Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Radiation Oncology 3/2019

01-09-2019 | Original Research

Dosimetric evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy of different algorithms for two different treatment techniques during whole breast irradiation

Authors: Hilal Acar, Ayse Yildirim Altinok, Mehmet Sıddık Cebe

Published in: Journal of Radiation Oncology | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

In-field, partially in-field, and out-of-field organ doses calculated by the Acuros XB (AXB) and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) were compared with experimentally measured data for two different techniques of whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT).

Methods

The field-in-field conformal radiotherapy (FIF) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans were calculated by AAA and dose-to-water (Dw) and dose-to-medium (Dm) options used by AXB. In field (planning target volume (PTV)), partially in-field (ipsilateral lung, heart, left ascending coronary artery (LAD)), and out-of-field (contralateral lung and contralateral breast) organ at risk (OAR) doses were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) and EBT3 films in an anthropomorphic phantom. Furthermore, target dose differences between AAA and AXB were analyzed for the corresponding real patients.

Results

For the verification of planar dose distribution in PTV, the percentages of pixels that passed the gamma analysis with the ± 3%/3mm criteria were 93.5%, 93.9%, and 99.0% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively, averaged over all IMRT and FIF plans. For the verification of point doses within the target using TLD in the randophantom, the max percentage deviations between the calculated and measured data when averaged over all IMRT and FIF plans were 6.8%, 4.7%, and 3.9% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively.

Conclusion

When using the Eclipse TPS for breast cancer, AXB should be used instead of the AAA algorithm, bearing in mind that the AXB may still overestimate all OARs doses.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Tillikainen L, Helminen H, Torsti T, Siljamäki S, Alakuijala J, Pyyry J et al (2008) A 3D pencil-beam-based superposition algorithm for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Phys Med Biol 53:3821–3839CrossRef Tillikainen L, Helminen H, Torsti T, Siljamäki S, Alakuijala J, Pyyry J et al (2008) A 3D pencil-beam-based superposition algorithm for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Phys Med Biol 53:3821–3839CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Vassiliev ON, Wareing T, McMhee J, Failla G, Salehpour M, Mourtada F (2010) Validation of a new grid based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys. Med. Biol. 55:581–598CrossRef Vassiliev ON, Wareing T, McMhee J, Failla G, Salehpour M, Mourtada F (2010) Validation of a new grid based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys. Med. Biol. 55:581–598CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Clivio A, Vanetti E, Mancosu P, Cozzi L (2011) Dosimetric validation of the Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm: fundamental characterization in water. Phys. Med. Biol. 56:1879–1904CrossRef Fogliata A, Nicolini G, Clivio A, Vanetti E, Mancosu P, Cozzi L (2011) Dosimetric validation of the Acuros XB advanced dose calculation algorithm: fundamental characterization in water. Phys. Med. Biol. 56:1879–1904CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Siebers V, Keall PJ, Nahum AE, Mohan R (2000) Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations. Phys. Med. Biol. 45:983–995CrossRef Siebers V, Keall PJ, Nahum AE, Mohan R (2000) Converting absorbed dose to medium to absorbed dose to water for Monte Carlo based photon beam dose calculations. Phys. Med. Biol. 45:983–995CrossRef
5.
go back to reference International Atomic Energy Agency (2004) Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. TRS Report Number 430. Vienna, Austria International Atomic Energy Agency (2004) Commissioning and quality assurance of computerized planning systems for radiation treatment of cancer. TRS Report Number 430. Vienna, Austria
6.
go back to reference Sievinen J, Ulmer W, Kaissl W (2005) AAA photon dose calculation model in Eclipse. RAD #7170B:Varian Medical Systems Sievinen J, Ulmer W, Kaissl W (2005) AAA photon dose calculation model in Eclipse. RAD #7170B:Varian Medical Systems
7.
go back to reference Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R et al (1998) AAPM TG 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med. Phys. 25(10):1773–1829CrossRef Fraass B, Doppke K, Hunt M, Kutcher G, Starkschall G, Stern R et al (1998) AAPM TG 53: quality assurance for clinical radiotherapy treatment planning. Med. Phys. 25(10):1773–1829CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Varian Medical Systems I (2008) Eclipse algorithms reference guide, version 86; Varian Medical Systems Varian Medical Systems I (2008) Eclipse algorithms reference guide, version 86; Varian Medical Systems
9.
go back to reference Basran PS, Zavgorodni S, Berrang T, Olivotto IA, Beckham W (2010) The impact of dose calculation algorithms on partial and whole breast radiation treatment plans. Radiation Oncology. 5:120–132CrossRef Basran PS, Zavgorodni S, Berrang T, Olivotto IA, Beckham W (2010) The impact of dose calculation algorithms on partial and whole breast radiation treatment plans. Radiation Oncology. 5:120–132CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kan MW, Leung LH, So RW, Yu PK (2013) Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma. Med Phys. 40:031714CrossRef Kan MW, Leung LH, So RW, Yu PK (2013) Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma. Med Phys. 40:031714CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Guebert A, Conroy L, Weppler S et al (2018) Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: plan quality and subvolume analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(3):243–250CrossRef Guebert A, Conroy L, Weppler S et al (2018) Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: plan quality and subvolume analysis. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(3):243–250CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Rana S, Pokharel S (2014) Dose-to-medium vs. dose-to-water: dosimetric evaluation of dose reporting modes in Acuros XB for prostate, lung and breast cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2(4):020421CrossRef Rana S, Pokharel S (2014) Dose-to-medium vs. dose-to-water: dosimetric evaluation of dose reporting modes in Acuros XB for prostate, lung and breast cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2(4):020421CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Lonski P, Taylor ML, Hackworth W et al (2014) In vivo verification of radiation dose delivered to healthy tissue during radiotherapy for breast cancer. J Phys Conf Ser 489:012015CrossRef Lonski P, Taylor ML, Hackworth W et al (2014) In vivo verification of radiation dose delivered to healthy tissue during radiotherapy for breast cancer. J Phys Conf Ser 489:012015CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Zifodya JM, Challens CH, Hsieh WL (2016) From AAA to Acuros XB-clinical implications of selecting either Acuros XB dose-to-water or dose-to-medium. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 39(2):431–439CrossRef Zifodya JM, Challens CH, Hsieh WL (2016) From AAA to Acuros XB-clinical implications of selecting either Acuros XB dose-to-water or dose-to-medium. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. 39(2):431–439CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Papanikolaou N, Battista JJ, Pooger AL et al (2004) Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. AAPM report no. 85. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, pp 1–135 Papanikolaou N, Battista JJ, Pooger AL et al (2004) Tissue inhomogeneity corrections for megavoltage photon beams. AAPM report no. 85. Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, pp 1–135
Metadata
Title
Dosimetric evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy of different algorithms for two different treatment techniques during whole breast irradiation
Authors
Hilal Acar
Ayse Yildirim Altinok
Mehmet Sıddık Cebe
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Radiation Oncology / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 1948-7894
Electronic ISSN: 1948-7908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13566-019-00404-z

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Journal of Radiation Oncology 3/2019 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine