SU-E-T-131: Dosimetric Impact and Evaluation of Different Heterogenity Algorithm in Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy Plan for Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Lung Treatment with the Flattening Filter Free Beam

Authors


Abstract

Purpose:

The present study aimed to investigate the dosimetric impacts of the anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) and the Acuros XB (AXB) plan for lung stereotactic ablative radiation therapy using flattening filter-free (FFF) beam. We retrospectively analyzed 10 patients.

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed 10 patients. The dosimetric parameters for the target and organs at risk (OARs) from the treatment plans calculated with these dose calculation algorithms were compared. The technical parameters, such as the computation times and the total monitor units (MUs), were also evaluated.

Results:

A comparison of DVHs from AXB and AAA showed that the AXB plan produced a high maximum PTV dose by average 4.40% with a statistical significance but slightly lower mean PTV dose by average 5.20% compared to the AAA plans. The maximum dose to the lung was slightly higher in the AXB compared to the AAA. For both algorithms, the values of V5, V10 and V20 for ipsilateral lung were higher in the AXB plan more than those of AAA. However, these parameters for contralateral lung were comparable. The differences of maximum dose for the spinal cord and heart were also small. The computation time of AXB was found fast with the relative difference of 13.7% than those of AAA. The average of monitor units (MUs) for all patients was higher in AXB plans than in the AAA plans. These results indicated that the difference between AXB and AAA are large in heterogeneous region with low density.

Conclusion:

The AXB provided the advantages such as the accuracy of calculations and the reduction of the computation time in lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with using FFF beam, especially for VMAT planning. In dose calculation with the media of different density, therefore, the careful attention should be taken regarding the impacts of different heterogeneity correction algorithms. The authors report no conflicts of interest

Ancillary