Vol 26, No 4 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-03-30

open access

Page views 623
Article views/downloads 381
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB on cervix radiotherapy using RapidArc technique: a dosimetric study

Lalit Kumar12, Vimal Kishore3, Manindra Bhushan2, Pawan Kumar1, Rahul Lal Chaudhary2
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2021;26(4):582-589.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acuros XB (AXB) may predict better rectal toxicities and treatment outcomes in cervix carcinoma. The aim of the study was to quantify the potential impact of AXB computations on the cervix radiotherapy using the RapidArc (RA) technique as compared to anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) computations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 30 patients previously cared for cervix carcinoma (stages II–IIIB) was selected for the present analysis. The RA plans were computed using AAA and AXB dose computation engines under identical beam setup and MLC pattern.

RESULTS: There was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in D95% and D98% to the planning target volume (PTV); moreover, a significant (p < 0.05) rise was noticed for mean dose to the PTV (0.26%), D50% (0.26%), D2% (0.80%) and V110% (44.24%) for AXB computation as compared to AAA computations. Further, AXB estimated a significantly (p < 0.05) lower value for maximum and minimum dose to the PTV. Additionally, there was a significant (p < 0.05) reduction observed in mean dose to organs at risk (OARs) for AXB computation as compared to AAA, though the reduction in mean dose was non-significant (p > 0.05) for the rectum. The maximum difference observed was 4.78% for the rectum V50Gy, 1.72%, 1.15% in mean dose and 2.22%, 1.48% in D2% of the left femur and right femur, respectively, between AAA and AXB dose estimations.

CONCLUSION: For similar target coverage, there were significant differences observed between the AAA and AXB computations. AAA underestimates the V50Gy of the rectum and overestimates the mean dose and D2% for femoral heads as compared to AXB. Therefore, the use of AXB in the case of cervix carcinoma may predict better rectal toxicities and treatment outcomes in cervix carcinoma using the RA technique.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394–424.
  2. Arbyn M, Weiderpass E, Bruni L, et al. Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020; 8(2): e191–e203.
  3. 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.
  4. Tillikainen L, Helminen H, Torsti T, et al. A 3D pencil-beam-based superposition algorithm for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Phys Med Biol. 2008; 53(14): 3821–3839.
  5. Kumar L, Bhushan M, Kishore V, et al. Dosimetric validation of Acuros XB algorithm for RapidArc™ treatment technique: A post software upgrade analysis. J Can Res Ther . 2020(Article under press).
  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. Failla GA, Wareing T, Archambault Y, Thompson S. Acuros® XB Advanced Dose Calculation for the Eclipse™ treatment Planning System. https://www.equiphos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Acuros-XB-Clinical Perspectives-10156.pdf (Dec. 2019 ).
  8. Kumar L, Yadav G, Kishore V, et al. Dosimetric validation of Acuros XB photon dose calculation algorithm on an indigenously fabricated low-density heterogeneous phantom. Radiat Protect Environ. 2019; 42(4): 173.
  9. Kumar L, Kishore V, Bhushan M, et al. Impact of acuros XB algorithm in deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) respiratory techniques used for the treatment of left breast cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020; 25(4): 507–514.
  10. Atiq A, Atiq M, Iqbal K, et al. A comparative study of RapidArc and intensity-modulated radiotherapy plan quality for cervical cancer treatment. Indian J Cancer. 2018; 55(1): 74–79.
  11. Jodda A, Urbański B, Piotrowski T, et al. Relations between doses cumulated in bone marrow and dose delivery techniques during radiation therapy of cervical and endometrial cancer. Phys Med. 2017; 36: 54–59.
  12. Jodda A, Piotrowski T, Kruszyna-Mochalska M, et al. Impact of different optimization strategies on the compatibility between planned and delivered doses during radiation therapy of cervical cancer. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020; 25(3): 412–421.
  13. Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG-0418) Protocol: A Phase II Study of Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) to the Pelvis +/. Chemotherapy for Post. Operative Patients with either Endometrial or Cervical Carcinoma. http://www.rtog.org/ClinicalTrials/ProtocolTable/StudyDetails.aspx?study=0418.
  14. Jodda A, Piotrowski T, Urbański B, et al. Relations between dose cumulated in organs at risk and treatment based on different image-guidance strategies of cervical cancer. Phys Med. 2019; 57: 183–190.
  15. Kumar L, Yadav G, Kishore V, et al. Validation of the RapidArc delivery system using a volumetric phantom as per task group report 119 of the American association of physicists in medicine. J Med Phys. 2019; 44: 126–134.
  16. Kumar L, Yadav G, Raman K, et al. The dosimetric impact of different photon beam energy on RapidArc radiotherapy planning for cervix carcinoma. J Med Phys. 2015; 40(4): 207–213.
  17. Kumar L, Yadav G, Samuvel KR, et al. Dosimetric influence of filtered and flattening filter free photon beam on rapid arc (RA) radiotherapy planning in case of cervix carcinoma. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2017; 22(1): 10–18.
  18. Ho J, Tumkaya T, Aryal S, et al. Moving beyond P values: Everyday data analysis with estimation plots. Nat Methods. 2019; 16(7): 565–566.
  19. Braitman LE, Braitman LE. Statistical, clinical, and experimental evidence in randomized controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 1983; 98(3): 407–408.
  20. Rana S, Rogers K, Lee T, et al. Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in prostate cancer treatment using RapidArc. J Cancer Res Ther. 2013; 9(3): 430–435.
  21. Koo T, Chung JB, Eom KY, et al. Dosimetric effects of the acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm on volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for prostate cancer using an endorectal balloon. Radiat Oncol. 2015; 10: 48.
  22. Takizawa T, Tanabe S, Utsunomiya S, et al. Dosimetric comparison of analytic anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm in VMAT plans for high-grade glioma. Phys Med. 2020; 73: 73–82.
  23. 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.