Clinical implementation and evaluation of the Acuros dose calculation algorithm. (20th August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yan, Chenyu; Combine, Anthony G; Bednarz, Greg; Lalonde, Ronald J; Hu, Bin; Dickens, Kathy; Wynn, Raymond; Pavord, Daniel C; Saiful Huq, M
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied clinical medical physics. Volume 18:Number 5(2017)
• Page Start: 195
• Page End: 209
• Publication Date: 2017-08-20
• Subjects: Acuros XB -- dose calculation algorithm; Medical physics -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; Health Physics; Clinical Medicine; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12149
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1526-9914

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The main aim of this study is to validate the Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm for a Varian Clinac iX linac in our clinics, and subsequently compare it with the wildely used AAA algorithm. Methods and materials: The source models for both Acuros XB and AAA were configured by importing the same measured beam data into Eclipse treatment planning system. Both algorithms were validated by comparing calculated dose with measured dose on a homogeneous water phantom for field sizes ranging from 6 cm × 6 cm to 40 cm × 40 cm. Central axis and off‐axis points with different depths were chosen for the comparison. In addition, the accuracy of Acuros was evaluated for wedge fields with wedge angles from 15 to 60°. Similarly, variable field sizes for an inhomogeneous phantom were chosen to validate the Acuros algorithm. In addition, doses calculated by Acuros and AAA at the center of lung equivalent tissue from three different VMAT plans were compared to the ion chamber measured doses in QUASAR phantom, and the calculated dose distributions by the two algorithms and their differences on patients were compared. Computation time on VMAT plans was also evaluated for Acuros and AAA. Differences between dose‐to‐water (calculated by AAA and Acuros XB) and dose‐to‐medium (calculated by Acuros XB) on patient plans were compared and evaluated. Results: For open 6 MV photon beams on the homogeneous water phantom, both Acuros XB and AAA calculations were within 1% of measurements. For 23 MV photon beams, the calculated doses were within 1.5% of measured doses for Acuros XB and 2% for AAA. Testing on the inhomogeneous phantom demonstrated that AAA overestimated doses by up to 8.96% at a point close to lung/solid water interface, while Acuros XB reduced that to 1.64%. The test on QUASAR phantom showed that Acuros achieved better agreement in lung equivalent tissue while AAA underestimated dose for all VMAT plans by up to 2.7%. Acuros XB computation time was about three times faster than AAA for VMAT plans, and computation time for other plans will be discussed at the end. Maximum difference between dose calculated by AAA and dose‐to‐medium by Acuros XB (Acuros_Dm, m ) was 4.3% on patient plans at the isocenter, and maximum difference between D100 calculated by AAA and by Acuros_Dm, m was 11.3%. When calculating the maximum dose to spinal cord on patient plans, differences between dose calculated by AAA and Acuros_Dm, m were more than 3%. Conclusion: Compared with AAA, Acuros XB improves accuracy in the presence of inhomogeneity, and also significantly reduces computation time for VMAT plans. Dose differences between AAA and Acuros_Dw, m were generally less than the dose differences between AAA and Acuros_Dm, m . Clinical practitioners should consider making Acuros XB available in clinics, however, further investigation and clarification is needed about which dose reporting mode (dose‐to‐water or dose‐to‐medium) should be used in clinics.