Takeshi Takizawa1, Satoshi Tanabe2, Satoru Utsunomiya3, Hisashi Nakano4, Takumi Yamada5, Hironori Sakai5, Atsushi Ohta4, Hirotake Saito4, Toshimichi Nakano6, Eisuke Abe6, Motoki Kaidu6, Hidefumi Aoyama7. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Niigata Neurosurgical Hospital, Niigata, 3057 Yamada, Nishi-ku, Niigata City, Niigata 950-1101, Japan; Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8510, Japan. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8520, Japan. Electronic address: s-tanabe@med.niigata-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Radiological Technology, Niigata University Graduate School of Health Sciences, 2-746 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8518, Japan. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8520, Japan. 5. Section of Radiology, Department of Clinical Support, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8520, Japan. 6. Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8510, Japan. 7. Department of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1-757 Asahimachi-dori, Chuo-ku, Niigata City, Niigata 951-8510, Japan; Department of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Hokkaido University, N15 W7 Kita-ku, Sapporo City, Hokkaido 060-8638, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric impact between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for high-grade glioma (HGG). METHODS: We used a heterogeneous phantom to quantify the agreement between the measured and calculated doses from the AAA and from the AXB. We then analyzed 14 patients with HGG treated by VMAT, using the AAA. We newly created AXB plans for each corresponding AAA plan under the following conditions: (1) re-calculation for the same number of monitor units with an identical beam and leaf setup, and (2) re-optimization under the same conditions of dose constraints. The dose coverage for the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated by dividing the coverage into the skull, air, and soft-tissue regions. RESULTS: Compared to the results obtained with the AAA, the AXB results were in good agreement with the measured profiles. The dose differences in the PTV between the AAA and re-calculated AXB plans were large in the skull region contained in the target. The dose difference in the PTV in both types of plan was significantly correlated with the volume of the skull contained in the target (r = 0.71, p = 0.0042). A re-optimized AXB plan's dose difference was lower vs. the re-calculated AXB plan's. CONCLUSIONS: We observed dose differences between the AAA and AXB plans, in particular in the cases in which the skull region of the target was large. Considering the phantom measurement results, the AXB algorithm should be used in VMAT plans for HGG.
PURPOSE: To investigate the dosimetric impact between the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm in volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for high-grade glioma (HGG). METHODS: We used a heterogeneous phantom to quantify the agreement between the measured and calculated doses from the AAA and from the AXB. We then analyzed 14 patients with HGG treated by VMAT, using the AAA. We newly created AXB plans for each corresponding AAA plan under the following conditions: (1) re-calculation for the same number of monitor units with an identical beam and leaf setup, and (2) re-optimization under the same conditions of dose constraints. The dose coverage for the planning target volume (PTV) was evaluated by dividing the coverage into the skull, air, and soft-tissue regions. RESULTS: Compared to the results obtained with the AAA, the AXB results were in good agreement with the measured profiles. The dose differences in the PTV between the AAA and re-calculated AXB plans were large in the skull region contained in the target. The dose difference in the PTV in both types of plan was significantly correlated with the volume of the skull contained in the target (r = 0.71, p = 0.0042). A re-optimized AXB plan's dose difference was lower vs. the re-calculated AXB plan's. CONCLUSIONS: We observed dose differences between the AAA and AXB plans, in particular in the cases in which the skull region of the target was large. Considering the phantom measurement results, the AXB algorithm should be used in VMAT plans for HGG.