Literature DB >> 26493992

Accuracy of dose calculation algorithms for virtual heterogeneous phantoms and intensity-modulated radiation therapy in the head and neck.

Ryota Onizuka, Fujio Araki, Takeshi Ohno, Yuji Nakaguchi, Yudai Kai, Yuuki Tomiyama, Kazunari Hioki.   

Abstract

This study verified the dose calculation accuracy of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB version 10 (AXB10), and version 11 (AXB11) installed in an Eclipse treatment planning system, by comparing with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. First, the algorithms were compared in terms of dose distributions using four types of virtual heterogeneous multi-layer phantom for 6 and 15 MV photons. Next, the clinical head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions for 6 MV photons were evaluated using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional gamma analysis. In percentage depth doses (PDDs) for virtual heterogeneous phantoms, AAA overestimated absorbed doses in the air cavity, bone, and aluminum in comparison with MC, AXB10, and AXB11. The PDDs of AXB10 almost agreed with those of MC and AXB11, except for the air cavity. The dose in the air cavity was higher for AXB10 than for AXB11, because their electron cutoff energies are set at 500 and 200 keV, respectively. For head and neck IMRT dose distributions, the D95 in the clinical target volume (CTV) for AAA was almost the same as that for AXB10 and was approximately 7 % larger than that for MC. Comparing each approach with MC using a criterion of 3 %/3 mm, the pass rates for AXB10, AXB11, and AAA were 92.4, 94.7, and 90.4 % in the CTV, respectively. In conclusion, AAA produces dose errors in heterogeneous regions, while AXB11 provides calculation accuracy comparable to MC. AXB10 overestimates the dose in regions that include an air cavity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26493992     DOI: 10.1007/s12194-015-0336-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol        ISSN: 1865-0333


  27 in total

1.  Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport. I. EGSnrc, the new EGS4 version.

Authors:  I Kawrakow
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 2.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.

Authors:  Wilfried De Neve; Wim Duthoy
Journal:  Expert Rev Anticancer Ther       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.512

3.  Monte carlo evaluation of the AAA treatment planning algorithm in a heterogeneous multilayer phantom and IMRT clinical treatments for an Elekta SL25 linear accelerator.

Authors:  E Sterpin; M Tomsej; B De Smedt; N Reynaert; S Vynckier
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Three-dimensional gamma analysis of dose distributions in individual structures for IMRT dose verification.

Authors:  Yuuki Tomiyama; Fujio Araki; Takeshi Oono; Kazunari Hioki
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-05-06

5.  Verification and dosimetric impact of Acuros XB algorithm on intensity modulated stereotactic radiotherapy for locally persistent nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

Authors:  Monica W K Kan; Lucullus H T Leung; Peter K N Yu
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Monte Carlo-based dosimetry of head-and-neck patients treated with SIB-IMRT.

Authors:  Nirmal Sakthi; Paul Keall; Ivaylo Mihaylov; Qiuwen Wu; Yan Wu; Jeffrey F Williamson; Rupert Schmidt-Ullrich; Jeffrey V Siebers
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2006-03-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Comparison between Acuros XB and Brainlab Monte Carlo algorithms for photon dose calculation.

Authors:  M Mißlbeck; P Kneschaurek
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 3.621

8.  Experimental validation of deterministic Acuros XB algorithm for IMRT and VMAT dose calculations with the Radiological Physics Center's head and neck phantom.

Authors:  Tao Han; Firas Mourtada; Kelly Kisling; Justin Mikell; David Followill; Rebecca Howell
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Volumetric intensity-modulated arc therapy vs. conventional IMRT in head-and-neck cancer: a comparative planning and dosimetric study.

Authors:  Wilko F A R Verbakel; Johan P Cuijpers; Daan Hoffmans; Michael Bieker; Ben J Slotman; Suresh Senan
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 10.  Intensity-modulated radiation therapy for head and neck carcinoma.

Authors:  Vincent Grégoire; Wilfried De Neve; Avraham Eisbruch; Nancy Lee; Danielle Van den Weyngaert; Dirk Van Gestel
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2007-05
View more
  5 in total

1.  Validation of secondary dose calculation system with manufacturer-provided reference beam data using heterogeneous phantoms.

Authors:  Yuji Nakaguchi; Yuya Nakamura; Yohei Yotsuji
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2019-01-25

2.  Radiobiological Comparison of Acuros External Beam and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm on Esophageal Carcinoma Radiotherapy Treatment Plans.

Authors:  Lin Wang; Jianping Zhang; Miaoyun Huang; Benhua Xu; Xiaobo Li
Journal:  Dose Response       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 2.623

3.  A depth dose study between AAA and AXB algorithm against Monte Carlo simulation using AIP CT of a 4D dataset from a moving phantom.

Authors:  Roger Cai Xiang Soh; Guan Heng Tay; Wen Siang Lew; James Cheow Lei Lee
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2018-09-03

4.  Moving GPU-OpenCL-based Monte Carlo dose calculation toward clinical use: Automatic beam commissioning and source sampling for treatment plan dose calculation.

Authors:  Zhen Tian; Yongbao Li; Nima Hassan-Rezaeian; Steve B Jiang; Xun Jia
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Combined radiotherapy and concurrent tumor treating fields (TTFields) for glioblastoma: Dosimetric consequences on non-coplanar IMRT as initial results from a phase I trial.

Authors:  N Guberina; C Pöttgen; S Kebir; L Lazaridis; C Scharmberg; W Lübcke; M Niessen; M Guberina; B Scheffler; V Jendrossek; R Jabbarli; D Pierscianek; U Sure; T Schmidt; C Oster; P Hau; A L Grosu; M Stuschke; M Glas; Y Nour; L Lüdemann
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2020-04-19       Impact factor: 3.481

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.