Dosimetric evaluation of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm with measurements in predicting doses beyond different air gap thickness for smaller and larger field sizes

Rana, Suresh; Rogers, Kevin

doi:10.4103/0971-6203.106600

Cited by 59 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It provides a deterministic solution for the Boltzmann equation, unlike the MC approach, where the solution is achieved stochastically. Acuros XB was shown to be more accurate than AAA and CCC in calculating the dose in regions with complex geometries and heterogeneities 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 . Bush et al (10) validated Acuros XB against MC in multi‐slab heterogeneous phantoms with low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of experimental dose measurements have been conducted in heterogeneous structures to validate modern TP dose algorithms 10 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 . The size of detectors and, especially, the thickness of its sensitive layer must be as small as possible, due to the steep dose gradient at the media interface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities

Alhakeem

Alshaikh

Rosenfeld

et al. 2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to compare performance of several dosimetric methods in heterogeneous phantoms irradiated by 6 and 18 MV beams. Monte Carlo (MC) calculations were used, along with two versions of Acuros XB, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), EBT2 film, and MOSkin dosimeters. Percent depth doses (PDD) were calculated and measured in three heterogeneous phantoms. The first two phantoms were a 30×30×30 cm3 solid‐water slab that had an air‐gap of 20×2.5×2.35 cm3. The third phantom consisted of 30×30×5 cm3 solid water slabs, two 30×30×5 cm3 slabs of lung, and one 30×30×1 cm3 solid water slab. Acuros XB, AAA, and MC calculations were within 1% in the regions with particle equilibrium. At media interfaces and buildup regions, differences between Acuros XB and MC were in the range of +4.4% to −12.8%. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements agreed to MC calculations within ∼2.5%, except for the first centimeter of buildup where differences of 4.5% were observed. AAA did not predict the backscatter dose from the high‐density heterogeneity. For the third, multilayer lung phantom, 6 MV beam PDDs calculated by all TPS algorithms were within 2% of MC. 18 MV PDDs calculated by two versions of Acuros XB and AAA differed from MC by up to 2.8%, 3.2%, and 6.8%, respectively. MOSkin and EBT2 each differed from MC by up to 2.9% and 2.5% for the 6 MV, and by −3.1% and ∼2% for the 18 MV beams. All dosimetric techniques, except AAA, agreed within 3% in the regions with particle equilibrium. Differences between the dosimetric techniques were larger for the 18 MV than the 6 MV beam. MOSkin and EBT2 measurements were in a better agreement with MC than Acuros XB calculations at the interfaces, and they were in a better agreement to each other than to MC. The latter is due to their thinner detection layers compared to MC voxel sizes.PACS numbers: 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.km, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.k

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities

Alhakeem

Alshaikh

Rosenfeld

et al. 2015

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In previous studies [15,17] , the AAA was shown to predict the dose higher than the AXB in the low density air gap region. If the AXB is considered to be more accurate than the AAA, the current study showed that the AAA may be overestimating the magnitude of EUD for the lung.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, due to the difference in beam modeling approach within dose calculation algorithms, the discrepancies in their dose predictions exist, especially when photon beam traverses the inhomogenous media before it reaches the tumor. A number of studies [14][15][16][17] have reported the superiority of the AXB over the AAA for dose predictions when heterogeneous media are involved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the validation of AXB has already been by several researchers [14][15][16][17] , no comparisons between the AXB calculations and measurements were done in this study. The AAA is based on a pencil-beam convolution/superposition technique, and the primary photons, scattered photons and electrons scattered from the beam limiting devices are modeled separately in AAA [18] .…”

Section: Dose Calculation Algorithmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiobiological evaluation of dose calculation algorithms in RapidArc planning of esophageal cancer treatment plans

Rana

Rogers²

2013

JST

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of current study is to investigate the impact of tissue heterogeneity corrections in Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) on RapidArc esophageal cancer treatment plans using equivalent uniform dose (EUD) calculations and tumor control probability (TCP). Methods:Ten esophageal cancer cases were selected for the current study. All cases were planned using RapidArc technique in Eclipse treatment planning system (10.0.28). The treatment plans were inversely optimized using progressive resolution optimizer and each optimized plan was calculated using AAA with tissue heterogeneity correction. The AAA plans were then normalized such that prescription dose covered 95% of the planning target volume (PTV). The AXB plans were generated by recalculating the normalized AAA plans using AXB with tissue heterogeneity correction for identical monitor units and beam parameters as in the corresponding AAA plans. The EUD and TCP calculations were then performed on the AAA and AXB plans.Results: For PTV, the EUD values in AXB plans were always lower than in AAA plans with an average difference of 1.3%. Similarly, AXB calculations produced smaller magnitude of EUD for the organs at risk (OARs) compared to AAA calculations. On average, in AXB plans, the lung EUD was lower by 3.5%, the liver EUD was lower by 2.3%, the heart EUD was lower by 2.8%, and the spinal cord EUD was lower by 1.8%. The TCP of AXB plans was lower by average difference of 7.1% compared to that of AAA plans. Conclusion:In comparison to AAA calculations, the preliminary results presented in the current study showed that AXB calculations produced lower EUD and TCP for the PTV as well as lower EUD for OARs in the esophageal cancer treatment plans created by RapidArc planning technique.

show abstract

Preliminary study of clinical application on IMRT three‐dimensional dose verification‐based EPID system

Huang

Zhang

et al. 2017

J Applied Clin Med Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The three‐dimensional dose (3D) distribution of intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was verified based on electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs), and the results were analyzed. Thirty IMRT plans of different lesions were selected for 3D EPID‐based dose verification. The gamma passing rates of the 3D dose verification‐based EPID system (Edose, Version 3.01, Raydose, Guangdong, China) and Delta4 measurements were then compared with treatment planning system (TPS) calculations using global gamma criteria of 5%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 2%/2 mm. Furthermore, the dose–volume histograms (DVHs) for planning target volumes (PTVs) as well as organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed using Edose. For dose verification of the 30 treatment plans, the average gamma passing rates of Edose reconstructions under the gamma criteria of 5%/3 mm, 3%/3 mm, and 2%/2 mm were (98.58 ± 0.93)%, (95.67 ± 1.97)%, and (83.13 ± 4.53)%, respectively, whereas the Delta4 measurement results were (99.14% ± 1.16)%, (95.81% ± 2.88)%, and (84.74% ± 7.00)%, respectively. The dose differences between Edose reconstructions and TPS calculations were within 3% for D95%, D98%, and Dmean in each PTV, with the exception that the D98% of the PTV‐clinical target volume (CTV) in esophageal carcinoma cases was (3.21 ± 2.33)%. However, the larger dose deviations in OARs (such as lens, parotid gland, optic nerve, and spinal cord) can be determined based on DVHs. The difference was particularly obvious for OARs with small volumes; for example, the maximum dose deviation for the lens reached (−6.12 ± 5.28)%. A comparison of the results obtained with Edose and Delta4 indicated that the Edose system could be applied for 3D pretreatment dose verification of IMRT. This system could also be utilized to evaluate the gamma passing rate of each treatment plan. Furthermore, the detailed dose distributions of PTVs and OARs could be indicated based on DVHs, providing additional reliable data for quality assurance in a clinic setting.

show abstract

Dosimetric evaluation of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm with measurements in predicting doses beyond different air gap thickness for smaller and larger field sizes

Cited by 59 publications

References 12 publications

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities

Comparative evaluation of modern dosimetry techniques near low‐ and high‐density heterogeneities

Radiobiological evaluation of dose calculation algorithms in RapidArc planning of esophageal cancer treatment plans

Preliminary study of clinical application on IMRT three‐dimensional dose verification‐based EPID system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About