A new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver, Acuros, was developed specifically for performing accurate and rapid radiotherapy dose calculations. In this study we benchmarked its performance against Monte Carlo for 6 and 18 MV photon beams in heterogeneous media. Acuros solves the coupled Boltzmann transport equations for neutral and charged particles on a locally adaptive Cartesian grid. The Acuros solver is an optimized rewrite of the general purpose Attila software, and for comparable accuracy levels, it is roughly an order of magnitude faster than Attila. Comparisons were made between Monte Carlo (EGSnrc) and Acuros for 6 and 18 MV photon beams impinging on a slab phantom comprising tissue, bone and lung materials. To provide an accurate reference solution, Monte Carlo simulations were run to a tight statistical uncertainty (sigma approximately 0.1%) and fine resolution (1-2 mm). Acuros results were output on a 2 mm cubic voxel grid encompassing the entire phantom. Comparisons were also made for a breast treatment plan on an anthropomorphic phantom. For the slab phantom in regions where the dose exceeded 10% of the maximum dose, agreement between Acuros and Monte Carlo was within 2% of the local dose or 1 mm distance to agreement. For the breast case, agreement was within 2% of local dose or 2 mm distance to agreement in 99.9% of voxels where the dose exceeded 10% of the prescription dose. Elsewhere, in low dose regions, agreement for all cases was within 1% of the maximum dose. Since all Acuros calculations required less than 5 min on a dual-core two-processor workstation, it is efficient enough for routine clinical use. Additionally, since Acuros calculation times are only weakly dependent on the number of beams, Acuros may ideally be suited to arc therapies, where current clinical algorithms may incur long calculation times.

No abstract

Purpose: The deterministic Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was recently implemented in the Eclipse treatment planning system. The goal of this study was to compare AXB performance to Monte Carlo (MC) and two standard clinical convolution methods: the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the collapsed-cone convolution (CCC) method. Methods: Homogeneous water and multilayer slab virtual phantoms were used for this study. The multilayer slab phantom had three different materials, representing soft tissue, bone, and lung. Depth dose and lateral dose profiles from AXB v10 in Eclipse were compared to AAA v10 in Eclipse, CCC in Pinnacle 3 , and EGSnrc MC simulations for 6 and 18 MV photon beams with open fields for both phantoms. In order to further reveal the dosimetric differences between AXB and AAA or CCC, three-dimensional (3D) gamma index analyses were conducted in slab regions and subregions defined by AAPM Task Group 53. Results: The AXB calculations were found to be closer to MC than both AAA and CCC for all the investigated plans, especially in bone and lung regions. The average differences of depth dose profiles between MC and AXB, AAA, or CCC was within 1.1, 4.4, and 2.2%, respectively, for all fields and energies. More specifically, those differences in bone region were up to 1.1, 6.4, and 1.6%; in lung region were up to 0.9, 11.6, and 4.5% for AXB, AAA, and CCC, respectively. AXB was also found to have better dose predictions than AAA and CCC at the tissue interfaces where backscatter occurs. 3D gamma index analyses (percent of dose voxels passing a 2%/2 mm criterion) showed that the dose differences between AAA and AXB are significant (under 60% passed) in the bone region for all field sizes of 6 MV and in the lung region for most of field sizes of both energies. The difference between AXB and CCC was generally small (over 90% passed) except in the lung region for 18 MV 10 Â 10 cm 2 fields (over 26% passed) and in the bone region for 5 Â 5 and 10 Â 10 cm 2 fields (over 64% passed). With the criterion relaxed to 5%/2 mm, the pass rates were over 90% for both AAA and CCC relative to AXB for all energies and fields, with the exception of AAA 18 MV 2.5 Â 2.5 cm 2 field, which still did not pass. Conclusions: In heterogeneous media, AXB dose prediction ability appears to be comparable to MC and superior to current clinical convolution methods. The dose differences between AXB and AAA or CCC are mainly in the bone, lung, and interface regions. The spatial distributions of these differences depend on the field sizes and energies.

No abstract

Purpose Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), compared with conventional 4-field treatment, can reduce the volume of bone marrow irradiated. Pelvic bone marrow sparing has produced a clinically significant reduction in hematologic toxicity (HT). This analysis investigated HT in RTOG 0418, a prospective study to test the feasibility of delivering postoperative IMRT for cervical and endometrial cancer in a multi-institutional setting. Methods and Materials Patients in the RTOG 0418 study were treated with postoperative IMRT to 50.4 Gy to the pelvic lymphatics and vagina. Endometrial cancer patients received IMRT alone, whereas patients with cervical cancer received IMRT and weekly cisplatin (40 mg/m2). Pelvic bone marrow was defined within the treatment field by using a computed tomography–density–based auto-contouring algorithm. The volume of bone marrow receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy and the median dose to bone marrow were correlated with HT, graded by CTCAE v 3.0 criteria. Results Eighty-three patients were eligible for analysis (43 with endometrial cancer and 40 with cervical cancer). Patients with cervical cancer treated with weekly cisplatin and pelvic IMRT had grades 1-5 HT (23%, 33%, 25%, 0%, and 0% of patients, respectively). Among patients with cervical cancer, 83% received 5 or more cycles of cisplatin, and 90% received at least 4 cycles of cisplatin. The median percentage volume of bone marrow receiving 10, 20, 30, and 40 Gy in all 83 patients, respectively, was 96%, 84%, 61%, and 37%. Among cervical patients with a median percentage volume of > 37% who received 40 Gy (V40 > 37%), 75% had grade ≥ 2 HT compared with 40% of patients with a V40 ≤ 37% who had this grade (p = 0.025). Cervical patients with a median bone marrow dose of >34.2 Gy also had higher rates of grade ≥ 2 HT than did those with a dose of ≤ 34.2 Gy (74% vs. 43%, p = 0.049). Conclusions Pelvic IMRT with weekly cisplatin is associated with low rates of HT and high rates of weekly cisplatin use. The volume of bone marrow receiving 40 Gy and the median dose to bone marrow correlated with higher rates of grade ≥ 2 toxicity among patients receiving weekly cisplatin (cervical patients). Evaluation and limitation of the volume of bone marrow treated with pelvic IMRT is warranted in patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy.