The study aimed to compare the dosimetric performance of Acuros® XB (AXB) and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for lung SBRT plans using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

We compared the dose calculation algorithms AAA and either of the dose reporting modes of AXB (dose to medium (AXB-Dm) or dose to water (AXB-Dw)) algorithms implemented in Eclipse® (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA) Treatment planning system (TPS) with MC. PRIMO code was used for the MC simulations. The TPS-calculated dose profiles obtained with a multi-slab heterogeneity phantom were compared to MC. A lung phantom with a tumour was used to validate TPS algorithms using different beam delivery techniques. 2D gamma values obtained from Gafchromic film measurements in the tumour isocentre plane were compared with TPS algorithms and MC. Ten VMAT SBRT plans generated in TPS with each algorithm were recalculated with a PRIMO MC system for identical beam parameters for the clinical plan validation. A dose–volume histogram (DVH) based plan comparison and a 3D global gamma analysis were performed.

AXB demonstrated better agreement with MC and film measurements in the lung phantom validation, with good agreement in PDD, profiles and gamma analysis. AAA showed an overestimated PDD, a significant difference in dose profiles and a lower gamma pass rate near the field borders. With AAA, there was a dose overestimation at the periphery of the tumour. For clinical plan validation, AXB demonstrated higher agreement with MC than AAA.

AXB provided better agreement with MC than AAA in the phantom and clinical plan evaluations.

To investigate the central electrode artefact effect of different ion chambers in the verification phantom using the dose calculation algorithms Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB.

The dosimetric study was conducted using an in-house fabricated polymethyl methacrylate head phantom. The treatment planning system (TPS)-calculated doses in the phantom with detectors were compared against the dummy detector fillets using AAA and Acuros XB algorithm. The planned and measured doses were compared for the study.

The mean percentage variation in volumetric-modulated arc therapy plans using Acuros XB and the measurement in the head phantom are statistically significant (p-value = 0.001) for FC65 and CC13 chambers. In small volume chambers (A14SL and CC01), the measured and TPS-calculated dose shows a good agreement.

The study confirmed the CT set of the phantom with detectors (FC65 and CC13) give more artefacts/heterogeneity caused a significant variation in dose calculation using Acuros XB. Therefore, the study suggests a method of using phantom CT set with the dummy detector for mean dose calculation for the Acuros XB algorithm.

An increasing number of external beam treatment modalities including intensity modulated radiation therapy, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) and stereotactic radiosurgery uses very small fields for treatment planning and delivery. However, there are major challenges in small photon field dosimetry, due to the partial occlusion of the direct photon beam source’s view from the measurement point, lack of lateral charged particle equilibrium, steep dose-rate gradient and volume averaging effect of the detector response and variation of the energy fluence in the lateral direction of the beam. Therefore, experimental measurements of dosimetric parameters such as percent depth doses (PDDs), beam profiles and relative output factors (ROFs) for small fields continue to be a challenge.

In this study, we used a homogeneous water phantom and the heterogeneous anthropomorphic stereotactic end-to-end verification (STEEV) head phantom for all dose measurements and calculations. PDDs, lateral dose profiles and ROFs were calculated in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System version 13·6 using the Acuros XB (AXB) and the analytical anisotropic algorithms (AAAs) in a homogenous water phantom. Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and measurements using the Exradin W1 Scintillator were also accomplished for four photon energies: 6 MV, 6FFF, 10 MV and 10FFF. Two VMAT treatment plans were generated for two different targets: one located in the brain and the other in the neck (close to the trachea) in the head phantom (CIRS, Norfolk, VA, USA). A Varian Truebeam linear accelerator (Varian, Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for all treatment deliveries. Calculated results with AXB and AAA were compared with MC simulations and measurements.

The average difference of PDDs between W1 Exradin Scintillator measurements and MC simulations, AAA and AXB algorithm calculations were 1·2, 2·4 and 3·2%, respectively, for all field sizes and energies. AXB and AAA showed differences in ROF of about 0·3 and 2·9%, respectively, compared with W1 Exradin Scintillator measured values. For the target located in the brain in the head phantom, the average dose difference between W1 Exradin Scintillator and the MC simulations, AAA and AXB were 0·2, 3·2 and 2·7%, respectively, for all field sizes. Similarly, for the target located in the neck, the respective dose differences were 3·8, 5·7 and 3·5%.

In this study, we compared dosimetric parameters such as PDD, beam profile and ROFs in water phantom and isocenter point dose measurements in an anthropomorphic head phantom representing a patient. We observed that measurements using the W1 Exradin scintillator agreed well with MC simulations and can be used efficiently for dosimetric parameters such as PDDs and dose profiles and patient-specific quality assurance measurements for small fields. In both homogenous and heterogeneous media, the AXB algorithm dose prediction agrees well with MC and measurements and was found to be superior to the AAA algorithm.

A 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.

In 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.

For 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.

This 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.