Dosimetric Comparison between Acuros XB (AXB) and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy.

AIM

Dose calculation accuracy between Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) for various megavoltage (MV) photon beams for both flattening filter (FF) and flattening filter free (FFF) beams and to validate the accuracy of these dose calculations using inhomogeneous phantom in volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Cheese Phantom having 20 holes that can be filled with all virtual water plugs or set of density calibration plugs  was used for VMAT planning using two different algorithms using either single or double arc. Further phantom was used  irradiate plan in linear accelerator and the point doses measured using a 0.053 cc A1SL ionization chamber along electrometer . Different plans, cylindrical shape, C-shaped and donut targets were planned 6MV, 10MV, 6FFF MV and 10FFF MV beam energy.

RESULT

The minimum average mean dose difference was 1.2% for PTV structures between AAA and AXB (p=0.02). Apart from these structures, the following density plugs have a more than 2% difference in maximum dose with statistical significance. (i) Solid water (MD=6.1%, p=0.016), (ii) Bone 200 (2.3%, p=0.029), (iii) CB_30% (MD=2.4%, p=0.050) and (iv) Cortical bone (MD=4.3%, p=0.018). In 6MV FFF and 10 MV FFF plans, the difference between AAA and AXB was not statistically significant (Fig 3). The Conformity index for the AAA less than that of AXB, in all energies and for all the PTVs. The CI was better in AXB than AAA, but the CI was not having much variation due to changes in beam energies, particularly for Cylinder shaped PTV.

CONCLUSION

All combinations of beam energy AAA showed higher values in the maximum dose than the Acuros XB, except for the lung insert. Nonetheless, AAA showed a higher mean dose than the Acuros XB. Differences between these two algorithms for most of the beam energies are minimal.