Dose accuracy improvement on head and neck VMAT treatments by using the Acuros algorithm and accurate FFF beam calibration

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study was to assess dose accuracy improvement and dosimetric impact of switching from the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AA) to the Acuros XB algorithm (AXB) when performing an accurate beam calibration in head and neck (H&N) FFF-VMAT treatments. Materials and methods Twenty H&N cancer patients treated with FFF-VMAT techniques were included. Calculations were performed with the AA and AXB algorithm (dose-to-water — AXB w – and dose-to-medium — AXB m –). An accurate beam calibration was used for AXB calculations. Dose prescription to the tumour (PTV70) and at-risk-nodal region (PTV58.1) were 70 Gy and 58.1 Gy, respectively. A PTV70 _bone including bony structures in PTV70 was contoured. Dose-volume parameters were compared between the algorithms. Statistical tests were used to analyze the differences in mean values and the correlation between compliance with the D95 > 95% requirement and occurrence of local recurrence. Results AA systematically overestimated the dose compared to AXB algorithm with mean dose differences within 1.3 Gy/2%, except for the PTV70 _bone (2.2 Gy/3.2%). Dose differences were significantly higher for AXB m calculations when including accurate beam calibration (maximum dose differences up to 2.8 Gy/4.1% and 4.2 Gy/6.3% for PTV70 and PTV70 _bone , respectively). 80% of AA-calculated plans did not meet the D95 > 95% requirement after recalculation with AXB m and accurate beam calibration. The reduction in D95 coverage in the tumour was not clinically relevant. Conclusions Using the AXB m algorithm and carefully reviewing the beam calibration procedure in H&N FFF-VMAT treatments ensures (1) dose accuracy increase by approximately 3%; (2) a consequent dose increase in targets; and (3) a dose reporting mode that is consistent with the trend of current algorithms.

Statistical process control to monitor use of a web‐based autoplanning tool

“…However, this finding also demonstrates the need to set variable limits when monitoring a system like the RPA; different RT facilities use different TPS/algorithm combinations. Specifically, Martin‐Martin et al 34 . found that AAA and Acuros can differ by up to 6.3% if not properly characterized for VMAT head and neck flattening filter‐free RT cases—well beyond a clinical threshold, though this does not necessarily reflect the quality of the plan.…”