Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm Research Articles

Dose Calculation Comparisons between Three Modern Treatment Planning Systems.

Purpose:Monaco treatment planning system (TPS) version 5.1 uses a Monte-Carlo (MC)-based dose calculation engine. The aim of this study is to verify and compare the Monaco-based dose calculations with both Pinnacle3 collapsed cone convolution superposition (CCCS) and Eclipse anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) calculations.Materials and Methods:For this study, 18 previously treated lung and head-and-neck (HN) cancer patients were chosen to compare the dose calculations between Pinnacle, Monaco, and Eclipse. Plans were chosen from those that had been treated using the Elekta VersaHD or a Novalis Tx linac. All of the treated volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans used 6 MV or 10 MV photon beams. The original plans calculated with CCCS or AAA along with the recalculated ones using MC from the three TPS were exported into Velocity software for intercomparison.Results:To compare the dose calculations, Planning target volume (PTV) heterogeneity indexes and conformity indexes were calculated from the dose volume histograms (DVH) of all plans. While mean lung dose (MLD), lung V5 and V20 values were recorded for lung plans, the computed dose to parotids, brainstem, and mandible were documented for HN plans. In plan evaluation, percent differences of the above dosimetric values in Monaco computation were compared against each of the other TPS computations.Conclusion:It could be concluded through this research that there can be differences in the calculation of dose across different TPSs. Although relatively small, these differences could become apparent when compared using DVH. These differences most likely arise from the different dose calculation algorithms used in each TPS. Monaco employs the MC allowing it to have much more detailed calculations that result in it being seen as the most accurate and the gold standard.

Ipsilateral lung normal tissue complication probability parameters for different dose calculation algorithms in radiotherapy of breast cancer.

Different dose calculation algorithms (DCAs) predict different dose distributions for the same treatment. Awareness of optimal model parameters is vital for estimating normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for different algorithms. The aim is to determine the NTCP parameter values for different DCAs in left-sided breast radiotherapy, using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. First, the methodology recommended by International Atomic Energy Agency TEC-DOC 1583 was used to establish the accuracy of dose calculations of different DCAs including: Monte Carlo (MC) and collapsed cone algorithms implemented in Monaco, pencil beam convolution (PBC) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) implemented in Eclipse, and superposition and Clarkson algorithms implemented in PCRT3D treatment planning systems (TPSs). Then, treatment planning of 15 patients with left-sided breast cancer was performed by the mentioned DCAs and NTCP of the left-lung normal tissue were calculated for each patient individually, using the LKB model. For the PB algorithm, the NTCP parameters were taken from previously published values and new model parameters obtained for each DCA, using the iterative least squares methods. For all cases and DCAs, NTCP computation with the same model parameters resulted in >15% deviation in NTCP values. The new NTCP model parameters were classified according to the algorithm type. Thus, the discrepancy of NTCP computations was reduced up to 5% after utilizing adjusted model parameters. This paper confirms that the NTCP values for a given treatment type are different for the different DCAs. Thus, it is essential to introduce appropriate NTCP parameter values according to DCA adopted in TPS, to obtain a more precise estimation of lung NTCP. Hence, new parameter values, classified according to the DCAs, must be determined before introducing NTCP estimation in clinical practice.

Peripheral Photon Doses from Different Techniques Delivered in Prostate Radiotherapy: Experimental Measurements and TPS Calculations.

Advanced techniques and modalities in delivering radiotherapy improved the ability of delivering higher tumor doses while minimizing dose to the critical organs. The aim of this work is to determine experimentally out-of-field doses associated with these modern radiotherapy techniques for actual clinical case of prostate carcinoma and intercompare it with the treatment planning system (TPS) calculations. Three prostate treatment plans of the intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), RapidArc, and the Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT) techniques were delivered to an anthropomorphic phantom using 6 MV photons beams produced from a UNIQUE linear accelerator. The out-of-field surface doses at various distances from the isocenter and peripheral doses to organs at risk (OARs) were measured using the thermoluminescent detectors (TLD-700) then compared to the calculated doses from the used commercial Eclipse TPS version 11. The two implemented algorithms in the Eclipse TPS (analytical anisotropic algorithm, AAA and the Acuros XB algorithm, AXB) underestimated the surface out-of-field doses by a maximum average deviation of 49% till the distance of 15 cm from the isocenter reported to the 3D-CRT technique. IMRT and RA techniques were more precise than 3D-CRT in tumor coverage and sparing of OARs but resulted in larger peripheral photon doses. RA technique has the advantage of less treatment time than IMRT technique and also produce less peripheral photon doses because it uses fewer monitor units. Our results show that although AXB algorithm is significantly faster in dose calculations than AAA algorithm especially in modern techniques, but less accurate in estimating the out-of-field doses.

Monte Carlo simulation using PRIMO code as a tool for checking the credibility of commissioning and quality assurance of 6 MV TrueBeam STx varian LINAC.

To validate and implement Monte Carlo simulation using PRIMO code as a tool for checking the credibility of measurements in LINAC initial commissioning and routine Quality Assurance (QA). Relative and absolute doses of 6MV photon beam from TrueBeam STx Varian Linear Accelerator (LINAC) were simulated and validated with experimental measurement, Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) calculation, and golden beam. Varian phase-space files were imported to the PRIMO code and four blocks of jaws were simulated to determine the field size of the photon beam. Water phantom was modeled in the PRIMO code with water equivalent density. Golden beam data, experimental measurement, and AAA calculation results were imported to PRIMO code for gamma comparison. PRIMO simulations of Percentage Depth Dose (PDD) and in-plane beam profiles had good agreement with experimental measurements, AAA calculations and golden beam. However, PRIMO simulations of cross-plane beam profiles have a better agreement with AAA calculation and golden beam than the experimental measurement. Furthermore, PRIMO simulations of absolute dose agreed well with experimental results with ±0.8% uncertainty. The PRIMO code has good accuracy and is appropriate for use as a tool to check the credibility of beam scanning and output measurement in initial commissioning and routine QA.

Benchmarking techniques for stereotactic body radiotherapy for early-stage glottic laryngeal cancer: LINAC-based non-coplanar VMAT vs. Cyberknife planning

IntroductionStereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) was found effective in treating laryngeal cancer with only five treatment fractions by a recent clinical trial (NCT01984502, ClinicalTrials.gov). Nevertheless, this trial used the Cyberknife system, which is not widely accessible enough to benefit all patients affected by laryngeal cancer. Our study investigates the feasibility of larynx SBRT treatment planning on a conventional gantry-based LINAC and compares its plan quality with that from the Cyberknife.Materials & methodsTen larynx SBRT cases were originally treated by Cyberknife using fixed cones in our institution, with plans created and optimized using the Monte-Carlo algorithm in the MultiPlan treatment planning system. These cases were retrospectively planned in the Eclipse planning system for a LINAC with the same prescription dose. We used volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) for larynx SBRT planning in Eclipse and incorporated non-coplanar arcs to approach the Cyberknife’s large solid angle delivery space. We used both anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm for dose calculation and compared their accuracy by measurements on an in-house larynx phantom. We compared the LINAC VMAT plans (VMAT-AAA and VMAT-AXB) with the original Cyberknife plans using dosimetric endpoints such as the conformity index, gradient indices (R50, R20), OAR maximum/mean doses, and the monitor units.ResultsPhantom measurement showed that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms provided adequate dose calculation accuracy (94.7% gamma pass rate on 2%/2 mm criteria for AAA vs. 97.3% for AXB), though AXB provided better accuracy in the air cavity. The LINAC-based VMAT plans achieved similar dosimetric endpoints as the Cyberknife planning, and all plans met the larynx SBRT dosimetric constraints. Cyberknife plans achieved an average conformity index of 1.13, compared to 1.20 of VMAT-AXB and 1.19 of VMAT-AAA. The VMAT plans spared the thyroid gland better with average Dmean of 2.4 Gy (VMAT-AXB) and 2.7 Gy (VMAT-AAA), as compared to 4.3 Gy for Cyberknife plans. The VMAT-AAA plans had a slightly lower contralateral arytenoid Dmax (average: 15.2 Gy) than Cyberknife plans (average: 17.9 Gy) with statistical significance, while the contralateral arytenoid Dmax was similar between VMAT-AXB and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant difference. Cyberknife plans offered slightly better R50 (average: 5.0) than VMAT-AXB (5.9) and VMAT-AAA (5.7) plans. The VMAT plans substantially reduced the plan MUs to less than 1/3 of the Cyberknife plans, and the differences were statistically significant. The other metrics were similar between VMAT and Cyberknife plans with no statistically significant differences.ConclusionsGantry-based LINACs can achieve similar plan quality to Cyberknife systems. Treatment outcome with both methods remains to be investigated.

Dose distribution comparison in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique.

This study compared volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique (EBCT). Dose calculation algorisms for VMAT have limitations in the buildup region. Three VMAT plans were enrolled, with one case having a metal artifact from an artificial tooth. The proper dose was calculated using Eclipse version 11.0. The body contours were extended 2 cm outward from the skin surface in three-dimensional space, and the dose was recalculated with an anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB). Monitor units (MUs) were set, and the dose distributions in the planning target volume (PTV), clinical target volume, and organ at risk (OAR) and conformity index (CI) with and without an EBCT were compared. The influence of a metal artifact outside of the thermoplastic head mask was also compared. The coverage of PTV by the 95% dose line near the patient's skin was increased drastically by using an EBCT. Plan renormalization had a negligible impact on MUs and doses delivered to OARs. CI of PTV with a 6-MV photon beam was closer to 1 than that with a 10-MV photon beam when both AAA and AXB were used in all cases. Metal artifacts outside the head mask had no effect on dose distribution. An EBCT is needed to estimate the proper dose at object volumes near the patient's skin and can improve the accuracy of the calculated dose at target volumes.

Effect of beam configuration with inaccurate or incomplete small field output factors on the accuracy of treatment planning dose calculation.

To evaluate the effect of beam configuration with inaccurate or incomplete small field output factors on the accuracy of dose calculations in treatment planning systems. Output factors were measured using various detectors and for a range of field sizes. Three types of treatment machines were configured in two treatment planning systems. In the first (corrected) machine, the Exradin W1 scintillator was used to determine output factors. In the second (uncorrected) machine, the measured output factors by the A1SL ion chamber without considering output correction factors for small field sizes were utilized. In the third (clinical) machine, measured output factors by the Exradin W1 were used but not for field sizes smaller than 2×2cm2 . The dose computed by the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB (AXB) and collapsed cone convolution/superposition (CCC) algorithms in the three machines were delivered using static (jaw-, MLC-, and jaw/MLC-defined), and composite [intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)] fields. The differences between measured and calculated dose values were analyzed. For static fields, the percentage differences between measured and calculated doses by the three algorithms in three configured machines were <2% for field sizes larger than 2×2cm2 . In jaw- and jaw/MLC-defined fields smaller than 2×2cm2 , the corrected machine presented better agreement with measurement. Considering output correction factors in MLC-defined fields, among the three configured machines, the accuracy of calculation improved to within ±0.5%. For MLC-defined field size of 1×1cm2 , AXB showed the smallest percentage difference (1%). In IMRT and VMAT plans, the percentage differences between measured and calculated doses at the isocenter, as well as the gamma analysis of different plans, which include field sizes larger than 3×3cm2 , did not vary noticeably. For smaller field sizes, using the corrected machine influences dose calculation accuracy. Configuration with corrected output factors improves accuracy of dose calculation for static field sizes smaller than 2×2cm2 . For very small fields, the robustness of the dose calculation algorithm affects the accuracy of dose as well. In IMRT and VMAT plans, which include small subfields, the size of the jaw-defined field is an important factor and using corrected output factors increases dose calculation accuracy.

Effects of metal implants and a metal artifact reduction tool on calculation accuracy of AAA and Acuros XB algorithms in small fields.

In this study, the dosimetric accuracy of analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) was investigated for small radiation fields incident on phantoms of various metals that include stainless steel grade 316L (SS316L) and titanium alloy grade 5 (Ti5) implants. In addition, the effects of using metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR, Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH) were evaluated. The evaluations of AAA and AXB were performed by comparing the crossline profiles calculated by AAA and AXB with GafChromicTM EBT3 film measurements at the phantom-implant interfaces and in close vicinity of implant materials for small field sizes (1×1cm2 , 2×2cm2 , 3×3cm2 , and 4×4cm2 ) of a 6MV flattening filter free photon beam. O-MAR corrected and uncorrected (UC) computed tomography (CT) images were used for dose calculations. The values of average and standard deviations (SD) of Hounsfield unit (HU) for selected regions of each case were evaluated. The differences in average dose percentages in defined regions were calculated to quantify the relative dosimetric changes between doses calculated on UC and O-MAR corrected CT images. Compared to UC images, the values of SD were reduced, and the average HU became closer to its reference value in the O-MAR images. There was some discrepancy in average dose percentage differences between calculations using UC and O-MAR images at 1cm above the SS316L implant (average dose percentage differences were AXB/UC=5.9% and AXB/O-MAR=-1.2%; AAA/UC=2.2%, and AAA/O-MAR=-0.8%). Neither AAA nor AXB algorithms predict increase in dose at upper phantom-implant interface (4.9%, 9.9%. 13.5%, and 13.8% for the fields from 1×1cm2 to 4×4cm2 , respectively). At the side of the SS316L implant (where dark streak artifacts exist), dose difference averages were estimated as-1.1% and 22.3% when AXB/O-MAR and AXB/UC calculations are compared with EBT3 measurements, respectively. Dose predictions at 1cm below the SS316L implant were underestimated by AXB/O-MAR (average -0.5%) and AXB/UC (average 2.0%). The O-MAR tool was shown to have a favorable dosimetric effect or no effect on the calculations in the upper proximity of the implant materials. The dose differences between EBT3 film measurements and calculations at upper phantom-implant interfaces were smaller when they were calculated using O-MAR images. However, the dose differences increased when O-MAR corrected images were used for AAA calculations at lower phantom-implant interfaces. Use of O-MAR enabled closer agreement for the AXB algorithm, especially in the dark streak artifact regions. The O-MAR algorithm should be used when the dose is calculated with the AXB algorithm in cases of patients with the metal implants. The estimations using AAA and AXB algorithms, in phantom setups, with Ti5 implant material were found to be closer to the EBT3 film measurements, when compared with the same estimations using SS316L implant material.

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

In-field, partially in-field, and out-of-field organ doses calculated by the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) were compared with experimentally measured data for two different techniques of whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT). The field-in-field conformal radiotherapy (FIF) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were calculated by AAA and dose-to-water (Dw) and dose-to-medium (Dm) options used by AXB. In field (planning target volume (PTV)), partially in-field (ipsilateral lung, heart, left ascending coronary artery (LAD)), and out-of-field (contralateral lung and contralateral breast) organ at risk (OAR) doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and EBT3 films in an anthropomorphic phantom. Furthermore, target dose differences between AAA and AXB were analyzed for the corresponding real patients. For the verification of planar dose distribution in PTV, the percentages of pixels that passed the gamma analysis with the ± 3%/3mm criteria were 93.5%, 93.9%, and 99.0% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively, averaged over all IMRT and FIF plans. For the verification of point doses within the target using TLD in the randophantom, the max percentage deviations between the calculated and measured data when averaged over all IMRT and FIF plans were 6.8%, 4.7%, and 3.9% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively. When using the Eclipse TPS for breast cancer, AXB should be used instead of the AAA algorithm, bearing in mind that the AXB may still overestimate all OARs doses.

Which Dose Specification Should Be Used for NRG Radiation Therapy Trials: Dose-to-Medium or Dose-to-Water?

PurposeTo compare the doses calculated by the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), Acuros dose-to-medium, and Acuros dose-to-water for the patients with lung cancer treated at our institution and show that further investigation and clarification are needed about what dose specifications should be used for NRG clinical trials. Methods and MaterialsTwenty-one patients with lung cancer who previously received intensity modulated radiation therapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy–based treatments at our institution were analyzed by recalculating their plans for each one with the AAA algorithm (reviewed and approved by our radiation oncologists) and with both reporting modes of the Acuros algorithm. All plans used the same monitor units as the original approved plan and a 2.5-mm grid size. For each patient, D100 of clinical target volume (CTV) and CTV coverage ratios in each plan were compared, and dose distributions and dose-volume histograms calculated by AAA, Acuros dose-to-water (Dw,m), and Acuros dose-to-medium (Dm,m) were compared as well. ResultsDifferences between CTV D100 calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m were larger than the differences between AAA and Acuros XB Dw,m for all patients. When D100 of CTV was evaluated, the largest difference between AAA and Acuros Dm,m was 14.12% and between AAA and Acuros XB Dw,m was 3.68%. The average differences between the CTV D100 calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m was 5.39%. Coverage ratio between Acuros Dm,m and AAA ranges from 51.08% to 100% with an average of 91.32%; coverage ratio between Acuros Dw,m and AAA ranges from 87.2% to 100.41% with average of 98.94%; coverage ratio between Acuros Dm,m and Acuros Dw,m ranges from 58.58% to 100% with an average of 92.03%. ConclusionsThe present study shows large and systematic differences in doses calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m. Therefore, further investigation and clarification are needed about which dose reporting mode should be used.

Impact of choice of dose calculation algorithm on PTV and OAR doses in lung SBRT

Five dose calculation algorithms commonly used in lung SBRT planning are evaluated for their dosimetric impact on planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) doses. Treatment plans for thirty lung SBRT patients were included in this multi-institutional planning study. Lung SBRT plans were initially generated using BrainLab Pencil Beam (PB) convolution algorithm to deliver 50 Gy in 5 fractions to PTV (PB_OP plans). Plans were recalculated using BrainLab Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm with the same beam parameters, field settings, and MUs (MC_NO plans) to investigate accuracy limits of PB plans. Next, these plans were re-optimized via MU scaling in MC algorithm while keeping original beam parameters and settings (MC_OP). Further, with these new MUs, all patient plans were recalculated with Pinnacle collapsed cone convolution superposition (CCC), Eclipse anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA), and Eclipse Acuros XB (AXB) algorithms, and are referred to as AP_NO, AAA_NO, and AXB_NO plans, respectively. DVH of PTV and OARs were used to calculate dosimetric parameters for comparison with MC_OP plans. Patient plans were compared based on PTV size as well as the location in the lung: island targets, adjacent to the ribs/chest wall, or mixed. Lung SBRT plans using PB dose algorithm overestimated target doses by 10–20% of prescribed dose and these differences were highlighted mainly in the target periphery/dose-buildup region as seen in Dmin and D90. Compared with MC, both Pinnacle and AAA plans overestimated PTV dose in the penumbra region, whereas Acuros plans were in good agreement with MC plans. PTV dose differences ranged 3–5% among Pinnacle, AAA, and Acuros. In general, Acuros AXB performed well for adjacent and mixed targets near the ribs and chest wall, whereas Pinnacle CCC was favored for island targets. OAR Dmax and lung V20 were better reproduced in Pinnacle, whereas Dmean were comparable among all TPS. Knowing the strengths and limitations of clinical treatment planning system allows more consistent and accurate dose comparison for patients enrolled in protocol studies.

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

PurposesThe 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 MethodsThirty-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 Dmin, Dmax, Dmean, homogeneity index (HI), and Paddick conformity index (CI).ResultsAXB 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 Dmin of PTV compared with other two algorithms (For Dmin of PTV, AXB vs AAA vs PBC=4048cGy vs 4365Gy vs 4873Gy, P<0.05). PBC induced the enhanced trend of Dmax of PTV compared with other two algorithms (Dmax among three algorithms, P>0.05); and increased the Dmean of PTV in three algorithms with significant difference (For Dmean 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).ConclusionFor SBRT plan of NSCLC, AAA and PBC algorithms overestimate target coverage, AXB algorithm is recommended for the SBRT plan of NSCLC.

The effects of the orthopedic metal artifact reduction (O-MAR) algorithm on contouring and dosimetry of head and neck radiotherapy patients

Metallic objects, such as dental fillings, cause artifacts in computed tomography (CT) scans. We quantify the contouring and dosimetric effects of Orthopedic Metal Artifact Reduction (O-MAR), in head and neck radiotherapy.The ease of organ contouring was assessed by having a radiation oncologist identify the CT data set with or without O-MAR for each of 28 patients that was easier to contour. The effect on contouring was quantified further by having the physician recontour parotid glands, previously drawn by him on the O-MAR scans, on uncorrected scans, and calculating the Dice coefficent (a measure of overlap) for the contours.Radiotherapy plans originally generated on scans reconstructed with O-MAR were recalculated on scans without metal artifact correction. The study was done using the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) dose calculation algorithm. The 15 patients with a planning target volume (PTV) extending to the same slice as the artifacts were used for this part of the study.The normal tissue doses were not significantly affected. The PTV mean dose and V95 were not affected, but the cold spots became less severe in the O-MAR corrected plans, with the minimum point dose on average being 4.1% higher. In 79% of the cases, the radiation oncologist identified the O-MAR scan as easier to contour; in 11% he chose the uncorrected scan and in 11% the scans were judged to have equal quality. A total of nine parotid glands (on both scans—18 contours in total) in 5 patients were recontoured. The average Dice coefficient for parotids drawn with and without O-MAR was found to be 0.775 +/− 0.045.The O-MAR algorithm does not produce a significant dosimetric effect in head and neck plans when using the AAA dose calculation algorithm. It can therefore be used for improved contouring accuracy without updating the critical structure tolerance doses and target coverage expectations.

Modeling AeroForm tissue expander for postmastectomy radiation therapy.

The AeroForm chest wall tissue expander (TE) is a silicon shell containing a metallic CO2 reservoir, placed surgically after mastectomy. The patient uses a remote control to release compressed CO2 from the reservoir to inflate the expander. AeroForm poses challenges in a radiation therapy setting: The high density of the metallic reservoir causes imaging artifacts on the planning CT, which encumber structure definition and cause misrepresentation of density information, in turn affecting dose calculation. Additionally, convolution‐based dose calculation algorithms may not be well‐suited to calculate dose in and around high‐density materials. In this study, a model of the AeroForm TE was created in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). The TPS model was validated by comparing measured to calculated transmission through the AeroForm. Transmission was measured with various geometries using radiochromic film. Dose was calculated with both Varian’s Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB) algorithms. AAA and AXB were compared using dose profile and gamma analyses. While both algorithms modeled direct transmission well, AXB better modeled lateral scatter from the AeroForm TE. Clinical significance was evaluated using clinical data from four patients with AeroForm TEs. The AeroForm TPS model was applied, and RT plans were optimized using AAA, then re‐calculated with AXB. Structures of clinical significance were defined and dose volume histogram analysis was performed. Compared to AXB, AAA overestimates dose in the AeroForm device. Changes in clinically significant regions were patient‐ and plan‐specific. This study proposes a clinical procedure for modeling the AeroForm in a commercial TPS, and discusses the limitations of dose calculation in and around the device. An understanding of dose calculation accuracy in the vicinity of the AeroForm is critical for assessing individual plan quality, appropriateness of different planning techniques and dose calculation algorithms, and even the decision to use the AeroForm in a postmastectomy radiation therapy setting.

Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms Accuracy for Eclipse, PCRT3D, and Monaco Treatment Planning Systems Using IAEA TPS commissioning tests in a Heterogeneous Phantom

Introduction: The accuracy of dose calculation algorithm (DCA) is highly considered in the radiotherapy sequences. This study aims at assessing the accuracy of five dose calculation algorithms in tissue inhomogeneity corrections, based on the International Atomic Energy Agency TEC-DOC 1583. Material and Methods: A heterogeneous phantom was scanned using computed tomography and tests were planned on three-dimensional treatment planning systems (3D TPSs) based on IAEA TEC-DOC 1583.Doseswere measured for 6- and 18-MV photon beams with ion chambers and then the deviation between measured and calculated TPS doses were reported. The evaluated five DCAs include Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm employed by Monaco, pencil beam convolution (PBC) and anisotropic analytical algorithms (AAA) employed by Eclipse and Superposition (SP), and Clarkson algorithms employed by PCRT3D TPSs. Results: In Clarkson algorithm, low and high energy photons indicated 7.1% and 14.8% deviations out of agreement criteria, respectively. The SP, AAA, and PBC algorithms indicated 0.9%, 7.4%, and 13.8% for low energy photon and 9.5%, 21.3%, and 23.2% for high energy photon deviations out of agreement criteria, respectively. However, MC algorithm showed 1.8% and less than 1% deviations at high and low energy photons, respectively. Conclusion: The DCAs had different levels of accuracy in TPSs. Some simple DCAs, such as Clarkson, showed large deviations in some cases. Therefore, the transition to more advanced algorithms, such as MC would be desirable, particularly for the calculation in the presence of inhomogeneity or high energy beams.

Comparison of five dose calculation algorithms in a heterogeneous media using design of experiment

PurposeDesign of experiments (DoE) provides a methodology to reveal the influence of input values on the measured output with a limited number of trials. The purpose of this study was to describe how DoE can be used to evaluate the performances of several dose calculation systems in heterogeneous media, including algorithms like Pencil Beam (PB), Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB (AXB), Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Volume (CCV). MethodThis study was carried out using a CIRS Model 002LFC IMRT Thorax Phantom customized with a water-equivalent heterogeneity inside the lung. The calculated dose distributions were compared to Gafchromic® EBT3 film measurements. The beam configurations were selected using DoE to study the influence of five parameters simultaneously (energy, collimator angulation, gantry angulation, X and Y jaws) and to optimize the number of experiments. An analysis of variance was performed over the entire irradiation field and over various regions of interest (tumour, shadow of tumour and lungs). ResultsDoE enabled to quantify and determine the statistically significant factors, leading to an evaluation of the dose calculation systems in the lung case. The resulting scoring could be as follow (from best to worst): AXB_Dm, CCV, AXB_Dw, XVMC_Dm, XVMC_Dw, AAA and last PB. Differences between the algorithms were specially observed in the tumour and the shadow regions. ConclusionDoE is a robust statistical method to compare several dose calculation systems. The various analyses lead to the conclusion that AXB handled more accurately most of the situations investigated in heterogeneous media.

Measurements of Photon Beam Flattening Filter Using an Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and Electron Beam Employing Electron Monte Carlo

Introduction: This study aimed to report the measurement of photon and electron beams to configure the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm and Electron Monte Carlo used in clinical treatment. Material and Methods: All measurements were performed in a large water phantom using a 3-dimensional scanning system (PTW, Germany). For photon beams, the data were measured with a 0.125cc cylindrical chamber. For electron, the data were performed with a Roos chamber. Results: In photon beams, flatness and symmetry for reference field size 10×10cm2 were within the tolerance intervals. Flatness were 0.79% and 1.55% for X6MV and X18MV, respectively. Symmetry were 0.57 and 0.25 for X6MV and X18MV, respectively. The output factor vary between 0.83 and 1.11 for X6MV. Moreover, it varies between 0.74 and 1.09 for X18MV. The leaf transmission factors were 0.97% for X6MV and1.14% for X18MV. The DLG were 1.31 and 1.34 for X6MV and X18MV, respectively. For electron beams, the quality index R50 for applicator 15×15cm2 were in the tolerance. Maximum depth dose for 6, 9, 12, 16 and 20MeV were 1.2, 1.9, 2.7, 2.99 and 2.4cm, respectively. Bremsstrahlung tail were 6MeV–2.86cm, 9MeV–4.32cm, 12MeV–5.96cm, 16MeV–7.93cm, and 20MeV–10.08cm per energy levels. Conclusion: The obtained results and international recommendations were in a good agrement

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

AbstractBackground:An increasing number of external beam treatment modalities including intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic radiosurgery uses very small fields for treatment planning and delivery. However, there are major challenges in small photon field dosimetry, due to the partial occlusion of the direct photon beam source’s view from the measurement point, lack of lateral charged particle equilibrium, steep dose-rate gradient and volume averaging effect of the detector response and variation of the energy fluence in the lateral direction of the beam. Therefore, experimental measurements of dosimetric parameters such as percent depth doses (PDDs), beam profiles and relative output factors (ROFs) for small fields continue to be a challenge.Materials and Methods:In this study, we used a homogeneous water phantom and the heterogeneous anthropomorphic stereotactic end-to-end verification (STEEV) head phantom for all dose measurements and calculations. PDDs, lateral dose profiles and ROFs were calculated in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System version 13·6 using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithms (AAAs) in a homogenous water phantom. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements using the Exradin W1 Scintillator were also accomplished for four photon energies: 6 MV, 6FFF, 10 MV and 10FFF. Two VMAT treatment plans were generated for two different targets: one located in the brain and the other in the neck (close to the trachea) in the head phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA). A Varian Truebeam linear accelerator (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for all treatment deliveries. Calculated results with AXB and AAA were compared with MC simulations and measurements.Results:The average difference of PDDs between W1 Exradin Scintillator measurements and MC simulations, AAA and AXB algorithm calculations were 1·2, 2·4 and 3·2%, respectively, for all field sizes and energies. AXB and AAA showed differences in ROF of about 0·3 and 2·9%, respectively, compared with W1 Exradin Scintillator measured values. For the target located in the brain in the head phantom, the average dose difference between W1 Exradin Scintillator and the MC simulations, AAA and AXB were 0·2, 3·2 and 2·7%, respectively, for all field sizes. Similarly, for the target located in the neck, the respective dose differences were 3·8, 5·7 and 3·5%.Conclusion:In this study, we compared dosimetric parameters such as PDD, beam profile and ROFs in water phantom and isocenter point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic head phantom representing a patient. We observed that measurements using the W1 Exradin scintillator agreed well with MC simulations and can be used efficiently for dosimetric parameters such as PDDs and dose profiles and patient-specific quality assurance measurements for small fields. In both homogenous and heterogeneous media, the AXB algorithm dose prediction agrees well with MC and measurements and was found to be superior to the AAA algorithm.

Investigation of AAA dose calculation algorithm accuracy in surface and buildup region for 6MV photon beam using markus parallel-plate ion chamber.

In radiotherapy, dose distributions are obtained by using dose calculation algorithms that are implanted in treatment planning systems (TPS). This study aims to compare the surface doses of separate field sizes calculated by different version of The Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and measured by the parallel-plate ion chamber that is admitted as the most reliable dosimetry system for the surface region dose measurements. In order to measure the near surface dose, water equivalent solid phantom was used and measurements were made for 6MV photon beam at 100 cm source-detector distance for 5×5, 10×10, and 20×20 cm2 field sizes. AAA 8.9 and AAA 15.1 versions of the Varian Eclipse TPS were used for surface dose calculations by generating beams with separate field sizes. The doses were read by considering the effective buildup thickness of Markus parallel-plate ion chamber. The surface doses using 6 MV photon beams for 10×10 cm2 field size at 0.07 mm were found to be 11.04%, 26.25%, and 19.69% for AAA v8.9, AAA v15.1 and Markus chamber, respectively. It was seen that for both of the AAA versions and Markus parallel-plate ion chamber, increasing field sizes also increase surface dose. For all field sizes, surface dose was lowest by using AAA v8.9 at 0.07 mm. The different versions of the same TPS algorithms may calculate the surface doses distinctively. After upgrading of TPS algorithms, surface doses should be calculated and compared by measurements with different dosimetry systems to better understand their calculation behaviors in the near surface region.

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).

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). 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. 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. 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. 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.