Evaluation of the AAA Treatment Planning Algorithm for SBRT Lung Treatment: Comparison with Monte Carlo and Homogeneous Pencil Beam Dose Calculations.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of the Varian Eclipse anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and to investigate the dosimetric consequences of not applying tissue heterogeneity correction on complex SBRT lung plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine cases of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that were previously treated with SBRT at our center were selected for this study. Following Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0236, the original plans were calculated using pencil beam without heterogeneity correction (PBNC). For this study, these plans were recalculated by applying tissue heterogeneity correction with the AAA algorithm and with the Monte Carlo (MC) method, keeping the number of monitor units the same as the original plans. Two kinds of plan comparison were made. First, the AAA calculations were compared with MC. Second, the treatment plans that were calculated with AAA were compared with the original PBNC calculations. The following dose-volume parameters were used for the comparison: V100%; V90%; the maximum, the minimum, and the mean planning target volume (PTV) doses (Dmax, Dmin, and Dmean, respectively); V20Gy, V15Gy, V10Gy, V5Gy; Dmean for the lung; and Dmax for the critical organs. RESULTS: Comparable results were obtained for AAA and MC calculations: except for Dmax, Dmin, and Dmean, the differences in the patient-average values of all of the PTV dose parameters were less than 2%. The largest average difference was observed for Dmin (3.8 ± 5.4%). Average differences in all the lung dose parameters were under 0.2%, and average differences in normal tissue Dmax were under 0.3 Gy, except for the skin dose. There were appreciable differences in the PTV and normal tissue dose-volume parameters when comparing AAA and PBNC calculations. Except for V100% and V90%, PBNC calculations on average underestimated the dose to the PTV. The largest discrepancy was in the PTV maximum dose, with a patient-averaged difference of 11.1 ± 4.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our MC investigation, we conclude that the Eclipse AAA algorithm is sufficiently accurate for dose calculations of lung SBRT plans involving small 6-MV photon fields. Our results also demonstrate that, although dose calculations at the periphery of the PTV showed good agreement when comparing PBNC with both AAA and MC calculations, there is a potential to significantly underestimate the dose inside the PTV and doses to critical structures if tissue heterogeneity correction is not applied to lung SBRT plans.

Monte Carlo based, patient-specific RapidArc QA using Linac log files.

PURPOSE: A Monte Carlo (MC) based QA process to validate the dynamic beam delivery accuracy for Varian RapidArc (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) using Linac delivery log files (DynaLog) is presented. Using DynaLog file analysis and MC simulations, the goal of this article is to (a) confirm that adequate sampling is used in the RapidArc optimization algorithm (177 static gantry angles) and (b) to assess the physical machine performance [gantry angle and monitor unit (MU) delivery accuracy]. METHODS: Ten clinically acceptable RapidArc treatment plans were generated for various tumor sites and delivered to a water-equivalent cylindrical phantom on the treatment unit. Three Monte Carlo simulations were performed to calculate dose to the CT phantom image set: (a) One using a series of static gantry angles defined by 177 control points with treatment planning system (TPS) MLC control files (planning files), (b) one using continuous gantry rotation with TPS generated MLC control files, and (c) one using continuous gantry rotation with actual Linac delivery log files. Monte Carlo simulated dose distributions are compared to both ionization chamber point measurements and with RapidArc TPS calculated doses. The 3D dose distributions were compared using a 3D gamma-factor analysis, employing a 3%/3 mm distance-to-agreement criterion. RESULTS: The dose difference between MC simulations, TPS, and ionization chamber point measurements was less than 2.1%. For all plans, the MC calculated 3D dose distributions agreed well with the TPS calculated doses (gamma-factor values were less than 1 for more than 95% of the points considered). Machine performance QA was supplemented with an extensive DynaLog file analysis. A DynaLog file analysis showed that leaf position errors were less than 1 mm for 94% of the time and there were no leaf errors greater than 2.5 mm. The mean standard deviation in MU and gantry angle were 0.052 MU and 0.355 degrees, respectively, for the ten cases analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and flexibility of the Monte Carlo based RapidArc QA system were demonstrated. Good machine performance and accurate dose distribution delivery of RapidArc plans were observed. The sampling used in the TPS optimization algorithm was found to be adequate.

Evaluation of dosimetric parameters and disease response after 125 iodine transperineal brachytherapy for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To analyze dosimetric outcomes after permanent brachytherapy for men with low-risk and "low-tier" intermediate-risk prostate cancer and explore the relationship between the traditional dosimetric values, V100 (volume of prostate receiving 100% of the prescribed dose) and D90 (minimum dose to 90% of the prostate), and risk of biochemical failure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 1,006 consecutive patients underwent implantation between July 20, 1998, and Oct 23, 2003. Most (58%) had low-risk disease; the remaining 42% comprised a selected low-tier subgroup of intermediate-risk patients. The prescribed minimum peripheral dose (MPD) was 144 Gy. All implants used 0.33 mCi 125I sources using a preplan technique featuring right-left symmetry and a strong posterior-peripheral dose bias. Sixty-five percent of patients had 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy. Postimplantation dosimetry was calculated using day-28 CT scans. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 54 months, the actuarial 5-year rate of freedom from biochemical recurrence (bNED) was 95.6% +/- 1.6%. Median D90 was 105% of MPD, median V100 was 92%, median V150 was 58%, and median V200 was 9%. Dosimetric values were not predictive of biochemical recurrence on univariate or multivariate analysis. Analysis of dosimetric values by implantation number showed statistically significant increases in all values with time (D90, V100, V150, and V200; p < 0.001), but this did not translate into improved bNED. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to some previous studies, dosimetric outcomes did not correlate with biochemical recurrence in the first 1,006 patients treated with 125I prostate brachytherapy at the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Despite a median D90 of only 105% of MPD, our bNED rates are indistinguishable from series that reported higher D90 values.