skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-E-T-122: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) Vs. Acuros XB (AXB) in Stereotactic Treatment Planning

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate dosimetric differences between superposition beam model (AAA) and determinant photon transport solver (AXB) in lung SBRT and Cranial SRS dose computations. Methods: Ten Cranial SRS and ten Lung SBRT plans using Varian, AAA -11.0 were re-planned using Acuros -XB-11.0 with fixed MU. 6MV photon Beam model with HD120-MLC used for dose calculations. Four non-coplanar conformal arcs used to deliver 21Gy or 18Gy to SRS targets (0.4 to 6.2cc). 54Gy (3Fractions) or 50Gy (5Fractions) was planned for SBRT targets (7.3 to 13.9cc) using two VAMT non-coplanar arcs. Plan comparison parameters were dose to 1% PTV volume (D1), dose to 99% PTV volume( D99), Target mean (Dmean), Conformity index (ratio of prescription isodose volume to PTV), Homogeneity Index [ (D2%-D98%)/Dmean] and R50 (ratio of 50% of prescription isodose volume to PTV). OAR parameters were Brain volume receiving 12Gy dose (V12Gy) and maximum dose (D0.03) to Brainstem for SRS. For lung SBRT, maximum dose to Heart and Cord, Mean lung dose (MLD) and volume of lung receiving 20Gy (V20Gy) were computed. PTV parameters compared by percentage difference between AXB and AAA parameters. OAR parameters and HI compared by absolute difference between two calculations. For analysis, paired t-test performed over themore » parameters. Results: Compared to AAA, AXB SRS plans have on average 3.2% lower D99, 6.5% lower CI and 3cc less Brain-V12. However, AXB SBRT plans have higher D1, R50 and Dmean by 3.15%, 1.63% and 2.5%. For SRS and SBRT, AXB plans have average HI 2 % and 4.4% higher than AAA plans. In both techniques, all other parameters vary within 1% or 1Gy. In both sets only two parameters have P>0.05. Conclusion: Even though t-test results signify difference between AXB and AAA plans, dose differences in dose estimations by both algorithms are clinically insignificant.« less

Authors:
;  [1]; ; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY (United States)
  2. (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22545248
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ALGORITHMS; ANISOTROPY; BRAIN; CALCULATION METHODS; HEART; LUNGS; PHOTON BEAMS; PHOTON TRANSPORT; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Mynampati, D, Scripes, P Godoy, Kuo, H, Yaparpalvi, R, Tome, W, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. SU-E-T-122: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) Vs. Acuros XB (AXB) in Stereotactic Treatment Planning. United States: N. p., 2015. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4924483.
Mynampati, D, Scripes, P Godoy, Kuo, H, Yaparpalvi, R, Tome, W, & Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. SU-E-T-122: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) Vs. Acuros XB (AXB) in Stereotactic Treatment Planning. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924483.
Mynampati, D, Scripes, P Godoy, Kuo, H, Yaparpalvi, R, Tome, W, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. Mon . "SU-E-T-122: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) Vs. Acuros XB (AXB) in Stereotactic Treatment Planning". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4924483.
@article{osti_22545248,
title = {SU-E-T-122: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) Vs. Acuros XB (AXB) in Stereotactic Treatment Planning},
author = {Mynampati, D and Scripes, P Godoy and Kuo, H and Yaparpalvi, R and Tome, W and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To evaluate dosimetric differences between superposition beam model (AAA) and determinant photon transport solver (AXB) in lung SBRT and Cranial SRS dose computations. Methods: Ten Cranial SRS and ten Lung SBRT plans using Varian, AAA -11.0 were re-planned using Acuros -XB-11.0 with fixed MU. 6MV photon Beam model with HD120-MLC used for dose calculations. Four non-coplanar conformal arcs used to deliver 21Gy or 18Gy to SRS targets (0.4 to 6.2cc). 54Gy (3Fractions) or 50Gy (5Fractions) was planned for SBRT targets (7.3 to 13.9cc) using two VAMT non-coplanar arcs. Plan comparison parameters were dose to 1% PTV volume (D1), dose to 99% PTV volume( D99), Target mean (Dmean), Conformity index (ratio of prescription isodose volume to PTV), Homogeneity Index [ (D2%-D98%)/Dmean] and R50 (ratio of 50% of prescription isodose volume to PTV). OAR parameters were Brain volume receiving 12Gy dose (V12Gy) and maximum dose (D0.03) to Brainstem for SRS. For lung SBRT, maximum dose to Heart and Cord, Mean lung dose (MLD) and volume of lung receiving 20Gy (V20Gy) were computed. PTV parameters compared by percentage difference between AXB and AAA parameters. OAR parameters and HI compared by absolute difference between two calculations. For analysis, paired t-test performed over the parameters. Results: Compared to AAA, AXB SRS plans have on average 3.2% lower D99, 6.5% lower CI and 3cc less Brain-V12. However, AXB SBRT plans have higher D1, R50 and Dmean by 3.15%, 1.63% and 2.5%. For SRS and SBRT, AXB plans have average HI 2 % and 4.4% higher than AAA plans. In both techniques, all other parameters vary within 1% or 1Gy. In both sets only two parameters have P>0.05. Conclusion: Even though t-test results signify difference between AXB and AAA plans, dose differences in dose estimations by both algorithms are clinically insignificant.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4924483},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 42,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015},
month = {Mon Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2015}
}