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithm beyond air gap thickness (range 2, 4, and 6 cm) in simple inhomogeneous phantoms was investigated. The evaluation of AXB was performed by comparing the doses calculated by AXB with the doses calculated by Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and the measured data for different field sizes (3 × 3, 5 × 5, and 10 × 10 cm2) of a 6 MV photon beam. The dose computation was performed within Eclipse treatment planning system, and measurements were acquired with a cylindrical ionization chamber. Central axis depth dose comparisons were done in solid–water material region up to 5 cm distance from air/solid—water interface. The results of AXB had better agreement with measurements at all measured points than that of AAA. The discrepancies between AXB and measured data were seen from − 3.81% to + 0.9%, whereas the AAA differences with measurement from − 3.1% to − 10.9%. The combination of the smallest test field size and the largest air gap produced the highest range (1-5 cm distance from air/solid–water interface) in dose difference (AAA: −4.0% to − 10.6% and AXB: −3.8% to + 0.6%). The AAA computational time was about 8 times faster than that of AXB. In conclusion, AXB is more appropriate to use for dose predictions, especially when low-density heterogeneities are involved.

Purpose: The dosimetric accuracy of the recently released Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) is investigated for single radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries, as well as for two arc (VMAT) cases and compared against the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), the collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm (CCCS) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculations for the same geometries. Methods and Materials: Small open fields ranging from 1 × 1 cm2 to 5 × 5 cm2 were used for part of this study. The fields were incident on phantoms containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB, AAA and CCCS in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc calculations that were considered as the benchmark. Furthermore, two clinical cases of arc deliveries were used to test the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithms against MC. Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement between all dose calculation algorithms and MC. The dose agreement was +/?1.5% for all field sizes and energies. Dose calculation in heterogenous phantoms showed that the agreement between Acuros XB and CCCS was within 2% in the case of lung and bone. AAA calculations showed deviation of approximately 5%. In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for all calculations algorithms. The calculation in the patient CT for a lung and bone (paraspinal targets) showed that all dose calculation algorithms predicted the dose in the middle of the target accurately; however, small differences (2% - 5%) were observed at the low dose region. Overall, when compared to MC, the Acuros XB and CCCS had better agreement than AAA. Conclusions: The Acuros XB calculation algorithm in the newest version of the Eclipse treatment planning system is an improvement over the existing AAA algorithm. The results are comparable to CCCS and MC calculations especially for both stylized and clinical cases. Dose discrepancies were observed for extreme cases in the presence of air inhomogeneities.

To evaluate dose differences predicted between using Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) in patients diagnosed with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A phantom study was done to evaluate the dose prediction accuracy of AXB and AAA beyond low-density medium by comparing the calculated measurement results. Thirty-two advanced NSCLC patients were subjected to IMRT. The dose regimen was 60 Gy over 30 fractions. Effects on planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated. Clinically acceptable treatment plans with AAA were re-calculated using AXB algorithms with two modes Dw and Dm at the same beam arrangements and multileaf collimator leaf settings as with AAA. Using AXB yielded better agreement with the measurements and the average dose difference for all points was about 0.5%. Conversely, using AAA showed a larger disagreement with measured values and the average difference was up to 5.9%. The maximum relative difference was between AXB_Dm and AAA for PTV dose (D98%). The percentage dose differences of plans calculated by AAA, AXB_Dw and AAA, AXB_Dm revealed that AAA overestimated the dose than AXB. Regarding OAR, results showed significant difference for lungs-PTV. AXB algorithm yields more accurate dose prediction than AAA in heterogeneous medium. Differences in dose distribution are observed when plans re-calculated with AXB indicating that AAA apparently overestimates dose, particularly the PTV dose. Thus, AXB algorithm should be used in preference to AAA for cases in which PTVs are involved with tissues of highly different densities, such as lung.

The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 0813 protocol requires the use of dose calculation algorithms with tissue heterogeneity corrections to compute dose on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) plans. A new photon dose calculation algorithm called Acuros XB (AXB) has recently been implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The main purpose of this study was to compare the dosimetric results of AXB with that of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for RTOG 0813 parameters. Additionally, phantom study was done to evaluate the dose prediction accuracy of AXB and AAA beyond low‐density medium of different thicknesses by comparing the calculated results with the measurements. For the RTOG dosimetric study, 14 clinically approved SBRT NSCLC cases were included. The planning target volume (PTV) ranged from 3.2‐43.0 cc. RapidArc treatment plans were generated in the Eclipse TPS following RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria, and treatment plans were calculated using AAA with heterogeneity correction (AAA plans). All the AAA plans were then recalculated using AXB with heterogeneity correction (AXB plans) for identical beam parameters and same number of monitor units. The AAA and AXB plans were compared for following RTOG 0813 parameters: ratio of prescription isodose volume to PTV (R100%), ratio of 50% prescription isodose volume to PTV (R50%), maximal dose 2 cm from the PTV in any direction as a percentage of prescription dose (D2cm), and the percentage of ipsilateral lung receiving dose equal to or larger than 20 Gy (V20). The phantom study showed that the results of AXB had better agreement with the measurements, and the difference ranged from −1.7% to 2.8%. The AAA results showed larger disagreement with the measurements, with differences from 4.1% to 12.5% for field size 5×5 cm2 and from 1.4% to 6.8% for field size 10×10 cm2. The results from the RTOG SBRT lung cases showed that, on average, the AXB plans produced lower values for R100%, R50%, and D2cm by 4.96%, 1.15%, and 1.60%, respectively, but higher V20 of ipsilateral lung by 1.09% when compared with AAA plans. In the set of AAA plans, minor deviation was seen for R100% (six cases), R50% (nine cases), D2cm (four cases), and V20 (one case). Similarly, the AXB plans also showed minor deviation for R100% (one case), R50% (eight cases), D2cm (three cases), and V20 (one case). The dosimetric results presented in the current study show that both the AXB and AAA can meet the RTOG 0813 dosimetric criteria.PACS number: 87.55.D‐, 87.55.dk, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km

Purpose: Acuros XB (AXB), a novel deterministic dose calculation algorithm based on grid‐based Boltzmann transport equation solver (GBBS), was recently implemented in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The purposes of this study were to verify the dosimetric performance of AXB by (1) comparing measured and calculated data and (2) comparing AXB with the existing Eclipse anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA). Methods: Clinically equivalent intensity modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were created in Eclipse for the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) head and neck IMRT phantom using the RPC phantom dose prescription specifications. Each plan was calculated with two different algorithms, AXB 11.0.91 and AAA 10.0.24. Each treatment plan was delivered to the RPC phantom three times for reproducibility using a Varian Clinac21iX. Dose distributions were measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters(TLDs) and radiochromic film (GafChromic® EBT2). Gamma analysis (7%/4mmDTA) was used to quantify the agreement between AXB and AAA calculated dose distributions and those measured using films. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated. Results: In this study, good agreement was observed between measured and calculated doses both from AAA and AXB (dose‐to‐medium in medium). Comparing the calculations with TLD measurements, agreement for both AAA and AXB were < 5% (ranges from 0.2% to 4.6% for AAA, 0.1% to 3.6% for AXB) for IMRT and VMAT plans. The gamma analysis results for both AAA and AXB met the RPC 7%/4 mm criteria (over 90% passed). The AAA and AXB computation times were comparable for IMRT but AXB was ∼3 times faster than AAA for VMAT. Conclusions: The AXB was determined to be accurate using the RPC IMRT H&N phantom measurements and in good agreement with the AAA while having shorter calculation times for VMAT as compared to the AAA.

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). 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. 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. 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.

Purpose: To investigate potential dosimetrical differences between the Acuros XB (AXB) and AAA dose calculation algorithms, with a specific focus on lung SBRT treatments involving inherently high degrees of anatomical heterogeneity, small field sizes, and varying tumor locations relative to critical structures. Methods: A cohort of 20 SBRT patients treated in our clinic was selected to include varying lung tumor locations. For each patient, the Eclipse treatment planning system was employed to generate a lung SBRT plan using the AXB dose calculation algorithm, in addition to the AAA plan previously calculated for clinical use. The plans were then compared using common plan evaluation metrics. To assess the accuracies of the algorithms in a highly heterogeneous medium, identical AAA and AXB plans were delivered to a slab phantom consisting of solid water and a low-density insert representing lung. Field sizes of 3 × 3 cm through 12 × 12 cm were considered. The phantom dose was measured with OSLDs and radiochromic film and compared to the calculated dose distributions. Results: The average difference in mean PTV dose between the AAA and AXB plans, expressed as a percentage of the prescription dose, was 2.24% ± 1.58%. The differences in doses to critical structures were negligible. The OSLD and film measurements showed that the AXB dose calculations are more accurate in heterogeneous media. The difference between the algorithms became more significant as field size decreased. Using the same dose normalization, the conformity indices for the AAA plans were slightly closer to unity than the AXB plans. This was expected due to the higher dose calculation accuracy of AXB in heterogeneous media. Conclusion: Our results emphasize the importance of AXB for lung SBRT dose calculations due to its superiority in calculating dose for small lesions in heterogeneous tissue.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsTwenty 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.ResultsPTV dose was lower in the re-calculated AXB plans, as compared to AAA plans. The median differences of PTV(D95%) 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.ConclusionAAA 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.

The purpose of this research were to verify the accuracy of dose calculation by using the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) against measurements within an air cavity for small fields from a 6-MV flattening filter-free (FFF) beam. A rectangular slab phantom containing an air cavity was specially constructed for this study. Computed tomography (CT) image data sets were acquired with and without a film at four selected depths (4.5, 5.5, 6.5, and 7.5 cm) in the air cavity of the phantom for the dose calculation. The central-axis point dose (CAPD) and dose profile were measured with the film at selected depths for field sizes from 2 × 2 to 5 × 5 cm2 along the central-beam axis of a 6-MV FFF beam. The central-axis doses (CADs) and dose profiles calculated by using both the AAA and AXB were obtained by using an Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) under the same measurement conditions. The calculation algorithms were denoted as AXB_w and AAA_w when the film was included in an air cavity of the phantom and an AXB_w/o and AAA_w/o when no film was included. The accuracy of the CAD and dose profile calculated by using both algorithms were compared with the measured CAPD and dose profile, and their differences were evaluated by using root-mean square-error (RMSE) and gamma-index analyse. The percentage difference (%Diff) of the CAD calculated by using AXB w showed good agreement (within 5%) with the measured CAPD at selected depths in the air cavity. However, the corresponding values for the other algorithms, especially AAA_w and AAA_w/o appeared to exhibit relatively high disagreement. The maximum %Diffs between the calculated CAD and the measured CAPD were 4.8% and −39.4% for the AXB_w and AXB_w/o, respectively. The %Diffs increased with decreasing field size and increasing measurement depth. For the calculated and the measured dose profiles, the RMSE values for AXB_w were within 9.3 cGy in both the inner profile and the penumbra whereas the RMSE values for AAA_w produced a wide range (52.2 − 96.8 cGy). This study demonstrated that the dose calculated by using AXB was more accurate than that calculated by using the AAA when compared to the measured dose in the air cavity. In addition, we observed that AXB_w was superior to AXB_w/o in this region with respect to the measurements.

Dosimetric evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy of different algorithms for two different treatment techniques during whole breast irradiation

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). 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. 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. 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.

Dependence of volume dose indices on dose calculation algorithms for VMAT-SBRT plans for peripheral lung tumor

BackgroundTo compare the dosimetric effects of Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for postoperative prostate cancer patients irradiated using an endorectal balloon (ERB).MethodsWe measured central axis doses with film in a phantom containing an air cavity, and compared measurements with calculations of the AAA and AXB. For clinical study, 10 patients who had undergone whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) followed by prostatic bed-only radiotherapy (PBRT) using VMAT were enrolled. An ERB was used for PBRT but not for WPRT. To compare dosimetric parameters, the cumulative dose-volume histograms, mean, maximum, and minimum doses were measured for the planning target volume. Homogeneity of plans were confirmed using V95%, V107% (VX%, percentage volumes receiving at least X% of prescribed doses) and conformity indices (homogeneity index [HI], conformity index [CI], and conformation number [CN]). We compared volumes of the organ-at-risk receiving 10% to 100% (10-tier at 10% interval) of prescribed doses (V10% – V100%).ResultsIn the phantom study, the AAA showed larger disagreement with the measurements, and overestimated the dose in the air cavity, comparing with the AXB. For WPRT planning, the AAA predicted a lower maximum dose and V107% than the AXB. For PBRT planning, the AAA estimated a higher minimum dose, lower maximum dose, and smaller V107%, and larger V95% than the AXB. Regarding the conformity indices, the AAA was estimated to be more homogenous than the AXB for PBRT planning (HI, 0.088 vs. 0.120, p = 0.005; CI, 1.052 vs. 1.038, p = 0.022; and CN, 0.920 vs. 0.900, p = 0.007) but not for WPRT planning. Among V10% to V100% of the rectum, the PBRT exhibited significant discrepancies in V30%, V40%, V70%, V80%, and V90%; while the WPRT did in V20% and V30%.ConclusionsThe phantom study demonstrated that the AXB calculates more accurately in the air cavity than the AAA. In the clinical setting, the AXB exhibited different dosimetric distributions in the VMAT plans for PBRT containing an ERB. The AXB should be considered for prostate cancer patients irradiated with an ERB for better applying of heterogeneous condition.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-015-0346-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim:The study aims to compare the accuracy of Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms for radiotherapy (RT) planning of rectal tumors.Materials and Methods:Treatment plans from 20 patients with previously treated rectal cancer were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent VMAT treatment planning using the AAA algorithm in Eclipse (v15.6) system. These plans were recalculated with AXB in Eclipse (v15.6) while maintaining the original multileaf collimator fluence. Dosimetric parameters and gamma analysis (3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria) were compared between the two algorithms. A paired two-tailed t-test was used to statistically compare dosimetric and gamma analysis results between the AAA and AXB algorithms.Results:The results indicate that AAA could be potentially overestimating the dose to planning target volume (PTV). While the mean bowel dose was marginally lower in AAA plans (P = 0.013), doses to other organs at risk (OARs) were slightly higher, suggesting a general overestimation trend. This implies that AAA could be potentially overestimating the dose to OARs and PTV as compared to AXB. The statistical analysis of the Gamma parameters also shows a significant change.Conclusion:The results indicate that the dose calculation accuracy of AXB is superior to AAA for rectal cancer RT.

The deterministic Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was recently implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system. The goal of this study was to compare AXB performance to Monte Carlo (MC) and two standard clinical convolution methods: the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the collapsed-cone convolution (CCC) method. Homogeneous water and multilayer slab virtual phantoms were used for this study. The multilayer slab phantom had three different materials, representing soft tissue, bone, and lung. Depth dose and lateral dose profiles from AXB v10 in Eclipse were compared to AAA v10 in Eclipse, CCC in Pinnacle3, and EGSnrc MC simulations for 6 and 18 MV photon beams with open fields for both phantoms. In order to further reveal the dosimetric differences between AXB and AAA or CCC, three-dimensional (3D) gamma index analyses were conducted in slab regions and subregions defined by AAPM Task Group 53. The AXB calculations were found to be closer to MC than both AAA and CCC for all the investigated plans, especially in bone and lung regions. The average differences of depth dose profiles between MC and AXB, AAA, or CCC was within 1.1, 4.4, and 2.2%, respectively, for all fields and energies. More specifically, those differences in bone region were up to 1.1, 6.4, and 1.6%; in lung region were up to 0.9, 11.6, and 4.5% for AXB, AAA, and CCC, respectively. AXB was also found to have better dose predictions than AAA and CCC at the tissue interfaces where backscatter occurs. 3D gamma index analyses (percent of dose voxels passing a 2%/2 mm criterion) showed that the dose differences between AAA and AXB are significant (under 60% passed) in the bone region for all field sizes of 6 MV and in the lung region for most of field sizes of both energies. The difference between AXB and CCC was generally small (over 90% passed) except in the lung region for 18 MV 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 26% passed) and in the bone region for 5 x 5 and 10 x 10 cm2 fields (over 64% passed). With the criterion relaxed to 5%/2 mm, the pass rates were over 90% for both AAA and CCC relative to AXB for all energies and fields, with the exception of AAA 18 MV 2.5 x 2.5 cm2 field, which still did not pass. In heterogeneous media, AXB dose prediction ability appears to be comparable to MC and superior to current clinical convolution methods. The dose differences between AXB and AAA or CCC are mainly in the bone, lung, and interface regions. The spatial distributions of these differences depend on the field sizes and energies.