Quantification of dose differences between two versions of Acuros XB algorithm compared to Monte Carlo simulations — the effect on clinical patient treatment planning. (8th November 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ojala, Jarkko; Kapanen, Mika
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 16:Number 6(2015)
• Page Start: 213
• Page End: 225
• Publication Date: 2015-11-08
• Subjects: dose calculation algorithm -- Acuros XB -- AXB -- Monte Carlo dose calculation -- photon beam radiotherapy; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i6.5642
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract : A commercialized implementation of linear Boltzmann transport equation solver, the Acuros XB algorithm (AXB), represents a class of most advanced type 'c' photon radiotherapy dose calculation algorithms. The purpose of the study was to quantify the effects of the modifications implemented in the more recent version 11 of the AXB (AXB11) compared to the first commercial implementation, version 10 of the AXB (AXB10), in various anatomical regions in clinical treatment planning. Both versions of the AXB were part of Varian's Eclipse clinical treatment planning system and treatment plans for 10 patients were created using intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric‐modulated arc radiotherapy (VMAT). The plans were first created with the AXB10 and then recalculated with the AXB11 and full Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Considering the full MC simulations as reference, a DVH analysis for gross tumor and planning target volumes (GTV and PTV) and organs at risk was performed, and also 3D gamma agreement index (GAI) values within a 15% isodose region and for the PTV were determined. Although differences up to 12% in DVH analysis were seen between the MC simulations and the AXB, based on the results of this study no general conclusion can be drawn that the modifications made in the AXB11 compared to the AXB10 would imply that the dose calculation accuracy of the AXB10 would be inferior to the AXB11 in the clinical patient treatment planning. The only clear improvement with the AXB11 over the AXB10 is the dose calculation accuracy in air cavities. In general, no large deviations are present in the DVH analysis results between the two versions of the algorithm, and the results of 3D gamma analysis do not favor one or the other. Thus it may be concluded that the results of the comprehensive studies assessing the accuracy of the AXB10 may be extended to the AXB11. PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.55.D‐, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kd, 87.55.Qr