Dosimetric verification of four dose calculation algorithms for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy

4Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The applications of Type B [anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and collapsed cone (CC)] and Type C [Acuros XB (AXB) and photon Monte Carlo (PMC)] dose calculation algorithms in spine stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were evaluated. Water- and bone-equivalent phantoms were combined to evaluate the percentage depth dose and dose profile. Subsequently, 48 consecutive patients with clinical spine SBRT plans were evaluated. All treatment plans were created using AXB in Eclipse. The prescription dose was 24 Gy in two fractions at a 10 MV FFF on TrueBeam. The doses were then recalculated with AAA, CC and PMC while maintaining the AXB-calculated monitor units and beam arrangement. The dose index values obtained using the four dose calculation algorithms were then compared. The AXB and PMC dose distributions agreed with the bone-equivalent phantom measurements (within ±2.0%); the AAA and CC values were higher than those in the bone-equivalent phantom region. For the spine SBRT plans, PMC, AAA and CC were overestimated compared with AXB in terms of the near minimum and maximum doses of the target and organ at risk, respectively; the mean dose difference was within 4.2%, which is equivalent with within 1 Gy. The phantom study showed that the results from AXB and PMC agreed with the measurements within ±2.0%. However, the mean dose difference ranged from 0.5 to 1 Gy in the spine SBRT planning study when the dose calculation algorithms changed. Users should incorporate a clinical introduction that includes an awareness of these differences.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hirashima, H., Nakamura, M., Nakamura, K., Matsuo, Y., & Mizowaki, T. (2024). Dosimetric verification of four dose calculation algorithms for spine stereotactic body radiotherapy. Journal of Radiation Research, 65(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrad086

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free