A pencil beam model for photon dose calculation

The comparison of the pencil beam dose calculation algorithm with modified Batho heterogeneity correction (PBC‐MB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) and the mutual comparison of advanced dose calculation algorithms used in breast radiotherapy have focused on the differences between the physical dose distributions. Studies on the radiobiological impact of the algorithm (both on the tumor control and the moderate breast fibrosis prediction) are lacking. We, therefore, investigated the radiobiological impact of the dose calculation algorithm in whole breast radiotherapy. The clinical dose distributions of 30 breast cancer patients, calculated with PBC‐MB, were recalculated with fixed monitor units using more advanced algorithms: AAA and Acuros XB. For the latter, both dose reporting modes were used (i.e., dose‐to‐medium and dose‐to‐water). Next, the tumor control probability (TCP) and the normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) of each dose distribution were calculated with the Poisson model and with the relative seriality model, respectively. The endpoint for the NTCP calculation was moderate breast fibrosis five years post treatment. The differences were checked for significance with the paired t‐test. The more advanced algorithms predicted a significantly lower TCP and NTCP of moderate breast fibrosis then found during the corresponding clinical follow‐up study based on PBC calculations. The differences varied between 1% and 2.1% for the TCP and between 2.9% and 5.5% for the NTCP of moderate breast fibrosis. The significant differences were eliminated by determination of algorithm‐specific model parameters using least square fitting. Application of the new parameters on a second group of 30 breast cancer patients proved their appropriateness. In this study, we assessed the impact of the dose calculation algorithms used in whole breast radiotherapy on the parameters of the radiobiological models. The radiobiological impact was eliminated by determination of algorithm specific model parameters.PACS numbers: 87.55.dh, 87.55.dk

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The photon dose calculation algorithm used in breast radiotherapy has significant impact on the parameters of radiobiological models

Petillion

Swinnen

Defraene

et al. 2014

“…First, the most likely fluence that would result in the measured Delta 4 dose distribution is estimated through optimization. Then, the obtained energy fluence per control point (CP) is used as an input parameter to calculate volumetric dose on the patient CT dataset with a pencil beam (PB) algorithm (23) . The energy fluence estimation is formulated as a linear programming problem: find the minimum area integral of energy fluence given that the calculated dose in the Delta 4 phantom is larger than, or equal to, the measured dose in all measurement points.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of semiempirical VMAT dose reconstruction on a patient dataset based on biplanar diode array measurements

Stambaugh

Opp

Wasserman

et al. 2014

We report the results of a preclinical evaluation of recently introduced commercial tools for 3D patient IMRT/VMAT dose reconstruction, the Delta4 Anatomy calculation algorithm. Based on the same initial measurement, volumetric dose can be reconstructed in two ways. Three‐dimensional dose on the Delta4 phantom can be obtained by renormalizing the planned dose distribution by the measurement values (D4 Interpolation). Alternatively, incident fluence can be approximated from the phantom measurement and used for volumetric dose calculation on an arbitrary (patient) dataset with a pencil beam algorithm (Delta4 PB). The primary basis for comparison was 3D dose obtained by previously validated measurement‐guided planned dose perturbation method (ACPDP), based on the ArcCHECK dosimeter with 3DVH software. For five clinical VMAT plans, D4 Interpolation agreed well with ACPDP on a homogeneous cylindrical phantom according to gamma analysis with local dose‐error normalization. The average agreement rates were 98.2%±1.3% (1 SD), (range 97.0%‐100%) and 92.8%±3.9% (89.5%‐99.2%), for the 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm criteria, respectively. On a similar geometric phantom, D4 PB demonstrated substantially lower agreement rates with ACPDP: 88.6%±6.8% (81.2%‐96.1%) and 72.4%±8.4% (62.1%‐81.1%), for 3%/3 mm and 2%/2 mm, respectively. The average agreement rates on the heterogeneous patients' CT datasets are lower yet: 81.2%±8.6% (70.4%‐90.4%) and 64.6%±8.4% (56.5%‐74.7%), respectively, for the same two criteria sets. For both threshold combinations, matched analysis of variance (ANOVA) multiple comparisons showed statistically significant differences in mean agreement rates (p<0.05) for D4 Interpolation versus ACPDP on one hand, and D4 PB versus ACPDP on either cylindrical or patient dataset on the other hand. Based on the favorable D4 Interpolation results for VMAT plans, the resolution of the reconstruction method rather than hardware design is likely to be responsible for D4 PB limitations.PACS number: 87.55Qr

“…Convolution–superposition algorithms have proved to be reasonably successful at modeling dose distributions over a wide range of conditions of varying complexity, including inhomogeneous media. ( 1 – 3 ) The analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) ( 4 , 5 ) is a new convolution–superposition‐based photon‐beam dose computation algorithm released in 2005 for use in an established commercial TPS (Eclipse: Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental validation of the Eclipse AAA algorithm

Breitman

Rathee

Newcomb

et al. 2007

The present study evaluates the performance of a newly released photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm that is incorporated into an established treatment planning system (TPS). We compared the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) factory‐commissioned with “golden beam data” for Varian linear accelerators with measurements performed at two institutions using 6‐MV and 15‐MV beams. The TG‐53 evaluation regions and criteria were used to evaluate profiles measured in a water phantom for a wide variety of clinically relevant beam geometries. The total scatter factor (TSF) for each of these geometries was also measured and compared against the results from the AAA.At one institute, TLD measurements were performed at several points in the neck and thoracic regions of a Rando phantom; at the other institution, ion chamber measurements were performed in a CIRS inhomogeneous phantom. The phantoms were both imaged using computed tomography (CT), and the dose was calculated using the AAA at corresponding detector locations. Evaluation of measured relative dose profiles revealed that 97%, 99%, 97%, and 100% of points at one institute and 96%, 88%, 89%, and 100% of points at the other institution passed TG‐53 evaluation criteria in the outer beam, penumbra, inner beam, and buildup regions respectively. Poorer results in the inner beam regions at one institute are attributed to the mismatch of the measured profiles at shallow depths with the “golden beam data.”For validation of monitor unit (MU) calculations, the mean difference between measured and calculated TSFs was less than 0.5%; test cases involving physical wedges had, in general, differences of more than 1%. The mean difference between point measurements performed in inhomogeneous phantoms and Eclipse was 2.1% (5.3% maximum) and all differences were within TG‐53 guidelines of 7%. By intent, the methods and evaluation techniques were similar to those in a previous investigation involving another convolution–superposition photon‐beam dose calculation algorithm in another TPS, so that the current work permitted an independent comparison between the two algorithms for which results have been provided.PACS number: 87.53.Dq