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

Title: SU-F-T-600: Influence of Acuros XB and AAA Dose Calculation Algorithms On Plan Quality Metrics and Normal Lung Doses in Lung SBRT

Abstract

Purpose: To study the influence of superposition-beam model (AAA) and determinant-photon transport-solver (Acuros XB) dose calculation algorithms on the treatment plan quality metrics and on normal lung dose in Lung SBRT. Methods: Treatment plans of 10 Lung SBRT patients were randomly selected. Patients were prescribed to a total dose of 50-54Gy in 3–5 fractions (10?5 or 18?3). Doses were optimized accomplished with 6-MV using 2-arcs (VMAT). Doses were calculated using AAA algorithm with heterogeneity correction. For each plan, plan quality metrics in the categories- coverage, homogeneity, conformity and gradient were quantified. Repeat dosimetry for these AAA treatment plans was performed using AXB algorithm with heterogeneity correction for same beam and MU parameters. Plan quality metrics were again evaluated and compared with AAA plan metrics. For normal lung dose, V{sub 20} and V{sub 5} to (Total lung- GTV) were evaluated. Results: The results are summarized in Supplemental Table 1. PTV volume was mean 11.4 (±3.3) cm{sup 3}. Comparing RTOG 0813 protocol criteria for conformality, AXB plans yielded on average, similar PITV ratio (individual PITV ratio differences varied from −9 to +15%), reduced target coverage (−1.6%) and increased R50% (+2.6%). Comparing normal lung doses, the lung V{sub 20} (+3.1%) and V{sub 5}more » (+1.5%) were slightly higher for AXB plans compared to AAA plans. High-dose spillage ((V105%PD - PTV)/ PTV) was slightly lower for AXB plans but the % low dose spillage (D2cm) was similar between the two calculation algorithms. Conclusion: AAA algorithm overestimates lung target dose. Routinely adapting to AXB for dose calculations in Lung SBRT planning may improve dose calculation accuracy, as AXB based calculations have been shown to be closer to Monte Carlo based dose predictions in accuracy and with relatively faster computational time. For clinical practice, revisiting dose-fractionation in Lung SBRT to correct for dose overestimates attributable to algorithm may very well be warranted.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22649170
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 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; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; ALGORITHMS; CORRECTIONS; FRACTIONATED IRRADIATION; LUNGS; METRICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PLANNING; RADIATION DOSES

Citation Formats

Yaparpalvi, R, Mynampati, D, Kuo, H, Garg, M, Tome, W, and Kalnicki, S. SU-F-T-600: Influence of Acuros XB and AAA Dose Calculation Algorithms On Plan Quality Metrics and Normal Lung Doses in Lung SBRT. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956785.
Yaparpalvi, R, Mynampati, D, Kuo, H, Garg, M, Tome, W, & Kalnicki, S. SU-F-T-600: Influence of Acuros XB and AAA Dose Calculation Algorithms On Plan Quality Metrics and Normal Lung Doses in Lung SBRT. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956785.
Yaparpalvi, R, Mynampati, D, Kuo, H, Garg, M, Tome, W, and Kalnicki, S. 2016. "SU-F-T-600: Influence of Acuros XB and AAA Dose Calculation Algorithms On Plan Quality Metrics and Normal Lung Doses in Lung SBRT". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956785.
@article{osti_22649170,
title = {SU-F-T-600: Influence of Acuros XB and AAA Dose Calculation Algorithms On Plan Quality Metrics and Normal Lung Doses in Lung SBRT},
author = {Yaparpalvi, R and Mynampati, D and Kuo, H and Garg, M and Tome, W and Kalnicki, S},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To study the influence of superposition-beam model (AAA) and determinant-photon transport-solver (Acuros XB) dose calculation algorithms on the treatment plan quality metrics and on normal lung dose in Lung SBRT. Methods: Treatment plans of 10 Lung SBRT patients were randomly selected. Patients were prescribed to a total dose of 50-54Gy in 3–5 fractions (10?5 or 18?3). Doses were optimized accomplished with 6-MV using 2-arcs (VMAT). Doses were calculated using AAA algorithm with heterogeneity correction. For each plan, plan quality metrics in the categories- coverage, homogeneity, conformity and gradient were quantified. Repeat dosimetry for these AAA treatment plans was performed using AXB algorithm with heterogeneity correction for same beam and MU parameters. Plan quality metrics were again evaluated and compared with AAA plan metrics. For normal lung dose, V{sub 20} and V{sub 5} to (Total lung- GTV) were evaluated. Results: The results are summarized in Supplemental Table 1. PTV volume was mean 11.4 (±3.3) cm{sup 3}. Comparing RTOG 0813 protocol criteria for conformality, AXB plans yielded on average, similar PITV ratio (individual PITV ratio differences varied from −9 to +15%), reduced target coverage (−1.6%) and increased R50% (+2.6%). Comparing normal lung doses, the lung V{sub 20} (+3.1%) and V{sub 5} (+1.5%) were slightly higher for AXB plans compared to AAA plans. High-dose spillage ((V105%PD - PTV)/ PTV) was slightly lower for AXB plans but the % low dose spillage (D2cm) was similar between the two calculation algorithms. Conclusion: AAA algorithm overestimates lung target dose. Routinely adapting to AXB for dose calculations in Lung SBRT planning may improve dose calculation accuracy, as AXB based calculations have been shown to be closer to Monte Carlo based dose predictions in accuracy and with relatively faster computational time. For clinical practice, revisiting dose-fractionation in Lung SBRT to correct for dose overestimates attributable to algorithm may very well be warranted.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956785},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • To compare 2 beam arrangements, sectored (beam entry over ipsilateral hemithorax) vs circumferential (beam entry over both ipsilateral and contralateral lungs), for static-gantry intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) delivery techniques with respect to target and organs-at-risk (OAR) dose-volume metrics, as well as treatment delivery efficiency. Data from 60 consecutive patients treated using stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for primary non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) formed the basis of this study. Four treatment plans were generated per data set: IMRT/VMAT plans using sectored (-s) and circumferential (-c) configurations. The prescribed dose (PD) was 60 Gy in 5 fractionsmore » to 95% of the planning target volume (PTV) (maximum PTV dose ∼ 150% PD) for a 6-MV photon beam. Plan conformality, R{sub 50} (ratio of volume circumscribed by the 50% isodose line and the PTV), and D{sub 2} {sub cm} (D{sub max} at a distance ≥2 cm beyond the PTV) were evaluated. For lungs, mean doses (mean lung dose [MLD]) and percent V{sub 30}/V{sub 20}/V{sub 10}/V{sub 5} Gy were assessed. Spinal cord and esophagus D{sub max} and D{sub 5}/D{sub 50} were computed. Chest wall (CW) D{sub max} and absolute V{sub 30}/V{sub 20}/V{sub 10}/V{sub 5} {sub Gy} were reported. Sectored SBRT planning resulted in significant decrease in contralateral MLD and V{sub 10}/V{sub 5} {sub Gy}, as well as contralateral CW D{sub max} and V{sub 10}/V{sub 5} {sub Gy} (all p < 0.001). Nominal reductions of D{sub max} and D{sub 5}/D{sub 50} for the spinal cord with sectored planning did not reach statistical significance for static-gantry IMRT, although VMAT metrics did show a statistically significant decrease (all p < 0.001). The respective measures for esophageal doses were significantly lower with sectored planning (p < 0.001). Despite comparable dose conformality, irrespective of planning configuration, R{sub 50} significantly improved with IMRT-s/VMAT-c (p < 0.001/p = 0.008), whereas D{sub 2} {sub cm} significantly improved with VMAT-c (p < 0.001). Plan delivery efficiency improved with sectored technique (p < 0.001); mean monitor unit (MU)/cGy of PD decreased from 5.8 ± 1.9 vs 5.3 ± 1.7 (IMRT) and 2.7 ± 0.4 vs 2.4 ± 0.3 (VMAT). The sectored configuration achieves unambiguous dosimetric advantages over circumferential arrangement in terms of esophageal, contralateral CW, and contralateral lung sparing, in addition to being more efficient at delivery.« less
  • Purpose: This study evaluated the plan quality and dose delivery accuracy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) helical Tomotherapy (HT) treatments for lung cancer. Results were compared with those previously reported by our group for flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) VMAT treatments. This work forms part of an ongoing multicentre and multisystem planning and dosimetry audit on FFF beams for lung SBRT. Methods: CT datasets and DICOM RT structures delineating the target volume and organs at risk for 6 lung cancer patients were selected. Treatment plans were generated using the HT treatment planning system. Tumour locations were classifiedmore » as near rib, near bronchial tree or in free lung with prescribed doses of 48Gy/4fr, 50Gy/5fr and 54Gy/3fr respectively. Dose constraints were specified by a modified RTOG0915 protocol used for an Australian SBRT phase II trial. Plan quality was evaluated using mean PTV dose, PTV volume receiving 100% of the prescribed dose (V100%), target conformity (CI=VD100%/VPTV) and low dose spillage (LDS=VD50%/VPTV). Planned dose distributions were compared to those measured using an ArcCheck phantom. Delivery accuracy was evaluated using a gamma-index pass rate of 95% with 3% (of max dose) and 3mm criteria. Results: Treatment plans for all patients were clinically acceptable in terms of quality and accuracy of dose delivery. The following DVH metrics are reported as averages (SD) of all plans investigated: mean PTV dose was 115.3(2.4)% of prescription, V100% was 98.8(0.9)%, CI was 1.14(0.03) and LDS was 5.02(0.37). The plans had an average gamma-index passing rate of 99.3(1.3)%. Conclusion: The results reported in this study for HT agree within 1 SD to those previously published by our group for VMAT FF and FFF lung SBRT treatments. This suggests that HT delivers lung SBRT treatments of comparable quality and delivery accuracy as VMAT using both FF and FFF beams.« less
  • Purpose: To assess dosimetric differences in IMRT lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans calculated with Varian AAA and Acuros (AXB) and with vendor-supplied (V) versus in-house (IH) measured Hounsfield units (HU) to mass and HU to electron density conversion tables. Methods: In-house conversion tables were measured using Gammex 472 density-plug phantom. IMRT plans (6 MV, Varian TrueBeam, 6–9 coplanar fields) meeting departmental coverage and normal tissue constraints were retrospectively generated for 10 lung SBRT cases using Eclipse Vn 10.0.28 AAA with in-house tables (AAA/IH). Using these monitor units and MLC sequences, plans were recalculated with AAA and vendor tables (AAA/V)more » and with AXB with both tables (AXB/IH and AXB/V). Ratios to corresponding AAA/IH values were calculated for PTV D95, D01, D99, mean-dose, total and ipsilateral lung V20 and chestwall V30. Statistical significance of differences was judged by Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (p<0.05). Results: For HU<−400 the vendor HU-mass density table was notably below the IH table. PTV D95 ratios to AAA/IH, averaged over all patients, are 0.963±0.073 (p=0.508), 0.914±0.126 (p=0.011), and 0.998±0.001 (p=0.005) for AXB/IH, AXB/V and AAA/V respectively. Total lung V20 ratios are 1.006±0.046 (p=0.386), 0.975±0.080 (p=0.514) and 0.998±0.002 (p=0.007); ipsilateral lung V20 ratios are 1.008±0.041(p=0.284), 0.977±0.076 (p=0.443), and 0.998±0.018 (p=0.005) for AXB/IH, AXB/V and AAA/V respectively. In 7 cases, ratios to AAA/IH were within ± 5% for all indices studied. For 3 cases characterized by very low lung density and small PTV (19.99±8.09 c.c.), PTV D95 ratio for AXB/V ranged from 67.4% to 85.9%, AXB/IH D95 ratio ranged from 81.6% to 93.4%; there were large differences in other studied indices. Conclusion: For AXB users, careful attention to HU conversion tables is important, as they can significantly impact AXB (but not AAA) lung SBRT plans. Algorithm selection is also important for small targets in low density lung.« less
  • Purpose: In this study, the comparison of dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms were investigated for small radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries Methods: Small open fields of Truebeam 2.0 unit (1×1, 2×2, 3×3, 4×4 fields) were used for this study. The fields were incident on homogeneous phantom and in house phantom containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities. Using the same film batch, the net OD to dose calibration curve was obtaine dusing Trubeam 2.0 for 6 MV, 6 FFF, 10 MV, 10 FFF, 15 MV energies by delivering 0- 800 cGy. Films were scanned 48more » hours after irradiation using an Epson 1000XL flatbed scanner. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB and AAA algorithms in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against EBT3 film dosimetry Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement betweent wo algorithms and measurement. For Acuros XB, minimum gamma analysis passin grates between measured and calculated dose distributions were 99.3% and 98.1% for homogeneousand inhomogeneous fields in thecase of lung and bone respectively. For AAA, minimum gamma analysis passingrates were 99.1% and 96.5% for homogeneous and inhomogeneous fields respectively for all used energies and field sizes.In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for both calculations algorithms. Over all, when compared to measurement, theAcuros XB had beter agreement than AAA. Conclusion: The Acuros XB calculation algorithm in the TPS is an improvemen tover theexisting AAA algorithm. Dose discrepancies were observed for in the presence of air inhomogeneities.« less
  • Purpose: 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). Methods: 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.more » 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 (D{sub m,m}) and dose-to-water in medium (D{sub w,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. Results: 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 D{sub m,m} and D{sub w,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{sub Dm,m}, and AXB{sub 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. Conclusions: 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 D{sub w,m} and D{sub m,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.« less