Evaluation of changes in treatment planning quality indices when applying a specific beam model dedicated for MLC-based radiosurgery
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the changes in plan quality indices when applying a radiosurgery-specific MLC-based beam model called sAXB (specific Acuros-XB) to compare with the standard AXB beam model. Subject and method: The 6MV-WFF and 6MV-FFF sAXB beam models were previously validated by the MD Anderson Laboratory (Texas, Houston, USA) and the Seiberdorf Dosimetry Laboratory (Vienna, Austria) under the IAEA-E24022 Coordination Research Project. Treatment plans were created based on CT data (computed tomography) of a radiosurgery head phantom and 13 patients with 6MV-WFF and 6MV-FFF beams. After dose calculations were done with the standard AXB beam model, these plans were recalculated using the sAXB beam model. For dosimetric comparison, the plan quality metrics CI, HI, CQ, CN, COIN, and Dmean were utilized. Result: For the 6MV-WFF beam, differences in values of HI, CQ, CN, and Dmean between AXB and sAXB were within 2.5% ÷ 14%, 3.6% ÷ 14.9%, -9.5% ÷ -59.5% and 3.0% ÷ 14% by reducing the target volume diameter of the phantom from 4 cm down to 0.5 cm. For the 6MV-WFF beam, they were within 3.4% ÷ 18.4%, 3.8% ÷ 19.2%, -9.3% ÷ -63.7%, and 3.2% ÷ 19.2%. In patient data, the mean differences in values of HI, CQ, CN, COIN, and Dmean between AXB and sAXB were 2.7%, -1%, -5.0%, -5.0%, -2.0% for 6MV-FFF beams, and 1.9%, 5.7%, 3.2%, 3.2%, and 2.5% for 6MV-WFF, respectively. Conclusion: There were significant changes in values of calculated plan quality metrics between the radiosurgery-specific beam model and the standard beam model, which were MLC-based, especially for target sizes smaller than 4cm in diameter.
Article Details
References
2. Yousif YAM, Gastaldo J, and Baldock C (2022) Golden beam data provided by linear accelerator manufacturers should be used in the commissioning of treatment planning systems. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med., 45(2): 407-411.
3. IAEA and AAPM (2017) Dosimetry of small static fields used in external beam radiotherapy: An international code of practice for reference and relative dose determination. 2017.
4. Das IJ et al (2021) Report of AAPM Task Group 155: Megavoltage photon beam dosimetry in small fields and non-equilibrium conditions.
5. Gershkevitsh E et al (2014) Dosimetric inter-institutional comparison in European radiotherapy centres: Results of IAEA supported treatment planning system audit. Acta Oncol. (Madr) 53(5): 628-636.
6. Kerns JR, F Stingo, Followill DS, Howell RM, Melancon A, and Kry SF (2017) Treatment planning system calculation errors are present in most imaging and radiation oncology core-houston phantom failures. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys 98(5): 1197-1203.
7. Han T, Mourtada F, Kisling K, Mikell J, Followill D, and Howell R (2012) Experimental validation of deterministic Acuros XB algorithm for IMRT and VMAT dose calculations with the Radiological Physics Center’s head and neck phantom. Med. Phys 39(4): 2193-2202.
8. Riet AVt et al (1997) A conformation number to quantify the degree of conformality in brachytherapy and external beam irradiation: Application to the prostate. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys 37(3): 731-736.
9. Baltas D et al (1998) A conformal index (COIN) to evaluate implant quality and dose specification in brachytherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys 40(2): 515-524.
10. ICRU (2010) ICRU Report 83: Prescribing, Recording, and Reporting Photon-Beam Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT).
11. ICRU (2014) Report No.91: Prescribing, recording, and reporting of stereotactic treatments with small photon beams. J. ICRU 14(2): 1-160.
12. W. Lechner et al (2018) A multinational audit of small field output factors calculated by treatment planning systems used in radiotherapy. Phys. Imaging Radiat Oncol 5: 58-63.
13. Tas B and Durmus IF (2018) Small field out-put factors comparison between ion chambers and diode dedectors for different photon energies. AIP Conf. Proc1935: 1-5.