A comparative analysis of Acuros XB and the analytical anisotropic algorithm for volumetric modulation arc therapy

BackgroundThis study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA ) calculations for prostate, head and neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT ), without primary modification to AA. At present, the well-known and validated AA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm.Materials and methodNinety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXB_w and dose-to-medium, AXB_m), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OA R). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius^®-4D phantom for different algorithms.ResultsThe relative differences among AA, AXB_w and AXB_m, with respect to prostate, head and neck were less than 1% for PTV D_95%. However, PTV D_95% calculated by AA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXB_w and AA, AXB_m and AA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AA and AXB_m, respectively.ConclusionThis study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXB_m algorithm is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AA to AXB does not require extra measurements.     

Comparison between intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and 3D tangential beams technique used in patients with early-stage breast cancer who received breast-conserving therapy

Background

The most often found complications in patients with breast cancer who received radiotherapy are cardiac and pulmonary function disorders and development of second malignancies.

Aim

To compare the intensity modulated radiotherapy with the 3D tangential beams technique in respect of dose distribution in target volume and critical organs they generate in patients with early-stage breast cancer who received breast-conserving therapy.

Materials and methods

A dosimetric analysis was performed to assess the three radiotherapy techniques used in each of 10 consecutive patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Radiotherapy was planned with the use of all the three techniques: 3D tangential beams with electron boost, IMRT with electron boost, and intensity modulated radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost.

Results

The use of the IMRT techniques enables more homogenous dose distribution in target volume. The range of mean and median dose to the heart and lung was lower with the IMRT techniques in comparison to the 3D tangential beams technique. The range of mean dose to the heart amounted to 0.3–3.5 Gy for the IMRT techniques and 0.4–4.3 for the tangential beams technique. The median dose to the lung on the irradiated side amounted to 4.9–5 Gy for the IMRT techniques and 5.6 Gy for the 3D tangential beams technique.

Conclusion

The application of the IMRT techniques in radiotherapy patients with early-stage breast cancer allows to obtain more homogenous dose distribution in target volume, while permitting to reduce the dose to critical organs.     

Advanced dose calculation algorithms in lung cancer radiotherapy: Implications for SBRT and locally advanced disease in deep inspiration breath hold

PurposeEvaluating performance of modern dose calculation algorithms in SBRT and locally advanced lung cancer radiotherapy in free breathing (FB) and deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH).MethodsFor 17 patients with early stage and 17 with locally advanced lung cancer, a plan in FB and in DIBH were generated with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). Plans for early stage were 3D-conformal SBRT, 45 Gy in 3 fractions, prescribed to 95% isodose covering 95% of PTV and aiming for 140% dose centrally in the tumour. Locally advanced plans were volumetric modulated arc therapy, 66 Gy in 33 fractions, prescribed to mean PTV dose. Calculation grid size was 1 mm for SBRT and 2.5 mm for locally advanced plans. All plans were recalculated with AcurosXB with same MU as in AAA, for comparison on target coverage and dose to risk organs.ResultsLung volume increased in DIBH, resulting in decreased lung density (6% for early and 13% for locally-advanced group).In SBRT, AAA overestimated mean and near-minimum PTV dose (p-values < 0.01) compared to AcurosXB, with largest impact in DIBH (differences of up to 11 Gy). These clinically relevant differences may be a combination of small targets and large dose gradients within the PTV.In locally advanced group, AAA overestimated mean GTV, CTV and PTV doses by median less than 0.8 Gy and near-minimum doses by median 0.4–2.7 Gy.No clinically meaningful difference was observed for lung and heart dose metrics between the algorithms, for both FB and DIBH.ConclusionsAAA overestimated target coverage compared to AcurosXB, especially in DIBH for SBRT.     

Accuracy of dose calculation on iterative CBCT for head and neck radiotherapy

PurposeTo evaluate the feasibility of the use of iterative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for dose calculation in the head and neck region.MethodsThis study includes phantom and clinical studies. All acquired CBCT images were reconstructed with Feldkamp–Davis–Kress algorithm-based CBCT (FDK-CBCT) and iterative CBCT (iCBCT) algorithm. The Hounsfield unit (HU) consistency between the head and body phantoms was determined in both reconstruction techniques. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were generated for 16 head and neck patients on a planning CT scan, and the doses were recalculated on FDK-CBCT and iCBCT with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB). As a comparison of the accuracy of dose calculations, the absolute dosimetric difference and 1%/1 mm gamma passing rate analysis were analyzed.ResultsThe difference in the mean HU values between the head and body phantoms was larger for FDK-CBCT (max value: 449.1 HU) than iCBCT (260.0 HU). The median dosimetric difference from the planning CT were <1.0% for both FDK-CBCT and iCBCT but smaller differences were found with iCBCT (planning target volume D_50%: 0.38% (0.15–0.59%) for FDK-CBCT, 0.28% (0.13–0.49%) for iCBCT, AAA; 0.14% (0.04–0.19%) for FDK-CBCT, 0.07% (0.02–0.20%) for iCBCT). The mean gamma passing rate was significantly better in iCBCT than FDK-CBCT (AAA: 98.7% for FDK-CBCT, 99.4% for iCBCT; AXB: 96.8% for FDK_CBCT, 97.5% for iCBCT).ConclusionThe iCBCT-based dose calculation in VMAT for head and neck cancer was accurate compared to FDK-CBCT.     

Dosimetric comparison of analytic anisotropic algorithm and Acuros XB algorithm in VMAT plans for high-grade glioma

PurposeTo investigate the dosimetric impact between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for high-grade glioma (HGG).MethodsWe used a heterogeneous phantom to quantify the agreement between the measured and calculated doses from the AAA and from the AXB. We then analyzed 14 patients with HGG treated by VMAT, using the AAA. We newly created AXB plans for each corresponding AAA plan under the following conditions: (1) re-calculation for the same number of monitor units with an identical beam and leaf setup, and (2) re-optimization under the same conditions of dose constraints. The dose coverage for the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated by dividing the coverage into the skull, air, and soft-tissue regions.ResultsCompared to the results obtained with the AAA, the AXB results were in good agreement with the measured profiles. The dose differences in the PTV between the AAA and re-calculated AXB plans were large in the skull region contained in the target. The dose difference in the PTV in both types of plan was significantly correlated with the volume of the skull contained in the target (r = 0.71, p = 0.0042). A re-optimized AXB plan's dose difference was lower vs. the re-calculated AXB plan's.ConclusionsWe observed dose differences between the AAA and AXB plans, in particular in the cases in which the skull region of the target was large. Considering the phantom measurement results, the AXB algorithm should be used in VMAT plans for HGG.     

Prediction of multi-criteria optimization (MCO) parameter efficiency in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment planning using machine learning (ML)

PurposeTo predict the impact of optimization parameter changes on dosimetric plan quality criteria in multi-criteria optimized volumetric-modulated-arc therapy (VMAT) planning prior to optimization using machine learning (ML).MethodsA data base comprising a total of 21,266 VMAT treatment plans for 44 cranial and 18 spinal patient geometries was generated. The underlying optimization algorithm is governed by three highly composite parameters which model a combination of important aspects of the solution. Patient geometries were parametrized via volume- and shape properties of the voxel objects and overlap-volume histograms (OVH) of the planning-target-volume (PTV) and a relevant organ-at-risk (OAR). The impact of changes in one of the three optimization parameters on the maximally achievable value range of five dosimetric properties of the resulting dose distributions was studied. To predict the extent of this impact based on patient geometry, treatment site, and current parameter settings prior to optimization, three different ML-models were trained and tested. Precision-recall curves, as well as the area-under-curve (AUC) of the resulting receiver-operator-characteristic (ROC) curves were analyzed for model assessment.ResultsSuccessful identification of parameter regions resulting in a high variability of dosimetric plan properties depended on the choice of geometry features, the treatment indication and the plan property under investigation. AUC values between 0.82 and 0.99 could be achieved. The best average-precision (AP) values obtained from the corresponding precision/recall curves ranged from 0.71 to 0.99.ConclusionsMachine learning models trained on a database of pre-optimized treatment plans can help finding relevant optimization parameter ranges prior to optimization.     

Dosimetric evaluation of irregular surface compensator and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in breast radiotherapy

BackgroundThis dosimetric study aims to evaluate the dosimetric advantage of the irregular surface compensator (ISC) compared with the intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT).Materials and methodsTen patients with whole breast irradiation were planned with the ISC and IMRT techniques. Six different beam directions were selected for IMRT and ISC plans. The treatment plans were evaluated with respect to planning target coverage, dose homogeneity index (DHI) and organs at risk (OARs) sparing. Monitor units (MUs) and the delivery time were analysed for treatment efficiency.ResultsThe ISC technique provides a better coverage of the PTV and statistically significantly better homogeneity of the dose distribution. For the ipsilateral lung and heart, ISC and IMRT techniques deliver almost the same dose in all plans. However, MU counts and delivery time were significantly lower with the IMRT technique (p < 0.05).ConclusionFor breast radiotherapy, when the ISC method was compared to the IMRT method, ISC provided better dose distribution for the target.     

Variation of the prescription dose using the analytical anisotropic algorithm in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy

PurposeThe aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the dosimetric variation regarding the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) relative to other algorithms in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We conducted a multi-institutional study involving six institutions using a secondary check program and compared the AAA to the Acuros XB (AXB) in two institutions.MethodsAll lung SBRT plans (128 patients) were generated using the AAA, pencil beam convolution with the Batho (PBC-B) and adaptive convolve (AC). All institutions used the same secondary check program (simple MU analysis [SMU]) implemented by a Clarkson-based dose calculation algorithm. Measurement was performed in a heterogeneous phantom to compare doses using the three different algorithms and the SMU for the measurements. A retrospective analysis was performed to compute the confidence limit (CL; mean ± 2SD) for the dose deviation between the AAA, PBC, AC and SMU. The variations between the AAA and AXB were evaluated in two institutions, then the CL was acquired.ResultsIn comparing the measurements, the AAA showed the largest systematic dose error (3%). In calculation comparisons, the CLs of the dose deviation were 8.7 ± 9.9% (AAA), 4.2 ± 3.9% (PBC-B) and 5.7 ± 4.9% (AC). The CLs of the dose deviation between the AXB and the AAA were 1.8 ± 1.5% and −0.1 ± 4.4%, respectively, in the two institutions.ConclusionsThe CL of the AAA showed much larger variation than the other algorithms. Relative to the AXB, larger systematic and random deviations still appeared. Thus, care should be taken in the use of AAA for lung SBRT.     

Impact of acuros XB algorithm in deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) respiratory techniques used for the treatment of left breast cancer

AimTo investigate the impact of Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in the deep-inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique used for treatment of left sided breast cancer.BackgroundAXB may estimate better lung toxicities and treatment outcome in DIBH.Materials and MethodsTreatment plans were computed using the field-in-field technique for a 6 MV beam in two respiratory phases - free breathing (FB) and DIBH. The AXB-calculations were performed under identical beam setup and the same numbers of monitor units as used for AAA-calculation.ResultsMean Hounsfield units (HU), mass density (g/cc) and relative electron density were -782.1 ± 24.8 and -883.5 ± 24.9; 0.196 ± 0.025 and 0.083 ± 0.032; 0.218 ± 0.025 and 0.117 ± 0.025 for the lung in the FB and DIBH respiratory phase, respectively. For a similar target coverage (p > 0.05) in the DIBH respiratory phase between the AXB and AAA algorithm, there was a slight increase in organ at risk (OAR) dose for AXB in comparison to AAA, except for mean dose to the ipsilateral lung. AAA predicts higher mean dose to the ipsilateral lung and lesser V_20Gy for the ipsilateral and common lung in comparison to AXB. The differences in mean dose to the ipsilateral lung were 0.87 ± 2.66 % (p > 0.05) in FB, and 1.01 ± 1.07% (p < 0.05) in DIBH, in V_20Gy the differences were 1.76 ± 0.83% and 1.71 ± 0.82% in FB (p < 0.05), 3.34 ± 1.15 % and 3.24 ± 1.17 % in DIBH (p < 0.05), for the ipsilateral and common lung, respectively.ConclusionFor a similar target volume coverage, there were important differences between the AXB and AAA algorithm for low-density inhomogeneity medium present in the DIBH respiratory phase for left sided breast cancer patients. DIBH treatment in conjunction with AXB may result in better estimation of lung toxicities and treatment outcome.     

Monte Carlo calculations of radiotherapy dose in “homogeneous” anatomy

Given the substantial literature on the use of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to verify treatment planning system (TPS) calculations of radiotherapy dose in heterogeneous regions, such as head and neck and lung, this study investigated the potential value of running MC simulations of radiotherapy treatments of nominally homogeneous pelvic anatomy. A pre-existing in-house MC job submission and analysis system, built around BEAMnrc and DOSXYZnrc, was used to evaluate the dosimetric accuracy of a sample of 12 pelvic volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) treatments, planned using the Varian Eclipse TPS, where dose was calculated with both the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros (AXB) algorithm. In-house TADA (Treatment And Dose Assessor) software was used to evaluate treatment plan complexity, in terms of the small aperture score (SAS), modulation index (MI) and a novel exposed leaf score (ELS/ELA). Results showed that the TPS generally achieved closer agreement with the MC dose distribution when treatments were planned for smaller (single-organ) targets rather than larger targets that included nodes or metastases. Analysis of these MC results with reference to the complexity metrics indicated that while AXB was useful for reducing dosimetric uncertainties associated with density heterogeneity, the residual TPS dose calculation uncertainties resulted from treatment plan complexity and TPS model simplicity. The results of this study demonstrate the value of using MC methods to recalculate and check the dose calculations provided by commercial radiotherapy TPSs, even when the treated anatomy is assumed to be comparatively homogeneous, such as in the pelvic region.     

Influence of multi-leaf collimator leaf width in radiosurgery via volumetric modulated arc therapy and 3D dynamic conformal arc therapy

PurposeTo study the influence of Multileaf Collimator (MLC) leaf width in radiosurgery treatment planning for Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) and 3D Dynamic Conformal Arc Therapy (3D-DCA).Material and methods16 patients with solitary brain metastases treated with radiosurgery via the non-coplanar VMAT were replanned for the 3D-DCA. For each planning technique two MLC leaf width sizes were utilized, i.e. 5 mm and 2.5 mm. These treatment plans were compared using dosimetric indices (conformity, gradient and mean dose for brain tissue) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP).ResultsAn improvement in planning quality for VMAT was observed versus 3D-DCA for any MLC leaf width, mainly with regards to dose conformity and to a lesser extent regards dose gradient. No significant difference was observed for any of both techniques using smaller leaf width. However, dose gradient was improved in favor of the 2.5 mm MLC for either of both techniques (15% VMAT and 10% 3D-DCA); being noticeable for lesions smaller than 10 cm³. Nonetheless, the NTCP index was not significantly affected by variations in the dose gradient index.ConclusionsThis, our present study, suggests that the use of an MLC leaf width of 2.5 mm via the noncoplanar VMAT and 3D-DCA techniques provides improvement in terms of dose gradient for small volumes, over those results obtained with an MLC leaf width of 5 mm. The 3D-DCA does also benefit from MLC leaf widths of a smaller size, mainly in terms of conformity.     

Significant impact on the oncologic outcomes with intensity modulated radiotherapy and conformational radiotherapy over conventional radiotherapy in cervix cancer patients treated with radiotherapy

ObjectiveWe designed a retrospective cohort of women with cervix cancer treated by radiation therapy with an extended follow-up to evaluate if the incorporation of modern radiation techniques was a prognostic factor.Material and methodsWe studied a cohort of patients with cervix cancer FIGO stage I-IVa treated in the last fifteen years. Patients were treated with radiotherapy alone (RT) or chemoradiation alone (CRT) using conventional radiotherapy (2DRT), conformational radiotherapy (3DRT), or intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) followed by high dose rate brachytherapy. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to identify significant prognostic factors (p < 0.05).Results228 patients with cervix cancer were included. The treatment groups were CRT (64.8%), and RT (34.2%), with 31.6% submitted to 2DRT and 68.4% to IMRT/3DRT. The median follow-up was 6.3 years, the OS in 5 years according to the treatment groups was 48% for CRT, and 27.8% for RT (p < 0.001). The early-stage I-IIa (p = 0.001), CRT, and IMRT/3DRT were significant factors for better overall survival (OS) in the multivariate analysis. For the cancer-specific survival (CSS), chemoradiation, age <60 years, and IMRT/3DRT were significant. Treatment with IMRT/3DRT was the only prognostic factor associated with event-free survival (EFS).ConclusionIn a long-term follow-up, chemoradiation, early-clinical stage, and age <60 years were significant factors associated with better OS and CSS at 5 and 8 years. The incorporation of new radiation techniques, such as IMRT/3DRT, over time has a significant impact on all endpoints (EFS, OS, and CSS) of this cohort. These outcomes are useful to decide about the radiation technique to achieve satisfactory oncological results outside a clinical trial.     

Use of a second-dose calculation algorithm to check dosimetric parameters for the dose distribution of a first-dose calculation algorithm for lung SBRT plans

PurposeTo verify lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans using a secondary treatment planning system (TPS) as an independent method of verification and to define tolerance levels (TLs) in lung SBRT between the primary and secondary TPSs.MethodsA total of 147 lung SBRT plans calculated using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were exported from iPlan to Eclipse in DICOM format. Dose distributions were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), while maintaining monitor units (MUs) and the beam arrangement. Dose to isocenter and dose-volumetric parameters, such as D₂, D₅₀, D₉₅ and D₉₈, were evaluated for each patient. The TLs of all parameters between XVMC and AXB (TL_AXB) and between XVMC and AAA (TL_AAA) were calculated as the mean ± 1.96 standard deviations.ResultsAXB values agreed with XVMC values within 3.5% for all dosimetric parameters in all patients. By contrast, AAA sometimes calculated a 10% higher dose in PTV D₉₅ and D₉₈ than XVMC. The TL_AXB and TL_AAA of the dose to isocenter were −0.3 ± 1.4% and 0.6 ± 2.9%, respectively. Those of D₉₅ were 1.3 ± 1.8% and 1.7 ± 3.6%, respectively.ConclusionsThis study quantitatively demonstrated that the dosimetric performance of AXB is almost equal to that of XVMC, compared with that of AAA. Therefore, AXB is a more appropriate algorithm for an independent verification method for XVMC.     

Dose distribution comparison in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique

AimThis study compared volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for head and neck cancers with and without an external body contour extended technique (EBCT).BackgroundDose calculation algorisms for VMAT have limitations in the buildup region.Materials and methodsThree VMAT plans were enrolled, with one case having a metal artifact from an artificial tooth. The proper dose was calculated using Eclipse version 11.0. The body contours were extended 2 cm outward from the skin surface in three-dimensional space, and the dose was recalculated with an anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB). Monitor units (MUs) were set, and the dose distributions in the planning target volume (PTV), clinical target volume, and organ at risk (OAR) and conformity index (CI) with and without an EBCT were compared. The influence of a metal artifact outside of the thermoplastic head mask was also compared.ResultsThe coverage of PTV by the 95% dose line near the patient’s skin was increased drastically by using an EBCT. Plan renormalization had a negligible impact on MUs and doses delivered to OARs. CI of PTV with a 6-MV photon beam was closer to 1 than that with a 10-MV photon beam when both AAA and AXB were used in all cases. Metal artifacts outside the head mask had no effect on dose distribution.ConclusionsAn EBCT is needed to estimate the proper dose at object volumes near the patient’s skin and can improve the accuracy of the calculated dose at target volumes.     

Evaluation of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) — based total body irradiation (TBI) in pediatric patients

BackgroundThe dosimetric characterization of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT)-based total-body irradiation (TBI) in pediatric patients is evaluated.Materials and methodsTwenty-two patients between the ages of 2 and 12 years were enrolled for VMAT-based TBI from 2018 to 2020. Three isocenters were irradiated over three overlapping arcs. While prescribing 90% of the TBI dose to the planning treatment volume (PTV), two fractions (2 Gy each) were delivered each day; hence 12 Gy was delivered in six fractions. During treatment optimization, the mean lung and kidney doses were set not to exceed 7 Gy and 7.5 Gy, respectively. The maximum lens dose was also set to less than 4 Gy. Patient quality assurance was carried out by comparing treatment planning system doses to the 3-dimensional measured doses by the ArcCHECK^® detector. The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) gamma indices were also obtained.ResultsThe average mean lung dose was 7.75 ± 0.18 Gy, mean kidney dose 7.63 ± 0.26 Gy, maximum lens dose 4.41 ± 0.39 Gy, and the mean PTV dose 12.69 ± 0.16 Gy. The average PTV heterogeneity index was 1.15 ± 0.03. Average differences in mean kidney dose, mean lung dose, and mean target dose were 2.79% ± 0.88, 0.84% ± 0.45 and 0.93% ± 0.47, respectively; when comparing planned and ArcCHECK^® measured doses. Only grade 1–2 radiation toxicities were recorded, based on CTCAE v5.0 scoring criteria.ConclusionsVMAT-TBI was characterized with good PTV coverage, homogeneous dose distribution, planned and measured dose agreement, and low toxicity.     

Dosimetric comparison of conformal technique (3D) with volumetric modulated arc therapy with respect to doses obtained in the temporal lobe area in patients irradiated for brain meningioma

AimThe aim of the analysis was to compare doses obtained for temporal lobes in patients being irradiated for meningiomas of the brain using the conformal technique and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). We try to answer the question whether the application of VMAT would lead to higher doses within temporal lobes.BackgroundIn recent years a significant increase in the detection of meningiomas and effectiveness of treatment has been observed. Hence quality of life should be considered as an important aspect after a treatment course.Materials and methodsTreatment plans of 27 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Radiotherapy procedures were carried out from 2007 until 2016 at the Department of Radiation Oncology in Wroclaw, Poland. For individual patients, alternative treatment plans were generated in relation to the ones originally used, wherein from dynamic techniques, volumetric modulated arc therapy was selected for analysis. Evaluated dosimetric parameters for temporal lobes were: mean dose, V10 Gy, V20 Gy, V45 Gy.ResultsStatistically significant differences were observed for V45 Gy for both temporal lobes (p = 0.023) and for V45 Gy for the right (p = 0.001) and the left temporal lobe (p = 0.016) considered for VMAT. The mean values of the V45 Gy for both temporal lobes, for the right temporal lobe and for the left temporal lobe were lower for VMAT than for 3D, respectively: 7.54% and 7.90%, 6.82% and 9.47%, 5.67% and 7.14%.Analysis of the remaining results found no statistical differences.ConclusionApplication of VMAT in patients treated for meningioma of the brain is not related to higher doses of radiation in the temporal lobe area, compared with the conformal technique.     

Monte Carlo dose calculation in presence of low-density media: Application to lung SBRT treated during DIBH

PurposeCommercial algorithms used in Radiotherapy include approximations that are generally acceptable. However their limits can be seen when confronted with small fields and low-density media. These conditions exist during the treatment of lung cancers with Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) achieved with the “Deep Inspiration Breath Hold” (DIBH) technique. A Monte Carlo (MC) model of a linear accelerator was used to assess the performance of two algorithms (Varian Acuros and AAA) in these conditions. This model is validated using phantoms with different densities. Lastly, results for SBRT cases are compared to both Acuros and AAA.MethodsA Varian TrueBeam linac was modeled using GATE/Geant4 and validated by comparing dose distributions for simple fields to measurements in water and in heterogeneous phantoms composed of PMMA and two types of cork (corresponding to lung densities during free-breathing and DIBH). Experimental measurements are also compared to AAA and Acuros. Finally, results of Acuros/AAA are compared to MC for a clinical case (SBRT during DIBH).ResultsBased on 1D gamma index comparisons with measurements in water, the TrueBeam model was validated (>97% of points passed this test). In heterogeneous phantoms, and in particular for small field sizes, very low density (0.12 g.cm⁻³) and at the edge of the field, MC model was still in good agreement with measurements whilst AAA and Acuros showed discrepancies. With the patient CT, similar differences between MC and AAA/Acuros were observed for static fields but disappeared using an SBRT arc field.ConclusionsOur MC model is validated and limits of commercial algorithms are shown in very low densities.     

Evaluating the usefulness of the direct density reconstruction algorithm for intensity modulated and passively scattered proton therapy: Validation using an anthropomorphic phantom

PurposeAccurate calculation of the proton beam range inside a patient is an important topic in proton therapy. In recent times, a computed tomography (CT) image reconstruction algorithm was developed for treatment planning to reduce the impact of the variation of the CT number with changes in imaging conditions. In this study, we investigated the usefulness of this new reconstruction algorithm (DirectDensity™: DD) in proton therapy based on its comparison with filtered back projection (FBP).MethodsWe evaluated the effects of variations in the X-ray tube potential and target size on the FBP- and DD-image values and investigated the usefulness of the DD algorithm based on the range variations and dosimetric quantity variations.ResultsFor X-ray tube potential variations, the range variation in the case of FBP was up to 12.5 mm (20.8%), whereas that of DD was up to 3.3 mm (5.6%). Meanwhile, for target size variations, the range variation in the case of FBP was up to 2.2 mm (2.5%), whereas that of DD was up to 0.9 mm (1.4%). Moreover, the variations observed in the case of DD were smaller than those of FBP for all dosimetric quantities.ConclusionThe dose distributions obtained using DD were more robust against variations in the CT imaging conditions (X-ray tube potential and target size) than those obtained using FBP, and the range variations were often less than the dose calculation grid (2 mm). Therefore, the DD algorithm is effective in a robust workflow and reduces uncertainty in range calculations.     

Clinical verification of treatment planning dose calculation in lung SBRT with GATE Monte Carlo simulation code

PurposeThis study aims to use GATE/Geant4 simulation code to evaluate the performance of dose calculations with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in the context of lung SBRT for complex treatments considering images of patients.MethodsFour cases of non-small cell lung cancer treated with SBRT were selected for this study. Irradiation plans were created with AAA and recalculated end to end using Monte Carlo (MC) method maintaining field configurations identical to the original plans. Each treatment plan was evaluated in terms of PTV and organs at risk (OARs) using dose-volume histograms (DVH). Dosimetric parameters obtained from DVHs were used to compare AAA and MC.ResultsThe comparison between the AAA and MC DVH using gamma analysis with the passing criteria of 3%/3% showed an average passing rate of more than 90% for the PTV structure and 97% for the OARs. Tightening the criteria to 2%/2% showed a reduction in the average passing rate of the PTV to 86%. The agreement between the AAA and MC dose calculations for PTV dosimetric parameters (V₁₀₀; V₉₀; Homogeneity index; maximum, minimum and mean dose; CI_Paddick and D_2cm) was within 18.4%. For OARs, the biggest differences were observed in the spinal cord and the great vessels.ConclusionsIn general, we did not find significant differences between AAA and MC. The results indicate that AAA could be used in complex SBRT cases that involve a larger number of small treatment fields in the presence of tissue heterogeneities.