Program Information
Impact of Dosimetric Variation for Prescription Dose Using Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) in Lung SBRT
D Kawai1*, R Takahashi2 , T Kamima3 , H Baba4 , T Yamamoto5 , Y Kubo6 , S Ishibashi7 , Y Higuchi8 , K Tani9 , H Tachibana10 , (1) Kanagawa Cancer Center, Yokohama, Kanagawa, (2) Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto, Tokyo, (3) Cancer Institute Hospital Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Koto, Tokyo, (4) The National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kshiwa, Chiba, (5) Otemae Hospital, Chuo-ku, Osaka, (6) Otemae Hospital, Chuo-ku, Osaka, (7) Sasebo City General Hospital, Sasebo, Nagasaki, (8) Sasebo City General Hospital, Sasebo, Nagasaki, (9) St Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Tokyo, (10) National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Chiba
Presentations
SU-F-T-609 (Sunday, July 31, 2016) 3:00 PM - 6:00 PM Room: Exhibit Hall
Purpose:
Actual irradiated prescription dose to patients cannot be verified. Thus, independent dose verification and second treatment planning system are used as the secondary check. AAA dose calculation engine has contributed to lung SBRT. We conducted a multi-institutional study to assess variation of prescription dose for lung SBRT when using AAA in reference to using Acuros XB and Clarkson algorithm.
Methods:
Six institutes in Japan participated in this study. All SBRT treatments were planed using AAA in Eclipse and Adaptive Convolve (AC) in Pinnacle3. All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, Japan), which implemented a Clarkson-based dose calculation algorithm using CT image dataset. A retrospective analysis for lung SBRT plans (73 patients) was performed to compute the confidence limit (CL, Average±2SD) in dose between the AAA and the SMU. In one of the institutes, a additional analysis was conducted to evaluate the variations between the AAA and the Acuros XB (AXB).
Results:
The CL for SMU shows larger systematic and random errors of 8.7±9.9 % for AAA than the errors of 5.7±4.2 % for AC. The variations of AAA correlated with the mean CT values in the voxels of PTV (a correlation coefficient : -0.7) . The comparison of AXB vs. AAA shows smaller systematic and random errors of -0.7±1.7%. The correlation between dose variations for AXB and the mean CT values in PTV was weak (0.4). However, there were several plans with more than 2% deviation of AAPM TG114 (Maximum: -3.3 %).
Conclusion:
In comparison for AC, prescription dose calculated by AAA may be more variable in lung SBRT patient. Even AXB comparison shows unexpected variation. Care should be taken for the use of AAA in lung SBRT.
Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
Contact Email: