PURPOSE: To verify lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans using a secondary treatment planning system (TPS) as an independent method of verification and to define tolerance levels (TLs) in lung SBRT between the primary and secondary TPSs. METHODS: A total of 147 lung SBRT plans calculated using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were exported from iPlan to Eclipse in DICOM format. Dose distributions were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), while maintaining monitor units (MUs) and the beam arrangement. Dose to isocenter and dose-volumetric parameters, such as D2, D50, D95 and D98, were evaluated for each patient. The TLs of all parameters between XVMC and AXB (TLAXB) and between XVMC and AAA (TLAAA) were calculated as the mean±1.96 standard deviations. RESULTS: AXB values agreed with XVMC values within 3.5% for all dosimetric parameters in all patients. By contrast, AAA sometimes calculated a 10% higher dose in PTV D95 and D98 than XVMC. The TLAXB and TLAAA of the dose to isocenter were -0.3±1.4% and 0.6±2.9%, respectively. Those of D95 were 1.3±1.8% and 1.7±3.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study quantitatively demonstrated that the dosimetric performance of AXB is almost equal to that of XVMC, compared with that of AAA. Therefore, AXB is a more appropriate algorithm for an independent verification method for XVMC.
PURPOSE: To verify lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans using a secondary treatment planning system (TPS) as an independent method of verification and to define tolerance levels (TLs) in lung SBRT between the primary and secondary TPSs. METHODS: A total of 147 lung SBRT plans calculated using X-ray voxel Monte Carlo (XVMC) were exported from iPlan to Eclipse in DICOM format. Dose distributions were recalculated using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA), while maintaining monitor units (MUs) and the beam arrangement. Dose to isocenter and dose-volumetric parameters, such as D2, D50, D95 and D98, were evaluated for each patient. The TLs of all parameters between XVMC and AXB (TLAXB) and between XVMC and AAA (TLAAA) were calculated as the mean±1.96 standard deviations. RESULTS:AXB values agreed with XVMC values within 3.5% for all dosimetric parameters in all patients. By contrast, AAA sometimes calculated a 10% higher dose in PTV D95 and D98 than XVMC. The TLAXB and TLAAA of the dose to isocenter were -0.3±1.4% and 0.6±2.9%, respectively. Those of D95 were 1.3±1.8% and 1.7±3.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study quantitatively demonstrated that the dosimetric performance of AXB is almost equal to that of XVMC, compared with that of AAA. Therefore, AXB is a more appropriate algorithm for an independent verification method for XVMC.
Authors: Carles Muñoz-Montplet; Rafael Fuentes-Raspall; Diego Jurado-Bruggeman; Sebastià Agramunt-Chaler; Albert Onsès-Segarra; Maria Buxó Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-05-19