Dosimetric comparison and validation of Eclipse Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms in RapidArc-based radiosurgery plans of patients with solitary brain metastasis.

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is increasingly being used to manage solitary or multiple brain metastasis. This study aims to compare and validate Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB (AXB) algorithms of Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS) in RapidArc-based SRS plans of patients with solitary brain metastasis. Twenty patients with solitary brain metastasis who have been already treated with RapidArc SRS plans calculated using AAA plans were selected for this study. These plans were recalculated using AXB algorithm keeping the same arc orientations, multi-leaf collimator apertures, and monitor units. The two algorithms were compared for target coverage parameters, isodose volumes, plan quality metrics, dose to organs at risk and integral dose. The dose calculated by the TPS using AAA and AXB algorithms was validated against measured dose for all patient plans using an in-house developed cylindrical phantom. An Exradin A14SL ionization chamber was positioned at the center of this phantom to measure the in-field dose. NanoDot Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeters (OSLDs) (Landauer Inc.) were placed at distances 3.0 cm, 4.0 cm, 5.0 cm, and 6.0 cm respectively from the center of the phantom to measure the non-target dose. In addition, the planar dose distribution was measured using amorphous silicon aS1000 Electronic Portal Imaging Device. The measured 2D dose distribution was compared against AAA and AXB estimated 2D distribution using gamma analysis. All results were tested for significance using the paired t-test at 5% level of significance. Significant differences between the AAA and AXB plans were found only for a few parameters analyzed in this study. In the experimental verification using cylindrical phantom, the difference between the AAA calculated dose and the measured dose was found to be highly significant (p < 0.001). However, the difference between the AXB calculated dose and the measured dose was not significant (p = 0.197). The difference between AAA/AXB calculated and measured at non-target locations was statistically insignificant at all four non-target locations and the dose calculated by both AAA and AXB algorithms shows a strong positive correlation with the measured dose. The results of the gamma analysis show that the AXB calculated planar dose is in better agreement with measurements compared to the AAA. Even though the results of the dosimetric comparison show that the differences are mostly not significant, the measurements show that there are differences between the two algorithms within the target volume. The AXB algorithm may be therefore more accurate in the dose calculation of VMAT plans for the treatment of small intracranial targets. For non-target locations either algorithm can be used for the estimation of dose accounting for their limitations in non-target dose estimations.

Dosimetric comparison of iPlanⓇ Pencil Beam (PB) and Monte Carlo (MC) algorithms in stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) plans of intracranial arteriovenous malformations.

Stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) is a hypofractionated treatment where accurate dose calculation is of prime importance. The accuracy of the dose calculation depends on the treatment planning algorithm. This study is a retrospective dosimetric comparison of iPlanⓇ Monte Carlo (MC) and Pencil Beam (PB) algorithms in SRS/SRT plans of cranial arteriovenous malformations (AVMs). PB plans of 60 AVM patients who were already treated using 6 MV photons from a linear accelerator were selected and divided into 2 groups. Group-I consists of 30 patients who have undergone embolization procedure with high density OnyxⓇ prior to radiosurgery whereas Group-II had 30 patients who did not have embolization. These plans were recalculated with MC algorithm while keeping parameters like beam orientation, multileaf collimator (MLC) positions, MLC margin, prescription dose, and monitor units constant. Several treatment coverage parameters, isodose volumes, plan quality metrics, dose to organs at risk, and integral dose were used for comparing the 2 algorithms. The isodose distribution generated by the 2 algorithms was also compared with gamma analysis using 1%/1 mm criterion. The difference between the 2 groups as well as the differences in dose calculation by PB and MC algorithms were tested for significance using independent t-test and paired t-test respectively at 5% level of significance. The results of the independent t-test showed that there is no significant difference between the Group-I and Group-II patients for PB as well as MC algorithm due to the presence of high density embolization material. However, results of the paired t-test showed that the differences between the PB and MC algorithms were significant for several parameters analyzed in both groups of patients. The gamma analysis results also showed differences in the dose calculated by the 2 algorithms especially in the low dose regions. The significant differences between the 2 algorithms are probably due to the incorrect representation of the loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium and lateral broadening of small photon beams by PB algorithm. MC algorithms are generally considered not essential for dose calculations for target volumes located in the brain. This study demonstrates PB algorithm may not be sufficiently accurate to predict dose distributions for small fields where there is loss of LCPE. The lateral broadening due to the loss of LCPE as predicted by the MC algorithm could be the main reason for significant differences in the parameters compared. Hence, an accurate MC algorithm if available may prove valuable for intracranial SRS treatment planning of such benign lesions where the long life expectancy of patients makes accurate dosimetry critical.

Evaluation of Plan Quality Metrics in Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Radiotherapy in the Treatment Plans of Arteriovenous Malformations.

AIM: Several plan quality metrics are available for the evaluation of stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy plans. This is a retrospective analysis of 60 clinical treatment plans of arteriovenous malformation (AVM) patients to study clinical usefulness of selected plan quality metrics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treatment coverage parameters Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Conformity Index (CIRTOG), RTOG Quality of Coverage (QRTOG), RTOG Homogeneity Index (HIRTOG), Lomax Conformity Index (CILomax), Paddick's Conformity Index (CIPaddick), and dose gradient parameters Paddick's Gradient Index (GIPaddick) and Equivalent Fall-off Distance (EFOD) were calculated for the cohort of patients. Before analyzing patient plans, the influence of calculation grid size on selected plan quality metrics was studied on spherical targets. RESULTS: It was found that the plan quality metrics are independent of calculation grid size ≤2 mm. EFOD was found to increase linearly with increase in target volume, and a linear fit equation was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis shows that RTOG indices and EFOD would suffice for routine clinical radiosurgical treatment plan evaluation if a dose distribution is available for visual inspection.