open access

Vol 26, No 1 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-01-22
Submitted: 2021-01-12
Get Citation

Dose accuracy improvement on head and neck VMAT treatments by using the Acuros algorithm and accurate FFF beam calibration

Guadalupe Martin-Martin, Stefan Walter, Eduardo Guibelalde
DOI: 10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0014
·
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(1):73-85.

open access

Vol 26, No 1 (2021)
Original research articles
Published online: 2021-01-22
Submitted: 2021-01-12

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess dose accuracy improvement and dosimetric impact of switching from the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) to the Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) when performing an accurate beam calibration in head and neck (H&N) FFF-VMAT treatments.

Materials and methods: Twenty H&N cancer patients treated with FFF-VMAT techniques were included. Calculations were performed with the AAA and AXB algorithm (dose-to-water — AXBw– and dose-to-medium — AXBm–). An accurate beam calibration was used for AXB calculations. Dose prescription to the tumour (PTV70) and at-risk-nodal region (PTV58.1) were 70 Gy and 58.1 Gy, respectively. A PTV70_bone including bony structures in PTV70 was contoured. Dose-volume parameters were compared between the algorithms. Statistical tests were used to analyze the differences in mean values and the correlation between compliance with the D95 > 95% requirement and occurrence of local recurrence.

Results: AAA systematically overestimated the dose compared to AXB algorithm with mean dose differences within 1.3 Gy/2%, except for the PTV70_bone (2.2 Gy/3.2%). Dose differences were significantly higher for AXBm calculations when including accurate beam calibration (maximum dose differences up to 2.8 Gy/4.1% and 4.2 Gy/6.3% for PTV70 and PTV70_bone, respectively). 80% of AAA-calculated plans did not meet the D95 > 95% requirement after recalculation with AXBm and accurate beam calibration. The reduction in D95 coverage in the tumour was not clinically relevant.

Conclusions: Using the AXBm algorithm and carefully reviewing the beam calibration procedure in H&N FFF-VMAT treatments ensures (1) dose accuracy increase by approximately 3%; (2) a consequent dose increase in targets; and (3) a dose reporting mode that is consistent with the trend of current algorithms.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess dose accuracy improvement and dosimetric impact of switching from the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) to the Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) when performing an accurate beam calibration in head and neck (H&N) FFF-VMAT treatments.

Materials and methods: Twenty H&N cancer patients treated with FFF-VMAT techniques were included. Calculations were performed with the AAA and AXB algorithm (dose-to-water — AXBw– and dose-to-medium — AXBm–). An accurate beam calibration was used for AXB calculations. Dose prescription to the tumour (PTV70) and at-risk-nodal region (PTV58.1) were 70 Gy and 58.1 Gy, respectively. A PTV70_bone including bony structures in PTV70 was contoured. Dose-volume parameters were compared between the algorithms. Statistical tests were used to analyze the differences in mean values and the correlation between compliance with the D95 > 95% requirement and occurrence of local recurrence.

Results: AAA systematically overestimated the dose compared to AXB algorithm with mean dose differences within 1.3 Gy/2%, except for the PTV70_bone (2.2 Gy/3.2%). Dose differences were significantly higher for AXBm calculations when including accurate beam calibration (maximum dose differences up to 2.8 Gy/4.1% and 4.2 Gy/6.3% for PTV70 and PTV70_bone, respectively). 80% of AAA-calculated plans did not meet the D95 > 95% requirement after recalculation with AXBm and accurate beam calibration. The reduction in D95 coverage in the tumour was not clinically relevant.

Conclusions: Using the AXBm algorithm and carefully reviewing the beam calibration procedure in H&N FFF-VMAT treatments ensures (1) dose accuracy increase by approximately 3%; (2) a consequent dose increase in targets; and (3) a dose reporting mode that is consistent with the trend of current algorithms.

Get Citation

Keywords

Acuros XB (AXB); anisotropic analytical algorithm; FFF-VMAT; head and neck (H& N)

Supp./Additional Files (1)
Guadalupe et al._Supplementary file
Download
333KB
About this article
Title

Dose accuracy improvement on head and neck VMAT treatments by using the Acuros algorithm and accurate FFF beam calibration

Journal

Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy

Issue

Vol 26, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

73-85

Published online

2021-01-22

DOI

10.5603/RPOR.a2021.0014

Bibliographic record

Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(1):73-85.

Keywords

Acuros XB (AXB)
anisotropic analytical algorithm
FFF-VMAT
head and neck (H&N)

Authors

Guadalupe Martin-Martin
Stefan Walter
Eduardo Guibelalde

References (51)
  1. Xiao Y, Kry SF, Popple R, et al. Flattening filter-free accelerators: a report from the AAPM Therapy Emerging Technology Assessment Work Group. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16(3): 5219.
  2. O'Brien PF, Gillies BA, Schwartz M, et al. Radiosurgery with unflattened 6-MV photon beams. Med Phys. 1991; 18(3): 519–521.
  3. Vassiliev ON, Titt U, Pönisch F, et al. Dosimetric properties of photon beams from a flattening filter free clinical accelerator. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(7): 1907–1917.
  4. Cashmore J. The characterization of unflattened photon beams from a 6 MV linear accelerator. Phys Med Biol. 2008; 53(7): 1933–1946.
  5. Fogliata A, Vanetti E, Albers D, et al. On the dosimetric behaviour of photon dose calculation algorithms in the presence of simple geometric heterogeneities: comparison with Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2007; 52(5): 1363–1385.
  6. Chopra K, Leo P, Kabat C, et al. Evaluation of dose calculation accuracy of treatment planning systems in the presence of tissue heterogeneities. Ther Radiol Oncol. 2018; 2: 28–28.
  7. Knöös T, Wieslander E, Cozzi L, et al. Comparison of dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning in external photon beam therapy for clinical situations. Phys Med Biol. 2006; 51(22): 5785–5807.
  8. Ojala JJ, Kapanen MK, Hyödynmaa SJ, et al. Performance of dose calculation algorithms from three generations in lung SBRT: comparison with full Monte Carlo-based dose distributions. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(2): 4662.
  9. Kisling KD, Ger RB, Netherton TJ, et al. A snapshot of medical physics practice patterns. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018; 19(6): 306–315.
  10. Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Clivio A, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of Acuros XB Advanced Dose Calculation algorithm in heterogeneous media. Radiat Oncol. 2011; 6: 82.
  11. Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Clivio A, et al. Critical appraisal of Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytic Algorithm dose calculation in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treatments. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 83(5): 1587–1595.
  12. Kathirvel M, Subramanian S, Clivio A, et al. Critical appraisal of the accuracy of Acuros-XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm compared to measurement and calculations with the compass system in the delivery of RapidArc clinical plans. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8: 140.
  13. Ono K, Endo S, Tanaka K, et al. Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm in lung equivalent heterogeneities with and without bone equivalent heterogeneities. Med Phys. 2010; 37(8): 4456–4463.
  14. Robinson D. Inhomogeneity correction and the analytic anisotropic algorithm. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2008; 9(2): 112–122.
  15. Vassiliev ON, Wareing TA, McGhee J, et al. Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys Med Biol. 2010; 55(3): 581–598.
  16. Vassiliev ON, Wareing TA, Davis IM, et al. Feasibility of a multigroup deterministic solution method for three-dimensional radiotherapy dose calculations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 72(1): 220–227.
  17. Failla GA, Wareing T, Archambault Y, Thompson S. Acuros® XB avanced dose calculation for the EclipseTM treatment planning system n.d: 14. 2010.
  18. Kroon PS, Hol S, Essers M. Dosimetric accuracy and clinical quality of Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation algorithm for stereotactic and conventional lung volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Radiat Oncol. 2013; 8: 149.
  19. Bush K, Gagne IM, Zavgorodni S, et al. Dosimetric validation of Acuros XB with Monte Carlo methods for photon dose calculations. Med Phys. 2011; 38(4): 2208–2221.
  20. Han T, Mikell JK, Salehpour M, et al. Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 2011; 38(5): 2651–2664.
  21. Chetty IJ, Curran B, Cygler JE, et al. Report of the AAPM Task Group No. 105: Issues associated with clinical implementation of Monte Carlo-based photon and electron external beam treatment planning. Med Phys. 2007; 34(12): 4818–4853.
  22. Han T, Mourtada F, Kisling K, et al. Experimental validation of deterministic Acuros XB algorithm for IMRT and VMAT dose calculations with the Radiological Physics Center's head and neck phantom. Med Phys. 2012; 39(4): 2193–2202.
  23. Kan MWK, Leung LHT, Yu PKN. Verification and dosimetric impact of Acuros XB algorithm on intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy for locally persistent nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Med Phys. 2012; 39(8): 4705–4714.
  24. Kan MWK, Leung LHT, So RWK, et al. Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma. Med Phys. 2013; 40(3): 031714.
  25. Kan MWK, Leung LHT, Yu PKN. Dosimetric impact of using the Acuros XB algorithm for intensity modulated radiation therapy and RapidArc planning in nasopharyngeal carcinomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 85(1): e73–e80.
  26. Hirata K, Nakamura M, Yoshimura M, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of the Acuros XB algorithm for a 4 MV photon beam in head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16(4): 52–64.
  27. Zifodya JM, Challens CHC, Hsieh WL. From AAA to Acuros XB-clinical implications of selecting either Acuros XB dose-to-water or dose-to-medium. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 2016; 39(2): 431–439.
  28. Muñoz-Montplet C, Marruecos J, Buxó M, et al. Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB dose-to-water and dose-to-medium reporting modes on VMAT planning for head and neck cancer. Phys Med. 2018; 55: 107–115.
  29. Yeh P, Lee CC, Chao TC, et al. Monte Carlo evaluation of Acuros XB dose calculation Algorithm for intensity modulated radiation therapy of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Radiat Phys Chem. 2017; 140: 419–422.
  30. Anreo P, Burns DT, Hohlfel K, et al. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy: An International Code of Practice for Dosimetry based on Standards of Absorbed Dose to Water. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 2006.
  31. McEwen M, DeWerd L, Ibbott G, et al. Addendum to the AAPM's TG-51 protocol for clinical reference dosimetry of high-energy photon beams. Med Phys. 2014; 41(4): 041501–24.
  32. Sudhyadhom A, Kirby N, Faddegon B, et al. Technical Note: Preferred dosimeter size and associated correction factors in commissioning high dose per pulse, flattening filter free x-ray beams. Med Phys. 2016; 43(3): 1507–1513.
  33. Corns RA, Huang VW, Thomas SD. Pion effects in flattening filter-free radiation beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2015; 16(6): 376–385.
  34. Sutton J, Littler J. Accounting for the ion recombination factor in relative dosimetry of flattening filter free photon radiation. Biomed Phys Engineer Express. 2017; 3(1): 017002.
  35. Vargas Castrillón S, Cutanda Henríquez F. Choice of a Suitable Dosimeter for Photon Percentage Depth Dose Measurements in Flattening Filter-Free Beams. J Med Phys. 2017; 42(3): 140–143.
  36. AAPM Reports — Tissue Inhomogeneity Corrections for Megavoltage Photon Beams . https://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/detail.asp?docid=86 (May 13, 2019).
  37. Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Clivio A, et al. On the dosimetric impact of inhomogeneity management in the Acuros XB algorithm for breast treatment. Radiat Oncol. 2011; 6: 103.
  38. Hardcastle N, Montaseri A, Lydon J, et al. Dose to medium in head and neck radiotherapy: Clinical implications for target volume metrics. Phys Imag Radiat Oncol. 2019; 11: 92–97.
  39. Fogliata A, Scorsetti M, Navarria P, et al. Dosimetric comparison between VMAT with different dose calculation algorithms and protons for soft-tissue sarcoma radiotherapy. Acta Oncol. 2013; 52(3): 545–552.
  40. Park SY, Park J, Choi C, et al. Dosimetric Validation of the Acuros XB Advanced Dose Calculation Algorithm for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plans. Progress Med Phys. 2016; 27(4): 180.
  41. Muralidhar KR, Pangam S, Srinivas P, et al. A phantom study on the behavior of Acuros XB algorithm in flattening filter free photon beams. J Med Phys. 2015; 40(3): 144–149.
  42. Huang B, Wu L, Lin P, et al. Dose calculation of Acuros XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment with flattening filter free beams and the potential role of calculation grid size. Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10: 53.
  43. Ma CM, Li J. Dose specification for radiation therapy: dose to water or dose to medium? Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(10): 3073–3089.
  44. Andreo P. Dose to 'water-like' media or dose to tissue in MV photons radiotherapy treatment planning: still a matter of debate. Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(1): 309–337.
  45. Reynaert N, Crop F, Sterpin E, et al. On the conversion of dose to bone to dose to water in radiotherapy treatment planning systems. Phys Imag Radiat Oncol. 2018; 5: 26–30.
  46. Gladstone DJ, Kry SF, Xiao Y, et al. Dose Specification for NRG Radiation Therapy Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016; 95(5): 1344–1345.
  47. Kry SF, Feygelman V, Balter P, et al. AAPM Task Group 329: Reference dose specification for dose calculations: Dose-to-water or dose-to-muscle? Med Phys. 2020; 47(3): e52–e64.
  48. Hyun MA, Miller JR, Micka JA, et al. Ion recombination and polarity corrections for small-volume ionization chambers in high-dose-rate, flattening-filter-free pulsed photon beams. Med Phys. 2017; 44(2): 618–627.
  49. Martin-Martin G, Aguilar PB, Barbés B, et al. Assessment of ion recombination correction and polarity effects for specific ionization chambers in flattening-filter-free photon beams. Phys Med. 2019; 67: 176–184.
  50. Kry SF, Popple R, Molineu A, et al. Ion recombination correction factors (P(ion)) for Varian TrueBeam high-dose-rate therapy beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2012; 13(6): 3803.
  51. Johnsen S. SU-GG-T-195: Ion Chamber Collection Efficiency Considerations for Un-Flattened X-Ray Beams. Med Phys. 2008; 35(6Part12): 2770–2770.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: journals@viamedica.pl