Dosimetric comparison of analytical anisotropic algorithm and the two dose reporting modes of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate.

Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) is an important modality for radical radiotherapy of all major treatment sites. This study aims to compare Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and the two dose-reporting modes of Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm -the dose to medium option (Dm) and the dose to water option (Dw) in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate. We also compared the measured dose with Treatment Planning System calculated dose for AAA and the two dose reporting options of Acuros XB using Electronic Portal Imaging Device (EPID) and ArcCHECK phantom. Treatment plans of twenty patients each who have already undergone radiotherapy for cancer of lung and cancer of prostate were selected for the study. Three sets of VMAT plans were generated in Eclipse Treatment Planning System (TPS), one with AAA and two plans with Acuros-Dm and Acuros-Dw options. The Dose Volume Histograms (DVHs) were compared and analyzed for Planning Target Volume (PTV) and critical structures for all the plans. Verification plans were created for each plan and measured doses were compared with TPS calculated doses using EPID and ArcCHECK phantom for all the three algorithms. For lung plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-Dw plans was higher by 1.7% and in the AXB-Dm plans by 0.66% when compared to AAA plans. For prostate plans, the mean dose to PTV in the AXB-Dw plans was higher by 3.0% and in the AXB-Dm plans by 1.6% when compared to AAA plans. There was no difference in the Conformity Index (CI) between AAA and AXB-Dm and between AAA and AXB-Dw plans for both sites. But the homogeneity worsened in AXB-Dw and AXB-Dm plans when compared to AAA plans for both sites. AXB-Dw calculated higher dose values for PTV and all the critical structures with significant differences with one or two exceptions. Point dose measurements in ArcCHECK phantom showed that AXB-Dm and AXB-Dw options showed very small deviations with measured dose distributions than AAA for both sites. Results of EPID QA also showed better pass rates for AXB-Dw and AXB-Dm than AAA for both sites when gamma analysis was done for 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria. With reference to the results, it is always better to choose Acuros algorithm for dose calculations if it is available in the TPS. AXB-Dw plans showed very high dose values in the PTV when compared to AAA and AXB-Dm in both sites studied. Also, the volume of PTV receiving 107% dose was significantly high in AXB-Dw plans compared to AXB-Dm plans in sites involving high density bones. Considering the results of dosimetric comparison and QA measurements, it is always better to choose AXB-Dm algorithm for dose calculations for all treatment sites especially when high density bony structures and complex treatment techniques are involved. For patient specific QA purposes, choosing AXB-Dm or AXB-Dw does not make any significant difference between calculated and measured dose distributions.

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.

Design, Fabrication, and Validation of a Polymethyl Methacrylate Head Phantom for Dosimetric Verification of Cranial Radiotherapy Treatment Plans.

PURPOSE: The present study aims to design and fabricate a novel, versatile, and cost-effective Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) head phantom for the dosimetric pretreatment verification of radiotherapy (RT) treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The head phantom designing involves slice-wise modeling of an adult head using PMMA. The phantom has provisions to hold detectors such as ionization chambers of different sizes, Gafchromic films, gel dosimeter, and optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter. For the point dose verification purpose, 15 volumetric modulated arc therapy patient plans were selected, and doses were measured using a CC13 ionization chamber. The percentage gamma passing rate was calculated for acceptance criteria 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm using OmniPro I'mRT film QA software, and Gafchromic EBT3 films were used for 2D planar dose verification. RESULTS: Treatment planning system calculated, and the measured point doses showed a percentage deviation ranged from 0.26 to 1.92. The planar dose fluence measurements, for set acceptance criteria of 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, percentages of points having gamma value <1 were in the range of 99.17 ± 0.25 to 99.88 ± 0.15 and 93.16 ± 0.38 to 98.89 ± 0.23, respectively. Measured dose verification indices were within the acceptable limit. CONCLUSIONS: The dosimetric study reveals that head phantom can be used for routine pretreatment verification for the cranial RT, especially for stereotactic radiosurgery/RT as a part of patient-specific quality assurance. The presently fabricated and validated phantom is novel, versatile, and cost-effective, and many institutes can afford it.

Estimation of dosimetric discrepancy due to use of Onyx™ embolic system in Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) planning.

More often the embolic materials in the brain create artefacts in the planning CT images that could lead to a dose variation in planned and delivered dose. The aim of the study was to evaluate the dosimetric effect of artefacts generated by the Onyx™ embolization material during Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) planning. An in-house made novel Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA) head phantom (specially designed for SRS/SRT plans) was used for this purpose. For the evaluation process, we have created concentric ring structures around the central Onyx materials on both the CT sets (with and without Onyx material). The verification plans were generated using different algorithms namely Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB and Monaco based Monte Carlo on both CT sets. Mean integral dose over the region of interest were calculated in both CT sets. The dosimetric results shows, due to the presence of Onyx material, relative variation in mean integral dose to the proximal structure (Ring 1) were -4.02%, -2.98%, and -2.49% for Monte Carlo, Acuros XB, and AAA respectively. Observed variations are attributed to the presence of artefacts due to Onyx material. Artefacts influence the accuracy of dose calculation during the planning. All the calculation algorithms are not equally capable to account such variations. Special cares are to be taken while choosing the calculation algorithms as it impacts the results of treatment outcome.

Dosimetric Comparison of Treatment Plans Using Physical Wedge and Enhanced Dynamic Wedge for the Planning of Breast Radiotherapy.

The aim of this study is to compare the physical wedge (PW) with enhanced dynamic wedge (EDW) to determine the difference in the dose distribution affecting the treated breast and the contralateral breast, lungs, heart, esophagus, spine, and surrounding skin in the radiotherapy of breast cancer. Computed tomography (CT) data sets of 30 breast cancer patients were selected from the database for the study. The treatment plans which were executed with PW were re-planned with EDW without changing the beam parameters. Keeping the wedge angles same, the analytic anisotropic algorithm (AAA) with heterogeneity correction was used for dose calculation in all plans. The prescription was 50 Gy in 25 fractions. The dose- volume histogram (DVH) of the planning target volume (PTV) and critical structures of both PW and EDW plans were analyzed. The analysis showed that the maximum dose within the target volume is higher in EDW plan compared to PW plan. However the PTV conformity index (CI) remained the same in both plans. For all the critical structures, the EDW technique offered less dose compared to PW technique. The effect of volume of the contralateral breast on the dose to contralateral breast and the effect of volume of PTV breast for patients with carcinoma left breast on the dose to heart were studied and analyzed for the two wedges. No correlation between volumes and dose parameters was found for the two techniques. The number of monitor units to deliver a particular dose with EDW field is less than that of PW field due to change in wedge factor. As EDW produces less scattered dose to structures outside the treatment field, the risk of a second malignancy can be reduced with this technique.

Verification of Treatment Planning Algorithms Using Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeters in a Breast Phantom.

AIM: The aim of this study is to measure and compare the surface dose of treated breast and contralateral breast with the treatment planning system (TPS) calculated dose using calibrated optically stimulated luminescent dosimeter (OSLD) in an indigenous wax breast phantom. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three-dimensional conformal plans were generated in eclipse TPS v. 13 to treat the left breast of a wax phantom for a prescribed dose of 200 cGy. The plans were calculated using anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros algorithm with 1-mm grid size. Calibrated OSLDs were used to measure the surface dose of treated and contralateral breasts. RESULTS: Large differences were observed between measured and expected doses when OSLDs were read in "reading mode" compared to the "hardware mode." The consistency in the responses of OSLDs was better (deviation <±5%) in the "hardware mode." Reasonable agreement between TPS dose and measured dose was found in regions inside the treatment field of treated breast using OSLDs for both algorithms. OSLD measured doses and TPS doses, for the points where the angle of incidence was almost normal, were in good agreement compared to all other locations where the angle of incidence varied from 45° to 70°. The maximum deviation between measured doses and calculated doses with AAA and with Acuros were 2.2% and-12.38%, respectively, for planning target volume breast, and 76% and 77.51%, respectively, for the opposite breast. CONCLUSION: An independent calibration factor is required before using the OSLDs for in vivo dose measurements. With reference to measured doses using OSLD, the accuracy of skin dose estimation of TPS with AAA was better than with Acuros for both the breasts. In general, a reasonable agreement between TPS doses calculated using AAA and measured doses exists in regions inside treatment field, but unacceptable differences were observed for the points lateral to the opposite breast for both AAA and Acuros.