Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in prostate cancer treatment using RapidArc

Rana, Suresh; Rogers, Kevin; Lee, Terry; Reed, Daniel; Biggs, Christopher

doi:10.4103/0973-1482.119328

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The above-mentioned planning study conducted by Rana et al [20], which compared the AAA and AXB in the context of prostate cancer patients, differed from our study in several aspects. First, a partial single-arc technique was used to avoid beam entrance through the couch-rails.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

“…Rana et al [20] used Rapid Arc plans to perform a planning study of prostate cancer patients in which the clinical dosimetric impacts of AAA and AXB were compared. In that study, the AAA predicted higher minimum and maximum doses to the PTV (range, 0.05–0.43%) than did the AXB, although this difference was not statistically significant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To our knowledge, only 1 previous study has compared the dose distributions of AXB and AAA in prostate cancer and found no difference between the results [20]. However, the above-mentioned study did not used ERB, so a heterogeneous area created by ERB was not thoroughly accounted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Dosimetric effects of the acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm on volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for prostate cancer using an endorectal balloon

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo compare the dosimetric effects of Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) on volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning for postoperative prostate cancer patients irradiated using an endorectal balloon (ERB).MethodsWe measured central axis doses with film in a phantom containing an air cavity, and compared measurements with calculations of the AAA and AXB. For clinical study, 10 patients who had undergone whole pelvic radiotherapy (WPRT) followed by prostatic bed-only radiotherapy (PBRT) using VMAT were enrolled. An ERB was used for PBRT but not for WPRT. To compare dosimetric parameters, the cumulative dose-volume histograms, mean, maximum, and minimum doses were measured for the planning target volume. Homogeneity of plans were confirmed using V95%, V107% (VX%, percentage volumes receiving at least X% of prescribed doses) and conformity indices (homogeneity index [HI], conformity index [CI], and conformation number [CN]). We compared volumes of the organ-at-risk receiving 10% to 100% (10-tier at 10% interval) of prescribed doses (V10% – V100%).ResultsIn the phantom study, the AAA showed larger disagreement with the measurements, and overestimated the dose in the air cavity, comparing with the AXB. For WPRT planning, the AAA predicted a lower maximum dose and V107% than the AXB. For PBRT planning, the AAA estimated a higher minimum dose, lower maximum dose, and smaller V107%, and larger V95% than the AXB. Regarding the conformity indices, the AAA was estimated to be more homogenous than the AXB for PBRT planning (HI, 0.088 vs. 0.120, p = 0.005; CI, 1.052 vs. 1.038, p = 0.022; and CN, 0.920 vs. 0.900, p = 0.007) but not for WPRT planning. Among V10% to V100% of the rectum, the PBRT exhibited significant discrepancies in V30%, V40%, V70%, V80%, and V90%; while the WPRT did in V20% and V30%.ConclusionsThe phantom study demonstrated that the AXB calculates more accurately in the air cavity than the AAA. In the clinical setting, the AXB exhibited different dosimetric distributions in the VMAT plans for PBRT containing an ERB. The AXB should be considered for prostate cancer patients irradiated with an ERB for better applying of heterogeneous condition.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-015-0346-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dosimetric effects of the acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm on volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for prostate cancer using an endorectal balloon

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are also several reports available on assessing the accuracy of the AXB algorithm on various anatomical regions and with various clinical diagnoses. Rana et al 55 studied the clinical impact of the AXB10 over the AAA in prostate cancer VMAT treatments. In general, the AXB10 predicted lower dose, but the differences in DVH parameter comparison were within 1%.…”

Section: The Axb Algorithm and Patient Plansmentioning

confidence: 99%

The accuracy of the Acuros XB algorithm in external beam radiotherapy – a comprehensive review

Ojala

2014

Int J Cancer Ther Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Review Article AbstractThe accuracy of dose calculation algorithms has been a topic of interest among the radiotherapy community throughout last decades. On one hand the advancements in computers and algorithms has improved the accuracy, but on the other hand the developments in other parts of treatment process, in treatment delivery techniques and in treatment devices have always pushed the requirements to the next level. In this review article a comprehensive overview on the accuracy of a new type 'c' dose calculation algorithm, the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA), is provided. All the articles that have applied the AXB algorithm in terms of external beam radiotherapy are included and the research frames with reported deviations to reference methods are described. For the homogeneous water phantoms the reported accuracy was from 1% to 2%, being of similar level for heterogeneous phantoms, in rare occasions lower. In anthropometric and anthropomorphic phantoms the mean deviations were about 2% and slightly larger for single points and/or small regions. With patient plans the reported average discrepancies were less than from 3% to 5%. Almost without exceptions, the algorithm has proven to perform better than other existing commercial dose calculation algorithms. The number of such papers, in which the AXB algorithm is the only dose determination method, is already notable, which indicates that the accuracy of the algorithm is trusted for reference use and it also, with reported dosimetric results, implies that the AXB algorithm has reached its maturity.

show abstract

“…The methodology applied in this study can also be implemented to validate other advanced dose calculation algorithms such as Acuros XB algorithm and anisotropic analytical algorithm. [25][26][27] Conclusion Dose calculation using Prowess TPS based on CCCS algorithm is generally in excellent agreement with measurements. There are some points with deviation which was not within the limits that have been set up for dose planning systems; the largest deviation was found at the small field size 4 cm × 4 cm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Evaluation collapsed cone convolution/superposition (CCCS) algorithms in prowess treatment planning system for calculating symmetric and asymmetric field size

Dawod

2015

Int J Cancer Ther Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This work investigated the accuracy of prowess treatment planning system (TPS) in dose calculation in a homogenous phantom for symmetric and asymmetric field sizes using collapse cone convolution/superposition algorithm (CCCS). Methods: The measurements were carried out at source-to-surface distance (SSD) set to 100 cm for 6 and 10 MV photon beams. Data for a full set of measurements for symmetric fields and asymmetric fields, including inplane and crossplane profiles at various depths and percentage depth doses (PDDs) were obtained. Results: The results showed that the asymmetric collimation dose lead to significant errors (up to approximately 7%) in dose calculations if changes in primary beam intensity and beam quality. The largest difference in the isodose curves was found in buildup and the penumbra regions. Conclusion: The results showed that the dose calculation using Prowess TPS based on CCCS algorithm is generally in excellent agreement with measurements.Keywords: Symmetric and Asymmetric Fields; Dose Calculation; Treatment Planning System IntroductionThe dose calculation algorithm must accurately model for all beam configurations normally used in the clinic. Radiation therapy treatment planning for many clinical situations requires asymmetric field size correctly modeled in the treatment planning computer system. This includes verifying the accuracy of both the isodose distributions and the monitor units (MUs) generated by the treatment planning system. [1][2][3] The degree of success achieved by the optimization process is largely dependent on the cost function used by the algorithm (which in turn depends on the structures defined by the user) and the algorithm used for minimization. 4 Several authors have conducted the evaluation of dose calculation algorithms for external beam radiation therapy. [5][6][7] Commissioning of the dose calculation algorithms of a treatment planning system is generally performed: (i) by entering basic beam data into the system according to the methods and requirements described in the user's manual of the system; and (ii) by comparing the results of dose calculations with the entered data and with data that were measured specifically for this purpose. Most commonly, existing beam data are used as input data. Differences between calculated and actual dose values may be encountered, partly due to uncertainties in the measured data, and partly due to imperfect beam modeling. Criteria for acceptability have to be applied before accepting a treatment planning system for clinical use. Several authors have developed such criteria. 8 Several treatment planning systems calculate asymmetric fields on the assumption that these are equivalent to blocked fields. However, the parameters required for treatment planning implementation depend on the algorithm used, and the method of their derivation is often not explicit. Since asymmetric fields are the simplest case of irregular fields, others have approached this problem using appropriate algorithms that utilize the dat...

show abstract

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in prostate cancer treatment using RapidArc

Abstract: The dosimetric results of this study suggest that the AXB can perform the dose computation comparable to AAA in RapidArc prostate cancer treatment plans that are generated by a partial single-arc technique.

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Dosimetric effects of the acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm on volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for prostate cancer using an endorectal balloon

Dosimetric effects of the acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm on volumetric modulated arc therapy planning for prostate cancer using an endorectal balloon

The accuracy of the Acuros XB algorithm in external beam radiotherapy – a comprehensive review

Evaluation collapsed cone convolution/superposition (CCCS) algorithms in prowess treatment planning system for calculating symmetric and asymmetric field size

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About