Vol 27, No 2 (2022)
Research paper
Published online: 2022-02-08

open access

Page views 4792
Article views/downloads 273
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Influence of optional measurement parameters in the Eclipse treatment planning system on the quality of the dosimetric model of the biomedical accelerator using the Acuros XB algorithm

Adam Gądek1, Jacek Wendykier1, Aleksandra Grządziel1, Barbara Bekman1, Barbara Smolińska1, Adam Bekman2, Beata Niewiadomska2, Joanna Prażmowska2, Bożena Woźniak2, Krzysztof Ślosarek1
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2022;27(2):241-249.

Abstract

Background: To properly configure a treatment planning system, a measurement data set is needed, which consists of the values required for its configuration. The aim is to obtain a dosimetric model of the beam that is as compatible as possible with the measured values. The set of required data can be supplemented with optional values. The aim of the study was to assess the influence of optional measurement data on the compliance of the calculations with the measurements.

Materials and methods: Dosimetric measurements, model configuration and dose distribution calculations were performed for the photon radiation beams generated by the VMS TrueBeam® linear accelerator. Beams were configured on an Eclipse™ v. 15.6 system using the Acuros v. 15.6 algorithm. The measured and calculated data were entered into the Alfard™ software for comparison with the calculated dose distributions. In the last stage, the absolute dose values at the designated points were also compared. The obtained data were statistically analysed with Statistica™ v. 13.3.

Results: The work showed that the differences in the shape of the beam profile, depth dose and the dose value in points were not related to the use of optional data. Differences in dose distributions are within the tolerance. It cannot be determined under which conditions the use of optional data has a more favourable effect on the reflection of the actual dose values. Conclusions: The use of optional data in modelling photon radiation beams does not significantly improve the compliance of the calculated and measured dose values.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency. Commissioning and Quality Assurance of Computerized Planning Systems for Radiation Treatment of Cancer. Technical Reports Series no 430. IAEA, Vienna 2004.
  2. International Atomic Energy Agency. Commissioning of Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Systems: Testing for Typical External Beam Treatment Techniques. IAEA, Vienna 2008: IAEA TECDOC – 1583.
  3. Dybek M, Winiecki J, Iwanicki T, et al. Kontrola systemów planowania leczenia 3D w radioterapii wiązkami zewnętrznymi fotonów i elektronów. Pol J Med Phys Eng. 2014; 20(1): 1–32.
  4. Wendykier J, Bieniasiewicz M, Grządziel A, et al. Determination of bounds between ranges of high and low gradient of beam profile. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016; 21(13): 168–173.
  5. 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.
  6. Ojala J. The accuracy of the Acuros XB algorithm in external beam radiotherapy — a comprehensive review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2014; 2(4): 020417.
  7. Zaman A, Kakakhel M, Hussain A. A comparison of Monte Carlo, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms in assessing dosimetric perturbations during enhanced dynamic wedged radiotherapy deliveries in heterogeneous media. J Radiother Pract. 2018; 18(1): 75–81.
  8. Krabch M, Chetaine A, Nourreddine A, et al. Comparative study between Acuros XB algorithm and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm in the case of heterogeneity for the treatment of lung cancer. Pol J Med Phys Eng. 2018; 24(3): 115–119.
  9. Kang SW, Chung JB, Lee JW, et al. Dosimetric accuracy of the Acuros XB and Anisotropic analytical algorithm near interface of the different density media for the small fields of a 6- MV flattening-filter-free beam. Int J Radiat Res. 2017; 15(2): 157–165.
  10. Rana S, Rogers K. Radiobiological Impact of Acuros XB Dose Calculation Algorithm on Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Treatment Plans Created by RapidArc Technique. Austral–Asian J Cancer. 2012; 11(4): 261–269.
  11. Ojala J, Kapanen M, Sipilä P, et al. The accuracy of Acuros XB algorithm for radiation beams traversing a metallic hip implant — comparison with measurements and Monte Carlo calculations. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2014; 15(5): 4912.
  12. Hoffmann L, Alber M, Söhn M, et al. Validation of the Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm versus Monte Carlo for clinical treatment plans. Med Phys. 2018; 45(8): 3909–3915.
  13. Han T, Followill D, Mikell J, et al. Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport algorithm for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer. Med Phys. 2013; 40(5): 051710.
  14. Hoffmann L, Jørgensen MBK, Muren LP, et al. Clinical validation of the Acuros XB photon dose calculation algorithm, a grid-based Boltzmann equation solver. Acta Oncol. 2012; 51(3): 376–385.
  15. Yan C, Combine AG, Bednarz G, et al. Clinical implementation and evaluation of the Acuros dose calculation algorithm. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017; 18(5): 195–209.
  16. ECLIPSE Photon and Electron Algorithms Reference Guide, P1020505-003-C, Varian Medical Systems.
  17. Commissioning., CS505EU-Varian Applied Physics: Linac.
  18. 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.
  19. ALFARD. http://alfard.eu5.net/alfard/index.html.
  20. International Atomic Energy Agency. Absorbed Dose Determination in External Beam Radiotherapy. Technical Reports Series no 430. IAEA, Vienna 2000.
  21. Hrbacek J, Lang S, Kloeck S. Commissioning of photon beams of a flattering filter-free linear accelerator and the accuracy of beam modeling using the anisotropic analytical algorithm. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 80(4): 1228–1237.



Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy