title: Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport algorithm for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The novel deterministic radiation transport algorithm, Acuros XB (AXB), has shown great potential for accurate heterogeneous dose calculation. However, the clinical impact between AXB and other currently used algorithms still needs to be elucidated for translation between these algorithms. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of AXB for heterogeneous dose calculation in lung cancer for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT).
  
  
  METHODS
  The thorax phantom from the Radiological Physics Center (RPC) was used for this study. IMRT and VMAT plans were created for the phantom in the Eclipse 11.0 treatment planning system. Each plan was delivered to the phantom three times using a Varian Clinac iX linear accelerator to ensure reproducibility. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and Gafchromic EBT2 film were placed inside the phantom to measure delivered doses. The measurements were compared with dose calculations from AXB 11.0.21 and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) 11.0.21. Two dose reporting modes of AXB, dose-to-medium in medium (Dm,m) and dose-to-water in medium (Dw,m), were studied. Point doses, dose profiles, and gamma analysis were used to quantify the agreement between measurements and calculations from both AXB and AAA. The computation times for AAA and AXB were also evaluated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For the RPC lung phantom, AAA and AXB dose predictions were found in good agreement to TLD and film measurements for both IMRT and VMAT plans. TLD dose predictions were within 0.4%-4.4% to AXB doses (both Dm,m and Dw,m); and within 2.5%-6.4% to AAA doses, respectively. For the film comparisons, the gamma indexes (± 3%∕3 mm criteria) were 94%, 97%, and 98% for AAA, AXB_Dm,m, and AXB_Dw,m, respectively. The differences between AXB and AAA in dose-volume histogram mean doses were within 2% in the planning target volume, lung, heart, and within 5% in the spinal cord. However, differences up to 8% between AXB and AAA were found at lung∕soft tissue interface regions for individual IMRT fields. AAA was found to be 5-6 times faster than AXB for IMRT, while AXB was 4-5 times faster than AAA for VMAT plan.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  AXB is satisfactorily accurate for the dose calculation in lung cancer for both IMRT and VMAT plans. The differences between AXB and AAA are generally small except in heterogeneous interface regions. AXB Dw,m and Dm,m calculations are similar inside the soft tissue and lung regions. AXB can benefit lung VMAT plans by both improving accuracy and reducing computation time.
authors: Department of Radiation Physics, the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
authors: Tao
authors: T
authors: Han
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Followill
authors: Justin
authors: J
authors: Mikell
authors: Roman
authors: R
authors: Repchak
authors: Andrea
authors: A
authors: Molineu
authors: Rebecca
authors: R
authors: Howell
authors: Mohammad
authors: M
authors: Salehpour
authors: Firas
authors: F
authors: Mourtada
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D006801:Humans; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000532:radiotherapy*; D019047:Phantoms, Imaging; D011829:Radiation Dosage; D011874:Radiometry; D011879:Radiotherapy Dosage; D011880:Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*; D050397:Radiotherapy, Intensity-Modulated; D013997:Time Factors
references: Med Phys. 2007 Dec;34(12):4818-53
references: 18196810
references: Med Phys. 2012 Apr;39(4):2193-202
references: 22482641
references: Med Phys. 2007 May;34(5):1665-77
references: 17555248
references: Phys Med Biol. 2000 Apr;45(4):983-95
references: 10795986
references: Med Phys. 2007 May;34(5):1850-7
references: 17555266
references: Phys Med Biol. 2007 Mar 7;52(5):1363-85
references: 17301460
references: Phys Med Biol. 2006 May 7;51(9):2253-65
references: 16625040
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012 Aug 1;83(5):1587-95
references: 22300575
references: Med Phys. 1992 Nov-Dec;19(6):1427-33
references: 1461205
references: Med Phys. 1995 May;22(5):503-24
references: 7643786
references: Med Phys. 2011 Apr;38(4):2208-21
references: 21626955
references: Med Phys. 2009 Nov;36(11):5359-73
references: 19994544
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Aug 21;55(16):4535-46
references: 20668336
references: Phys Med Biol. 2010 Feb 7;55(3):581-98
references: 20057008
references: Med Phys. 2010 May;37(5):1942-7
references: 20527528
references: Med Phys. 2007 Jun;34(6):2070-6
references: 17654910
references: Phys Med Biol. 2006 Oct 7;51(19):4967-80
references: 16985281
references: Med Phys. 2008 Jun;35(6):2279-85
references: 18649459
references: Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
references: 9608475
references: Phys Med Biol. 2011 Mar 21;56(6):1879-904
references: 21364257
references: Med Phys. 2008 Dec;35(12):5434-9
references: 19175103
references: Phys Med Biol. 1998 Mar;43(3):517-28
references: 9533131
references: Med Phys. 2008 Jul;35(7Part2):3405
references: 28512842
references: Med Phys. 2011 May;38(5):2651-64
references: 21776802
references: Med Phys. 1998 Nov;25(11):2093-115
references: 9829234
references: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008 Sep 1;72(1):220-7
references: 18722273