Purpose: The Halcyon radiotherapy platform at Groote Schuur Hospital was delivered with a factory-configured analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) beam model for dose calculation. In a recent system upgrade, the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was installed. Both algorithms adopt fundamentally different approaches to dose calculation. This study aimed to compare the dose distributions of cervical carcinoma RapidArc plans calculated using both algorithms.Methods: A total of 15 plans previously calculated using the AAA were retrieved and recalculated using the AXB algorithm. Comparisons were performed using the planning target volume (PTV) maximum (max) and minimum (min) doses, D95%, D98%, D50%, D2%, homogeneity index (HI), and conformity index (CI). The mean and max doses and D2% were compared for the bladder, bowel, and femoral heads.Results: The AAA calculated slightly higher targets, D98%, D95%, D50%, and CI, than the AXB algorithm (44.49 Gy vs. 44.32 Gy, P=0.129; 44.87 Gy vs. 44.70 Gy, P=0.089; 46.00 Gy vs. 45.98 Gy, P=0.154; and 0.51 vs. 0.50, P=0.200, respectively). For target min dose, D2%, max dose, and HI, the AAA scored lower than the AXB algorithm (41.24 Gy vs. 41.30 Gy, P=0.902; 47.34 Gy vs. 47.75 Gy, P<0.001; 48.62 Gy vs. 50.14 Gy, P<0.001; and 0.06 vs. 0.07, P=0.002, respectively). For bladder, bowel, and left and right femurs, the AAA calculated higher mean and max doses.Conclusions: Statistically significant differences were observed for PTV D2%, max dose, HI, and bowel max dose (P>0.05).
The Halcyon O-ring gantry linear accelerator from Varian Medical Systems is delivered with a hardcoded beam-source model and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm dose calculation algorithm as standard, while the Acuros XB algorithm is a purchasable option. The models in both algorithms are factory-configured and do not permit fine-tuning by the user. In this study, we compared the two algorithms for sequential boost RapidArc treatment planning of Head & Neck cancers using D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% and maximum dose to assess dose coverage of nodal and tumor planning target volumes (PTV_N and PTV_T, respectively), and cochlear D5%, parotid D20%, D50%, mean dose, and cord maximum dose to evaluate doses to organsat-risk. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and total number of monitor units (MU) quantified plan quality. We found statistically significant differences in PTV_N D2%, maximum dose, HI, PTV_T D98%, D95%, D2%, Max, HI, and total MU. Statistically significant differences in Cochlear D5% and Parotid mean doses were also encountered. These differences may not necessarily be clinically significant, however. Therefore, we believe that both calculation algorithms are adequate for RapidArc planning of Head & Neck cancers.
Introduction: Children may be at a higher risk of experiencing the detrimental effects of ionizing radiation arising from medical radiation imaging. Dose optimisation is therefore recommended to provide assurance that their exposure is as low as reasonably achievable. To this end, periodic assessment of dose levels and establishment of Local Diagnostic Reference Levels (LDRLs) in medical facilities is necessary. There is a general paucity in the literature of data pertaining to dose levels in pediatric interventional radiology. This study establishes LDRLs in diagnostic and therapeutic heart catheterization procedures at a specialist pediatric hospital in a resource constrained country. Material and methods: Dose indicators from actual patient procedures were collected from the archive and analyzed retrospectively to determine the median, 25th, and 75th percentiles of the total Air Kerma Area Product (KAP), Cumulative Air Kerma (CAK), total Fluoroscopy Time (FT), and a total number of Cine Images (CI) of selected interventional procedures. The dose indicators were also age-stratified into five age groups defined by the International Commission on Radiation Protection publication 135. The results were compared to values available from similar studies in the literature to benchmark our dose levels. Local Dose Reference Levels were set as the 75th percentile values. Results: For diagnostic procedures (n = 80), the 75th percentiles of KAP, CAK, FT, and CI were 4.0 Gy·cm2, 31.5 mGy, 14.3 min, and 315 frames, respectively and 3.2 Gy·cm2, 30.5 mGy, 17.5 min, and 606 frames, respectively for therapeutic procedures (n = 143). Conclusions: The LDRLs from this study did not vary significantly from those published in the literature, suggesting that practices at our center were comparable to international norms. Regular reviews of the LDRLs must be conducted to check that the dose levels do not deviate considerably.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.