Acuros XB与AAA算法在鼻咽癌VMAT计划验证中的差异

目的探讨Acuros XB(AXB)算法与各向异性分析算法(AAA)在鼻咽癌容积调强放疗(VMAT)计划验证中的差异。方法选取19例鼻咽癌VMAT计划,移植到Delta4模体和I'mRT头部模体上制作验证计划。使用AXB、AAA两种算法分别计算剂量分布,利用分布式计算框架(DCF)加快计算速度,同时记录计算耗时。在Varian Tue Beam直线加速器实施验证计划,使用Delta4和电离室行实际剂量测量,比较两种算法所得剂量的三维Gamma通过率和点剂量误差。结果使用Delta4模体验证,两种算法Gamma通过率无明显差异:按3 mm/3%标准,AXB的通过率为(99.8±0.2)%,AAA的通过率为(99.9±0.2)%,两者差值为(-0.1±0.3)%,95%置信区间(-0.3%,0.1%),P=0.201;按2 mm/2%标准,AXB的通过率为(95.7±1.8)%,AAA的通过率为(95.5±2.3)%,两者差值为(0.2±1.7)%,95%置信区间(-0.6%,1.0%),P=0.611。点剂量误差方面,AXB比AAA更接近实测剂量:AXB剂量与实测剂量偏差为(-0.2±0.6)%,AAA剂量与实测剂量偏差为(-0.5±0.6)%,两者差值为(0.3±0.6)%,95%置信区间(0.0%,0.6%),P=0.042。计算耗时方面,DCF空闲时两者统计学差异不显著(P=0.078),DCF繁忙时AXB比AAA节省(9.5±9.9)min,P=0.029。结论鼻咽癌VMAT计划使用均匀模体验证时,AXB与AAA算法的差异很小,其中AXB略比AAA接近实测剂量,而AXB比AAA计算效率高。综合计算精度与效率,推荐使用AXB算法常规计算验证计划。

Acuros XB、各向异性解析算法与蒙特卡罗算法在非均匀组织中剂量计算准确性对比研究

目的：对比Acuros XB算法（AXB）、各向异性解析算法（AAA）和蒙特卡罗（MC）算法在非均匀组织中剂量计算准确性。方法：在Eclipse计划系统上分别设置两种类型的非均匀模体（水-肺-水模体、水-骨-水模体）,并设定3个不同大小的0°照射野,源皮距=100 cm。采用AXB、AAA及MC算法进行剂量计算,提取射野中心轴百分深度剂量,以MC计算结果为基准,计算AXB和AAA两种算法与MC算法的相对偏差,提取非均匀组织及高梯度区（即4.5～15.5 cm）的数据做对比分析。结果：AXB算法3个射野相对偏差绝对值分别为4.186±1.451、0.834±0.300、0.726±0.165（水-肺-水模体）和1.694±0.374、1.325±0.328、0.343±0.244（水-骨-水模体）。AAA算法在两模体的对应值分别为6.679±4.694、4.151±1.789、4.353±2.546（肺）和3.270±0.826、5.971±1.587、2.406±0.574（骨）。采用配对样本t检验,P值均小于0.05。结论：在非均匀组织及其边界,AXB算法计算精度比AAA算法更为准确,基本接近MC算法。

Acuros XB算法和AAA算法在鼻咽癌容积旋转调强计划中的剂量学差异研究

目的:比较Acuros XB算法和AAA算法在鼻咽癌容积旋转调强计划中的剂量学差异。方法:在Eclipse计划系统中建立非均质模型并设计单野测试计划,比较Acuros XB、AAA算法百分深度剂量和离轴剂量的差异。回顾性选取10例鼻咽癌容积旋转调强病例计划,分别采用Acuros XB、AAA算法计算剂量,对比两种算法在实际病例中的剂量学差异。结果:在非均质模型中,两种算法的百分深度差异最大为11.1%,离轴剂量最大差异为10.96%,在与水的交界处产生剂量突变。病例测试中,Acuros XB算法的危及器官和靶区剂量均略低于AAA算法,危及器官中晶体的差异最大为16%,靶区95%的剂量差异为1.05%。结论:对于鼻咽癌容积旋转调强放疗计划,在硬件条件和时间允许的情况下,建议选择较为精准的Acuros XB算法。

Acuros XB与AAA算法在肺癌调强放疗计划设计中的比较

目的:比较Acuros XB(AXB)算法与AAA算法在肺癌调强放疗(IMRT)计划中的剂量学差异。方法:选取10例接受放射治疗的肺癌患者,CT图像扫描后勾画靶区和危及器官,分别用两种优化算法设计IMRT计划,比较两种算法所得计划的靶区剂量分布、危及器官受量及正常组织受量的差异。结果:应用AXB算法的计划中PTV最大剂量和平均剂量分别为(66.37±1.94)和(61.5±3.88)Gy;应用AAA算法的计划中分别为(64.56±1.75)和(62.02±4.77)Gy。前者PTV最大剂量高于后者,但平均剂量低于后者,两者差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两种计划在靶区的均匀性和适形度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两种计划的双肺剂量Dmax、Dmean和V20差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),前者双肺Dmax和V20高于后者,但双肺的平均剂量Dmean低于后者。两种计划在正常组织的体积剂量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:虽然应用两种算法的计划均满足临床要求,但是与AXB算法相比,AAA算法低估了靶区最大剂量,高估了靶区平均剂量,同时也低估了正常肺部的体积剂量。

Verification and Dosimetric Impact of Acuros XB Algorithm for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) and RapidArc Planning for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients

Purpose: The experimental verification of the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm was conducted in a heterogeneous rectangular slab phantom, and compared to the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The dosimetric impact of the AXB for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and RapidArc planning for 16 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients was assessed due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB. Methods: The calculated central axis percentage depth doses (PDD) in a heterogeneous slab phantom for an open field size of 3 ×3 cm2 were compared against the PDD measured by an ionization chamber. For 16 NSCLC patients, the dose-volume parameters from the treatment plans calculated by the AXB and the AAA were compared using identical jaw settings, leaf positions, and monitor units (MUs). Results: The results from the heterogeneous slab phantom study showed that the AXB was more accurate than the AAA;however, the dose underestimation by the AXB (up to ?3.9%) and AAA (up to ?13.5%) was observed. For a planning target volume (PTV) in the NSCLC patients, in comparison to the AAA, the AXB predicted lower mean and minimum doses by average 0.3% and 4.3% respectively, but a higher maximum dose by average 2.3%. The averaged maximum doses to the heart and spinal cord predicted by the AXB were lower by 1.3% and 2.6% respectively;whereas the doses to the lungs predicted by the AXB were higher by up to 0.5% compared to the AAA. The percentage of ipsilateral lung volume receiving at least 20 and 5 Gy (V20 and V5 respectively) were higher in the AXB plans than in the AAA plans by average 1.1% and 2.8% respectively. The AXB plans produced higher target heterogeneity by average 4.5% and lower plan conformity by average 5.8% compared to the AAA plans. Using the AXB, the PTV coverage (95% of the PTV covered by the 100% of the prescribed dose) was reduced by average 8.2% than using the AAA. The AXB plans required about 2.3% increment in the number of MUs in order to achieve the same PTV coverage as in the AAA plans. Conclusion: The AXB is more accurate to use for the dose calculations in SBRT lung plans created with a RapidArc technique;however, one should also note the reduced PTV coverage due to the dose recalculation from the AAA to the AXB.

Acuros XB Algorithm vs. Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm: A Dosimetric Study Using Heterogeneous Phantom and Computed Tomography (CT) Data Sets of Esophageal Cancer Patients

Our purpose in this study was to assess the dosimetric impact of the Acuros XB algorithm (AXB), in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) calculations, for esophageal cancer treatment plans created with RapidArc technique. First, we performed a phantom study by comparing the percent depth dose (PDD) calculated by AXB and AAA against the measured PDD in a slab phantom containing a 2 cmair gap thickness. Second, we performed a clinical study using a computed tomography (CT) data set from 10 esophageal cancer patients. The treatment plans calculated by AXB and AAA were evaluated for planning target volume (PTV) coverage, doses to the PTV and organs at risk (OARs). Dose calculations by the AXB and AAA were done for identical beam parameters. The AXB showed better agreement (within ±0.5%) with measurements than did the AAA (?4.9% to ?6.2%). In comparison to the AAA, the AXB predicted a higher maximum PTV dose (2.0%), but lower mean (1.1%) and minimum (2.5%) PTV doses as well as reduced PTV coverage (9.1%). The averaged mean doses to all OARs predicted by the AXB were lower (up to 3.6%), and the percentage of lungs volume receiving at least 20 and 5 Gy were lower by about 3.6% in the AXB plans compared to the AAA plans. The AXB is more accurate than the AAA for dose predictions when air medium is involved. The use of AXB is more likely to avoid dose overestimation or underestimation for the esophageal cancer treatment plans compared to AAA.

Dosimetric Comparison of Integral Radiation Dose: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm and Acuros XB in Breast Radiotherapy

The impact of the difference between Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) in breast radiotherapy is not clearly due to different uses and further research is required to explain this effect. The aim of this study is to investigate the contribution of calculation differences between AAA and AXB to the integral radiation dose (ID) on critical organs. Seven field intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were generated using with AAA and AXB algorithms for twenty patients with early stage left breast cancer after breast conserving surgery. Volumetric and dosimetric differences, as well as, the Dmean, V5, V20 doses of the left and right-sided lung, the Dmean, V10, V20, V30 doses of heart and the Dmean, V5, V10 doses of the contralateral breast were investigated. The mean dose (Dmean), V5, V20 doses of the left-sided lung, the Dmean, V5, V10 doses of right-sided lung, the Dmean, V10, V20, V30 doses of heart and the Dmean, V5, V10 doses of the contralateral breast were found to be significantly higher with AAA. In this research integral dose was also higher in the AAA recalculated plan and the AXB plan with the average dose as follows left lung 2%, heart 2%, contralateral breast 8%, contralateral lung 4% respectively. Our study revealed that the calculation differences between Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in breast radiotherapy caused serious differences on the stored integral doses on critical organs. In addition, AXB plans showed significantly dosimetric improvements in multiple dosimetric parameters.

Accuracy of the Small Field Dosimetry Using the Acuros XB Dose Calculation Algorithm within and beyond Heterogeneous Media for 6 MV Photon Beams

Purpose: The dosimetric accuracy of the recently released Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) is investigated for single radiation fields incident on homogeneous and heterogeneous geometries, as well as for two arc (VMAT) cases and compared against the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), the collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm (CCCS) and Monte Carlo (MC) calculations for the same geometries. Methods and Materials: Small open fields ranging from 1 × 1 cm2 to 5 × 5 cm2 were used for part of this study. The fields were incident on phantoms containing lung, air, and bone inhomogeneities. The dosimetric accuracy of Acuros XB, AAA and CCCS in the presence of the inhomogeneities was compared against BEAMnrc/DOSXYZnrc calculations that were considered as the benchmark. Furthermore, two clinical cases of arc deliveries were used to test the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithms against MC. Results: Open field tests in a homogeneous phantom showed good agreement between all dose calculation algorithms and MC. The dose agreement was +/?1.5% for all field sizes and energies. Dose calculation in heterogenous phantoms showed that the agreement between Acuros XB and CCCS was within 2% in the case of lung and bone. AAA calculations showed deviation of approximately 5%. In the case of the air heterogeneity, the differences were larger for all calculations algorithms. The calculation in the patient CT for a lung and bone (paraspinal targets) showed that all dose calculation algorithms predicted the dose in the middle of the target accurately;however, small differences (2% - 5%) were observed at the low dose region. Overall, when compared to MC, the Acuros XB and CCCS had better agreement than AAA. Conclusions: The Acuros XB calculation algorithm in the newest version of the Eclipse treatment planning system is an improvement over the existing AAA algorithm. The results are comparable to CCCS and MC calculations especially for both stylized and clinical cases. Dose discrepancies were observed for extreme cases in the presence of air inhomogeneities.

Acuros-Based Planning with Density Override for Lung SBRT by a Dynamic Conformal Arc Technique: Comparative Evaluation with AAA-Based Planning in Four-Dimensional Dose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a planning strategy based on Acuros with density override in comparison with AAA without and with the override. Ten lung-tumor patients were selected with each PTV size around 2 - 4 cm and were imaged using slow scan, followed by four-dimensional (4D) imaging limited to the target. On each phase-specific image, gross tumor volume (GTV) was contoured. Summed over all phases, an integrated GTV (iGTV) was generated and copied to the slow scan. A treatment plan was created using a dynamic-conformal-arc technique with AAA to prescribe 60 Gy to 95% of PTV (iGTV + 0.5 cm). Each AAA-based plan was regenerated by overriding the density of the setup margin of PTV by GTV density (modeling tumor-position uncertainty). It was also regenerated with Acuros and the override. The three plans were validated in 4D dose to PTV, after similarly overriding PTV density (phase-specific), accurately calculating with Acuros, and summing the phase-specific plans through organ/dose registration. The Acuros-based plan with the override, the AAA-based plan, and the AAA-based plan with the override provided 4D PTV doses of 63.9, 67.9, and 62 Gy at D95%, respectively, averaged over all patients. The override with Acuros and AAA produced lesser 4D doses, closer to the associated 3D doses, respectively, than that without the override, with better conformity and inhomogeneity. With the override in common, Acuros provided a greater dose to PTV than that by AAA. The Acuros with the override, which was more accurate than the AAA without the override, is clinically recommended.

HalcyonTM Acuros XB vs AAA: A RapidArc Planning Comparison for Head &Neck Cancers

The Halcyon O-ring gantry linear accelerator from Varian Medical Systems is delivered with a hardcoded beam-source model and Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm dose calculation algorithm as standard, while the Acuros XB algorithm is a purchasable option. The models in both algorithms are factory-configured and do not permit fine-tuning by the user. In this study, we compared the two algorithms for sequential boost RapidArc treatment planning of Head & Neck cancers using D98%, D95%, D50%, D2% and maximum dose to assess dose coverage of nodal and tumor planning target volumes (PTV_N and PTV_T, respectively), and cochlear D5%, parotid D20%, D50%, mean dose, and cord maximum dose to evaluate doses to organs- at-risk. The conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI) and total number of monitor units (MU) quantified plan quality. We found statistically significant differences in PTV_N D2%, maximum dose, HI, PTV_T D98%, D95%, D2%, Max, HI, and total MU. Statistically significant differences in Cochlear D5% and Parotid mean doses were also encountered. These differences may not necessarily be clinically significant, however. Therefore, we believe that both calculation algorithms are adequate for RapidArc planning of Head & Neck cancers.

二维矩阵电离室验证Acuros BV算法计算相对剂量分布的可行性研究

目的研究PTW729二维矩阵电离室验证Acuros BV算法在相对剂量分布计算方法的可行性,分析该方法的优势和劣势,为实际临床工作提供参考。方法基于自建测量模体,在相同计划和测量条件下,使用PTW729和胶片方法,分别测试相同位置处的剂量分布,对两种方法的测量结果和Acuros BV算法计算结果分别进行γ比对分析,并测试PTW729方法的稳定性。结果PTW729和胶片的测试结果与Acuros BV算法计算结果的γ比对值分别为98.9%、95.9%,PTW729与胶片测试结果的γ比对值为88.0%。PTW729稳定性测试实验γ比对值分别为95.0%、100.0%、100.0%。结论PTW729二维矩阵电离室可应用于Acuros BV算法相对剂量分布的快速验证。

AXB与AAA算法在Ⅰ期非小细胞肺癌立体定向治疗中的剂量学比较

目的:比较Acuros XB(AXB)算法与各向异性分析算法(AAA)在Ⅰ期非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)立体定向治疗(SBRT)中的剂量学差异。方法:选取10例非小细胞肺癌立体定向治疗计划,分别使用AXB和AAA算法重新进行计算,比较靶区和危险器官的剂量差异。其中PTV分为PTV_lung(低密度区域)和PTV_soft(软组织密度区域)进行比较。结果:AXB算法在PTV_lung的剂量明显低于AAA(P=0.000),对于10XFFF能量而言,该差别更大。而两种算法对于PTV_soft的剂量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在危险器官受量方面,AXB的胸壁、脊髓剂量低于AAA算法,但是AXB算法的患侧肺V5高于AAA(P<0.05)。结论:AXB与AAA算法对于Ⅰ期NSCLC SBRT治疗计划的主要差别在于PTV_lung,AXB算法在PTV_lung的剂量明显低于AAA。

无均整器的Halcyon平台下AXB与AAA算法在肺癌计划中剂量学差异及分析

目的分析无均整器的Halcyon平台下Acuros XB(AXB)算法与各向异性解析算法(anisotropic analytical algorithm,AAA)在肺癌IMRT计划中的剂量学差异。方法随机选取28例中央型肺癌病例,保持射野设置和MLC位置不变,分别采用AXB算法和AAA算法重新计算剂量得到两组IMRT计划,比较两种算法在IMRT计划的靶区、危及器官的剂量差异。对靶区统计:PTV的D_(98%)、V_(95)、V_(100)、V_(105)、D_(mean)、CI、HI、GI;对危及器官统计:双肺及健侧肺的V_(5)、V_(20)、V_(30)、D_(mean);心脏的V_(30)、D_(mean);食管的V_(60)、D_(mean);以及脊髓的D_(0.1cc)、D_(mean)。结果对于PTV,AXB算法的D_(98%)、D_(mean)、V_(100)均低于AAA算法(P<0.05);CI、HI、GI指标AXB算法略优于AAA(P<0.05)。对于健侧肺的V_(5)、D_(max)、D_(mean),心脏的V_(30),脊髓D_(0.1cc),AXB算法均优于AAA算法(P<0.05)。Halcyon平台AXB与AAA算法计划验证通过率分别为(99.0±1.67)与(98.5±1.84)(P=0.38)。结论无均整器模式下两种算法的IMRT计划均能满足临床要求,可以用于肺癌的IMRT计划设计。非均匀介质中AXB算法对危及器官的保护优于AAA算法,在肺癌调强放疗中可优先考虑AXB算法。

不同剂量算法在非小细胞肺癌立体定向放射治疗计划中的比较

目的:比较Acuros XB和AAA两种剂量算法在非小细胞肺癌立体定向放射治疗计划中的差异。方法:研究选取14例肺部非小细胞肺癌病例治疗计划,分别采用Acuros XB、AAA算法进行剂量计算,对比不同剂量算法对患者剂量的影响。结果:在低密度组织中,如靶区D_(max)、D_(mean)及肺V_(5)、D_(mean)参数,Acuros XB算法结果高于AAA算法。实质性器官脊髓D_(mean)、心脏D_(mean)结果,Acuros XB算法低于AAA算法。在胸部双弧计划中Acuros XB算法较AAA算法运算用时缩短约59.5%。结论:对于胸部非小细胞肺癌立体定向计划,建议采用更快、更准的Acuros XB算法。

Computational and Experimental Approaches for Evaluating Dose under a Block in TBI Geometry

Total Body Irradiation (TBI) patients are often treated at extended distances of several meters, with blocking made from high-Z materials placed close to the patients’ skin. Evaluating the dose under a block (e.g., for implanted medical device shielding purposes) in such a geometry is challenging. We compare the performance of two commonly used dose calculation algorithms, Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB, with Optically Stimulated Lumine- scence (OSLD) and ion chamber measurements in phantoms. The calculations and phantom measurements are also compared with in-vivo OSLD measure- ments. We find that OSLD and ion chamber measurements in phantom are good predictors of in-vivo measurements, while both AAA and Acuros XB sys- tematically overestimate the block transmission. We found Acuros XB to be accurate enough for a rough upper estimate (dose under block overestimated by 7% - 22%), while for AAA the overestimate was more severe (90% - 110%);the reason is that AAA does not account for the increase in pair production cro- ss-section in high-Z materials.