Optimizing the effective spot size and the dosimetric leaf gap of the AcurosXB algorithm for VMAT treatment planning.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to provide and test a new methodology to adjust the AcurosXB beam model for VMAT treatment plans. METHOD: The effective target spot size of the AcurosXB v15 algorithm was adjusted in order to minimize the difference between calculated and measured penumbras. The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) was adjusted using the asynchronous oscillating sweeping gap tests defined in the literature and the MLC transmission was measured. The impact of the four parameters on the small field output factors was assessed using a design of experiment methodology. Patient quality controls were performed for the three beam models investigated including two energies and two MLC models. RESULTS: Effective target spot sizes differed from the manufacturer recommendations and strongly depended on the MLC model considered. DLG values ranged from 0.7 to 2.3 mm and were found to be larger than the ones based on the sweeping gap tests. All parameters were found to significantly influence the calculated output factors, especially for the 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm field size. Interactions were also identified for fields smaller than 2 cm × 2 cm, suggesting that adjusting the parameters on the small field output factors should be done with caution. All patient quality controls passed the universal action limit of 90%. CONCLUSION: The methodology provided is simple to implement in clinical practice. It was validated for three beam models covering a large variety of treatment types and localizations.

Comparison of five dose calculation algorithms in a heterogeneous media using design of experiment.

PURPOSE: Design of experiments (DoE) provides a methodology to reveal the influence of input values on the measured output with a limited number of trials. The purpose of this study was to describe how DoE can be used to evaluate the performances of several dose calculation systems in heterogeneous media, including algorithms like Pencil Beam (PB), Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB (AXB), Monte Carlo (MC) and Collapsed Cone Volume (CCV). METHOD: This study was carried out using a CIRS Model 002LFC IMRT Thorax Phantom customized with a water-equivalent heterogeneity inside the lung. The calculated dose distributions were compared to Gafchromic® EBT3 film measurements. The beam configurations were selected using DoE to study the influence of five parameters simultaneously (energy, collimator angulation, gantry angulation, X and Y jaws) and to optimize the number of experiments. An analysis of variance was performed over the entire irradiation field and over various regions of interest (tumour, shadow of tumour and lungs). RESULTS: DoE enabled to quantify and determine the statistically significant factors, leading to an evaluation of the dose calculation systems in the lung case. The resulting scoring could be as follow (from best to worst): AXB_Dm, CCV, AXB_Dw, XVMC_Dm, XVMC_Dw, AAA and last PB. Differences between the algorithms were specially observed in the tumour and the shadow regions. CONCLUSION: DoE is a robust statistical method to compare several dose calculation systems. The various analyses lead to the conclusion that AXB handled more accurately most of the situations investigated in heterogeneous media.

Design of experiments in medical physics: Application to the AAA beam model validation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of the design of experiments in the analysis of multiparametric problems related to the quality assurance in radiotherapy. The main motivation is to use this statistical method to optimize the quality assurance processes in the validation of beam models. METHOD: Considering the Varian Eclipse system, eight parameters with several levels were selected: energy, MLC, depth, X, Y1 and Y2 jaw dimensions, wedge and wedge jaw. A Taguchi table was used to define 72 validation tests. Measurements were conducted in water using a CC04 on a TrueBeam STx, a TrueBeam Tx, a Trilogy and a 2300IX accelerator matched by the vendor. Dose was computed using the AAA algorithm. The same raw data was used for all accelerators during the beam modelling. RESULTS: The mean difference between computed and measured doses was 0.1±0.5% for all beams and all accelerators with a maximum difference of 2.4% (under the 3% tolerance level). For all beams, the measured doses were within 0.6% for all accelerators. The energy was found to be an influencing parameter but the deviations observed were smaller than 1% and not considered clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Designs of experiment can help define the optimal measurement set to validate a beam model. The proposed method can be used to identify the prognostic factors of dose accuracy. The beam models were validated for the 4 accelerators which were found dosimetrically equivalent even though the accelerator characteristics differ.