SU-E-T-122: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) Vs. Acuros XB (AXB) in Stereotactic Treatment Planning

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (6Part13) ◽  
pp. 3359-3359
Author(s):  
D Mynampati ◽  
H Kuo ◽  
R Yaparpalvi ◽  
P Godoy Scripes ◽  
W Tome
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Stereotactic Treatment

scholarly journals Quality Assurance of Dose Distribution of Photon Beam Planning by Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA)

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
M Jahangir Alam ◽  
Syed Md Akram Hussain ◽  
Kamila Afroj ◽  
Shyam Kishore Shrivastava
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Maximum Dose ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

A three dimensional treatment planning system has been installed in the Oncology Center, Bangladesh. This system is based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The aim of this study is to verify the validity of photon dose distribution which is calculated by this treatment planning system by comparing it with measured photon beam data in real water phantom. To do this verification, a quality assurance program, consisting of six tests, was performed. In this program, both the calculated output factors and dose at different conditions were compared with the measurement. As a result of that comparison, we found that the calculated output factor was in excellent agreement with the measured factors. Doses at depths beyond the depth of maximum dose calculated on-axis or off-axis in both the fields or penumbra region were found in good agreement with the measured dose under all conditions of energy, SSD and field size, for open and wedged fields. In the build up region, calculated and measured doses only agree (with a difference 2.0%) for field sizes > 5 × 5 cm2 up to 25 × 25 cm2. For smaller fields, the difference was higher than 2.0% because of the difficulty in dosimetry in that region. Dose calculation using treatment planning system based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) is accurate enough for clinical use except when calculating dose at depths above maximum dose for small field size.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjmp.v4i1.14686 Bangladesh Journal of Medical Physics Vol.4 No.1 2011 43-49

A comparison of Monte Carlo, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms in assessing dosimetric perturbations during enhanced dynamic wedged radiotherapy deliveries in heterogeneous media

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashfaq Zaman ◽  
Muhammad Basim Kakakhel ◽  
Amjad Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Heterogeneous Media ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Lung Phantom ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Perturbation

AbstractBackgroundA comparison of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms with Electron Gamma Shower (EGSnrc) Monte Carlo (MC) for modelling lung and bone heterogeneities encountered during enhanced dynamic wedged (EDWs) radiotherapy dose deliveries was carried out.Materials and methodsIn three heterogenous slab phantoms: water–bone, lung–bone and bone–lung, wedged percentage depth doses with EGSnrc, AAA and AXB algorithms for 6 MV photons for various field sizes (5×5, 10×10 and 20×20 cm2) and EDW angles (15°, 30°, 45° and 60°) have been scored.ResultsFor all the scenarios, AAA and AXB results were within ±1% of the MC in the pre-inhomogeneity region. For water–bone AAA and AXB deviated by 6 and 1%, respectively. For lung–bone an underestimation in lung (AAA: 5%, AXB: 2%) and overestimation in bone was observed (AAA: 13%, AXB: 4%). For bone–lung phantom overestimation in bone (AAA: 7%, AXB: 1%), a lung underdosage (AAA: 8%, AXB: 5%) was found. Post bone up to 12% difference in the AAA and MC results was observed as opposed to 6% in case of AXB.ConclusionThis study demonstrated the limitation of the AAA (in certain scenarios) and accuracy of AXB for dose estimation inside and around lung and bone inhomogeneities. The dose perturbation effects were found to be slightly dependent on the field size with no obvious EDW dependence.

Clinical impact of anisotropic analytical algorithm and Acuros XB dose calculation algorithms for intensity modulated radiation therapy in lung cancer patients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Chaymaa Abdullah ◽  
Hamed Farag ◽  
Wael El-Sheshtawy ◽  
Hassan Aboelenein ◽  
O.W. Guirguis
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ◽  
Average Dose ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Dose Prediction ◽  
Intensity Modulated ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dose differences predicted between using Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) in patients diagnosed with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS: A phantom study was done to evaluate the dose prediction accuracy of AXB and AAA beyond low-density medium by comparing the calculated measurement results. Thirty-two advanced NSCLC patients were subjected to IMRT. The dose regimen was 60 Gy over 30 fractions. Effects on planning target volume (PTV) and organ-at-risk (OAR) were evaluated. Clinically acceptable treatment plans with AAA were re-calculated using AXB algorithms with two modes Dw and Dm at the same beam arrangements and multileaf collimator leaf settings as with AAA. RESULTS: Using AXB yielded better agreement with the measurements and the average dose difference for all points was about 0.5%. Conversely, using AAA showed a larger disagreement with measured values and the average difference was up to 5.9%. The maximum relative difference was between AXB_Dm and AAA for PTV dose (D98 %). The percentage dose differences of plans calculated by AAA, AXB_Dw and AAA, AXB_Dm revealed that AAA overestimated the dose than AXB. Regarding OAR, results showed significant difference for lungs-PTV. CONCLUSIONS: AXB algorithm yields more accurate dose prediction than AAA in heterogeneous medium. Differences in dose distribution are observed when plans re-calculated with AXB indicating that AAA apparently overestimates dose, particularly the PTV dose. Thus, AXB algorithm should be used in preference to AAA for cases in which PTVs are involved with tissues of highly different densities, such as lung.

scholarly journals Dosimetric and radiobiological comparison in different dose calculation grid sizes between Acuros XB and anisotropic analytical algorithm for prostate VMAT

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e0207232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyeong-Hyeon Kim ◽  
Jin-Beom Chung ◽  
Tae Suk Suh ◽  
Sang-Won Kang ◽  
Seong-Hee Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Calculation Grid
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document