Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma.

Medical Physics

PubMedID: 23464309

Kan MW, Leung LH, So RW, Yu PK. Experimental verification of the Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation adjacent to heterogeneous media for IMRT and RapidArc of nasopharygeal carcinoma. Med Phys. 2013;40(3):031714.
PURPOSE
To compare the doses calculated by the Acuros XB (AXB) algorithm and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) with experimentally measured data adjacent to and within heterogeneous medium using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and RapidArc(®) (RA) volumetric arc therapy plans for nasopharygeal carcinoma (NPC).

METHODS
Two-dimensional dose distribution immediately adjacent to both air and bone inserts of a rectangular tissue equivalent phantom irradiated using IMRT and RA plans for NPC cases were measured with GafChromic(®) EBT3 films. Doses near and within the nasopharygeal (NP) region of an anthropomorphic phantom containing heterogeneous medium were also measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) and EBT3 films. The measured data were then compared with the data calculated by AAA and AXB. For AXB, dose calculations were performed using both dose-to-medium (AXB_Dm) and dose-to-water (AXB_Dw) options. Furthermore, target dose differences between AAA and AXB were analyzed for the corresponding real patients. The comparison of real patient plans was performed by stratifying the targets into components of different densities, including tissue, bone, and air.

RESULTS
For the verification of planar dose distribution adjacent to air and bone using the rectangular phantom, the percentages of pixels that passed the gamma analysis with the ± 3%/3mm criteria were 98.7%, 99.5%, and 97.7% on the axial plane for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively, averaged over all IMRT and RA plans, while they were 97.6%, 98.2%, and 97.7%, respectively, on the coronal plane. For the verification of planar dose distribution within the NP region of the anthropomorphic phantom, the percentages of pixels that passed the gamma analysis with the ± 3%/3mm criteria were 95.1%, 91.3%, and 99.0% for AAA, AXB_Dm, and AXB_Dw, respectively, averaged over all IMRT and RA plans. Within the NP region where air and bone were present, the film measurements represented the dose close to unit density water in a heterogeneous medium, produced the best agreement with the AXB_Dw. For the verification of point doses within the target using TLD in the anthropomorphic phantom, the absolute percentage deviations between the calculated and measured data when averaged over all IMRT and RA plans were 1.8%, 1.7%, and 1.8% for AAA, AXB_Dm and AXB_Dw, respectively. From all the verification results, no significant difference was found between the IMRT and RA plans. The target dose analysis of the real patient plans showed that the discrepancies in mean doses to the PTV component in tissue among the three dose calculation options were within 2%, but up to about 4% in the bone content, with AXB_Dm giving the lowest values and AXB_Dw giving the highest values.

CONCLUSIONS
In general, the verification measurements demonstrated that both algorithms produced acceptable accuracy when compared to the measured data. GafChromic(®) film results indicated that AXB produced slightly better accuracy compared to AAA for dose calculation adjacent to and within the heterogeneous media. Users should be aware of the differences in calculated target doses between options AXB_Dm and AXB_Dw, especially in bone, for IMRT and RA in NPC cases.