Dosimetric influence of acuros XB dose-to-medium and dose-to-water reporting modes on carcinoma cervix using intensity-modulated radiation therapy and volumetric rapidarc technique

Abstract

Aim: We aimed to evaluate the dosimetric influence of Acuros XB (AXB) dose-to-medium (D m ) and dose-to-water (D w ) reporting mode on carcinoma cervix using intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc (RA) technique. Materials and Methods: A cohort of thirty patients cared for carcinoma cervix was retrospectively selected for the study. Plans were computed using analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), AXB-D m , and AXB-D w algorithms for dosimetric comparison. A paired t -test and Pitman–Morgan dispersion test were executed to appraise the difference in mean values and the inter-patient variability of the differences. Results: The dose–volume parameters were higher for AXB-D w in contrast to AAA for IMRT and RA plans, excluding D 98% , minimum dose to planning target volume (PTV) and rectum mean dose (RA). There was no systematic trend observed in dose–volume parameters for PTV and organs at risk (OARs) between AXB-D m and AXB-D w for IMRT and RA plans. The dose–volume parameters for target were higher for AXB-D m in comparison to AAA in IMRT and RA plans, except D 98% and minimum dose to PTV. Analysis envisaged less inter-patient variability while switching from AAA to AXB-D m in comparison to those switching from AAA to AXB-D w . Conclusions: The present study reveals the important difference between AAA, AXB-D m , and AXB-D w computations for cervix carcinoma using IMRT and RA techniques. The inter-patient variability and systematic difference in dose–volume parameters computed using AAA, AXB-D m , and AXB-D w algorithms present the possible impact on the dose prescription to PTV and their relative constraints to OARs for IMRT and RA techniques. This may help in the decision-making in clinic while switching from AAA to AXB (D m or D w ) algorithm for cervix carcinoma using IMRT and RA techniques.

Dosimetric Evaluation and Comparison of Collapsed Cone Algorithm with AAA and AcurosXB Algorithms for Lung Cancer Treatment Planning on the Varian Halcyon Accelerator

“…However, the clinical doses of target volumes calculated using CC are approximately 1% and 1.5% lower than those transferred to the Aria Eclipse system and calculated using the AAA and AcurosXB algorithms. Regarding the comparison between the AAA and AcurosXB algorithms, Kumar et al (2019) [34] investigated the gamma pass rates for plans calculated using both AAA and AcurosXB algorithms using the ArcCHECK phantom. For TrueBeam (6MV), the rates were 98.5% ± 0.6% for AAA and 96.1% ± 1.3% for AcurosXB.…”