Onizuka Ryota, Araki Fujio, Ohno Takeshi, Nakaguchi Yuji, Kai Yudai, Tomiyama Yuuki, Hioki Kazunari
Radiol Phys Technol. 2016 Jan;9(1):77-87. doi: 10.1007/s12194-015-0336-z.
This study verified the dose calculation accuracy of the analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA), Acuros XB version 10 (AXB10), and version 11 (AXB11) installed in an Eclipse treatment planning system, by comparing with Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. First, the algorithms were compared in terms of dose distributions using four types of virtual heterogeneous multi-layer phantom for 6 and 15 MV photons. Next, the clinical head and neck intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose distributions for 6 MV photons were evaluated using dose volume histograms (DVHs) and three-dimensional gamma analysis. In percentage depth doses (PDDs) for virtual heterogeneous phantoms, AAA overestimated absorbed doses in the air cavity, bone, and aluminum in comparison with MC, AXB10, and AXB11. The PDDs of AXB10 almost agreed with those of MC and AXB11, except for the air cavity. The dose in the air cavity was higher for AXB10 than for AXB11, because their electron cutoff energies are set at 500 and 200 keV, respectively. For head and neck IMRT dose distributions, the D95 in the clinical target volume (CTV) for AAA was almost the same as that for AXB10 and was approximately 7 % larger than that for MC. Comparing each approach with MC using a criterion of 3 %/3 mm, the pass rates for AXB10, AXB11, and AAA were 92.4, 94.7, and 90.4 % in the CTV, respectively. In conclusion, AAA produces dose errors in heterogeneous regions, while AXB11 provides calculation accuracy comparable to MC. AXB10 overestimates the dose in regions that include an air cavity.
本研究通过与蒙特卡罗(MC)模拟进行比较,验证了安装在Eclipse治疗计划系统中的解析各向异性算法(AAA)、Acuros XB版本10(AXB10)和版本11(AXB11)的剂量计算准确性。首先,使用四种类型的虚拟非均匀多层体模对6和15 MV光子,在剂量分布方面对这些算法进行了比较。其次,使用剂量体积直方图(DVH)和三维伽马分析评估了6 MV光子的临床头颈部调强放射治疗(IMRT)剂量分布。在虚拟非均匀体模的百分深度剂量(PDD)中,与MC、AXB10和AXB11相比,AAA高估了气腔、骨骼和铝中的吸收剂量。AXB10的PDD与MC和AXB11的PDD几乎一致,但气腔除外。AXB10在气腔中的剂量高于AXB11,因为它们的电子截止能量分别设置为500和200 keV。对于头颈部IMRT剂量分布,AAA在临床靶区(CTV)中的D95与AXB10几乎相同,比MC大约高7%。使用3%/3 mm的标准将每种方法与MC进行比较,AXB10、AXB11和AAA在CTV中的通过率分别为92.4%、94.7%和90.4%。总之,AAA在非均匀区域会产生剂量误差,而AXB11提供的计算准确性与MC相当。AXB10高估了包括气腔区域的剂量。