Maria Lavin Cabanas1, Chenyu Yan2, Ronald J Lalonde1, Dwight E Heron1, M Saiful Huq1. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Cancer Centers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Cleveland Clinic at Akron General, Akron, Ohio. Electronic address: yanc2@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the doses calculated by the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), Acuros dose-to-medium, and Acuros dose-to-water for the patients with lung cancer treated at our institution and show that further investigation and clarification are needed about what dose specifications should be used for NRG clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with lung cancer who previously received intensity modulated radiation therapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy-based treatments at our institution were analyzed by recalculating their plans for each one with the AAA algorithm (reviewed and approved by our radiation oncologists) and with both reporting modes of the Acuros algorithm. All plans used the same monitor units as the original approved plan and a 2.5-mm grid size. For each patient, D100 of clinical target volume (CTV) and CTV coverage ratios in each plan were compared, and dose distributions and dose-volume histograms calculated by AAA, Acuros dose-to-water (Dw,m), and Acuros dose-to-medium (Dm,m) were compared as well. RESULTS: Differences between CTV D100 calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m were larger than the differences between AAA and Acuros XB Dw,m for all patients. When D100 of CTV was evaluated, the largest difference between AAA and Acuros Dm,m was 14.12% and between AAA and Acuros XB Dw,m was 3.68%. The average differences between the CTV D100 calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m was 5.39%. Coverage ratio between Acuros Dm,m and AAA ranges from 51.08% to 100% with an average of 91.32%; coverage ratio between Acuros Dw,m and AAA ranges from 87.2% to 100.41% with average of 98.94%; coverage ratio between Acuros Dm,m and Acuros Dw,m ranges from 58.58% to 100% with an average of 92.03%. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows large and systematic differences in doses calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m. Therefore, further investigation and clarification are needed about which dose reporting mode should be used.
PURPOSE: To compare the doses calculated by the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), Acuros dose-to-medium, and Acuros dose-to-water for the patients with lung cancer treated at our institution and show that further investigation and clarification are needed about what dose specifications should be used for NRG clinical trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with lung cancer who previously received intensity modulated radiation therapy or volumetric modulated arc therapy-based treatments at our institution were analyzed by recalculating their plans for each one with the AAA algorithm (reviewed and approved by our radiation oncologists) and with both reporting modes of the Acuros algorithm. All plans used the same monitor units as the original approved plan and a 2.5-mm grid size. For each patient, D100 of clinical target volume (CTV) and CTV coverage ratios in each plan were compared, and dose distributions and dose-volume histograms calculated by AAA, Acuros dose-to-water (Dw,m), and Acuros dose-to-medium (Dm,m) were compared as well. RESULTS: Differences between CTV D100 calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m were larger than the differences between AAA and Acuros XB Dw,m for all patients. When D100 of CTV was evaluated, the largest difference between AAA and Acuros Dm,m was 14.12% and between AAA and Acuros XB Dw,m was 3.68%. The average differences between the CTV D100 calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m was 5.39%. Coverage ratio between Acuros Dm,m and AAA ranges from 51.08% to 100% with an average of 91.32%; coverage ratio between Acuros Dw,m and AAA ranges from 87.2% to 100.41% with average of 98.94%; coverage ratio between Acuros Dm,m and Acuros Dw,m ranges from 58.58% to 100% with an average of 92.03%. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows large and systematic differences in doses calculated by AAA and Acuros Dm,m. Therefore, further investigation and clarification are needed about which dose reporting mode should be used.
Authors: Vladimir Feygelman; Kujtim Latifi; Mark Bowers; Kevin Greco; Eduardo G Moros; Max Isacson; Agnes Angerud; Jimmy Caudell Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.243