The aim of this study is to compare the dosimetry results that are obtained by using Convolution, Superposition and Fast Superposition algorithms in Conventional Radiotherapy, Three-Dimensional Conformal Radiotherapy (3D-CRT), and Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) for different sites, and to study the suitability of algorithms with respect to site and technique. For each of the Conventional, 3D-CRT, and IMRT techniques, four different sites, namely, Lung, Esophagus, Prostate, and Hypopharynx were analyzed. Treatment plans were created using 6MV Photon beam quality using the CMS XiO (Computerized Medical System, St.Louis, MO) treatment planning system. The maximum percentage of variation recorded between algorithms was 3.7% in case of Ca.Lung, for the IMRT Technique. Statistical analysis was performed by comparing the mean relative difference, Conformity Index, and Homogeneity Index for target structures. The fast superposition algorithm showed excellent results for lung and esophagus cases for all techniques. For the prostate, the superposition algorithm showed better results in all techniques. In the conventional case of the hypopharynx, the convolution algorithm was good. In case of Ca. Lung, Ca Prostate, Ca Esophagus, and Ca Hypopharynx, OARs got more doses with the superposition algorithm; this progressively decreased for fast superposition and convolution algorithms, respectively. According to this study the dosimetric results using different algorithms led to significant variation and therefore care had to be taken while evaluating treatment plans. The choice of a dose calculation algorithm may in certain cases even influence clinical results.

No abstract

Purpose: To identify the continual diversity between flattening photon beam (FB) and Flattening Filter Free (FFF) photon beams for localized prostate cancer; and to determine potential benefits and drawbacks of using unflattened beam for this type of treatment. Methods: Eight prostate cases including seminal vesicles selected for this study. The primary planning target volume (PTVP) and boost planning target volume (PTVB) were contoured. The total prescription dose was 78 Gy (56 Gy to PTVP and an additional 22 Gy to PTVB). For all cases, treatment plans using 6MV with FB and FFF beams with identical dose-volume constraints, arc angles and number of arcs were developed. The dose volume histograms for both techniques were compared for primary target volume and critical structures. Results: A low Sigma index (FFF: 1.65 + 0.361; FB: 1.725 + 0.39) indicating improved dose homogeneity in FFF beam. Conformity index (FFF: 0.994 + 0.01; FB: 0.993 + 0.01) is comparable for both techniques. Minimal difference of Organ at risk mean dose was observed. Normal tissue integral dose in FB plan resulted 1.5% lower than FFF plan. All the plans displayed significant increase (1.18 times for PTVP and 1.11 for PTBB) in the average number of necessary MU with FFF beam. Conclusion: Diversity between FB and FFF beam plans were found. FFF beam accelerator has been utilized to develop clinically acceptable Rapid Arc treatment plans for prostate cancer with 6 MV.

Purpose: The objective of this work is to (1) present a mechanism for calculating inflection points on profiles at various depths and field sizes, and (2) study the doses at the inflection points for various field sizes at depth of maximum dose (Dmax) for flattening filter free (FFF) photon beam profiles. Methods: Graphical representation was done on percentage of dose versus inflection points. Also, using the polynomial function, the author formulated equations for calculating spot-on inflection point on the profiles for both the 6MV and 10 MV energies for different field sizes at various depths. Results: In a 10 MV FFF radiation beam, the dose at inflection point of the profile decreases as the field size increases. However, in 6MV FFF radiation beam, the dose at the inflection point initially increases with an increase in the field size up to 10 ×10 cm 2 and decreases after 10 ×10 cm 2 . The polynomial function was fitted for both the 6 MV and 10 MV FFF beams for all field sizes and depths. Conclusion: Polynomial function is one of the easiest ways of identifying the inflection point in FFF beam for various field sizes and depths. Graphical representation of dose versus inflection point for both FFF energies was derived.

To study the behavior of Acuros XB algorithm for flattening filter free (FFF) photon beams in comparison with the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) when applied to homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms in conventional and RapidArc techniques. Acuros XB (Eclipse version 10.0, Varian Medical Systems, CA, USA) and AAA algorithms were used to calculate dose distributions for both 6X FFF and 10X FFF energies. RapidArc plans were created on Catphan phantom 504 and conventional plans on virtual homogeneous water phantom 30 × 30 × 30 cm3, virtual heterogeneous phantom with various inserts and on solid water phantom with air cavity. Dose at various inserts with different densities were measured in both AAA and Acuros algorithms. The maximum % variation in dose was observed in (−944 HU) air insert and minimum in (85 HU) acrylic insert in both 6X FFF and 10X FFF photons. Less than 1% variation observed between −149 HU and 282 HU for both energies. At −40 HU and 765 HU Acuros behaved quite contrarily with 10X FFF. Maximum % variation in dose was observed in less HU values and minimum variation in higher HU values for both FFF energies. Global maximum dose observed at higher depths for Acuros for both energies compared with AAA. Increase in dose was observed with Acuros algorithm in almost all densities and decrease at few densities ranging from 282 to 643 HU values. Field size, depth, beam energy, and material density influenced the dose difference between two algorithms.