Cargando…

Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets

This study details a method to evaluate the source size selection for small field intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) deliveries in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm. Our method uses end‐to‐end dosimetric data to evaluate a total of five source...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gardner, Stephen J., Lu, Siming, Liu, Chang, Wen, Ning, Chetty, Indrin J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28470819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12091
_version_ 1783279468998033408
author Gardner, Stephen J.
Lu, Siming
Liu, Chang
Wen, Ning
Chetty, Indrin J.
author_facet Gardner, Stephen J.
Lu, Siming
Liu, Chang
Wen, Ning
Chetty, Indrin J.
author_sort Gardner, Stephen J.
collection PubMed
description This study details a method to evaluate the source size selection for small field intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) deliveries in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm. Our method uses end‐to‐end dosimetric data to evaluate a total of five source size selections (0.50 mm, 0.75 mm, 1.00 mm, 1.25 mm, and 1.50 mm). The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) was varied in this analysis (three DLG values were tested for each scenario). We also tested two MLC leaf designs (standard and high‐definition MLC) and two delivery types for intracranial SRS (volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT] and dynamic conformal arc [DCA]). Thus, a total of 10 VMAT plans and 10 DCA plans were tested for each machine type (TrueBeam [standard MLC] and Edge [high‐definition MLC]). Each plan was mapped to a solid water phantom and dose was calculated with each iteration of source size and DLG value (15 total dose calculations for each plan). To measure the dose, Gafchromic film was placed in the coronal plane of the solid water phantom at isocenter. The phantom was localized via on‐board CBCT and the plans were delivered at planned gantry, collimator, and couch angles. The planned and measured film dose was compared using Gamma (3.0%, 0.3 mm) criteria. The vendor‐recommended 1.00 mm source size was suitable for TrueBeam planning (both VMAT and DCA planning) and Edge DCA planning. However, for Edge VMAT planning, the 0.50 mm source size yielded the highest passing rates. The difference in dose calculation among the source size variations manifested primarily in two regions of the dose calculation: (1) the shoulder of the high‐dose region, and (2) for small targets (volume ≤ 0.30 cc), in the central portion of the high‐dose region. Selection of a larger than optimal source size can result in increased blurring of the shoulder for all target volume sizes tested, and can result in central axis dose discrepancies in excess of 10% for target volumes sizes ≤ 0.30 cc. Our results indicate a need for evaluation of the source size when AcurosXB is used to model intracranial SRS delivery, and our methods represent a feasible process for many clinics to perform tuning of the AcurosXB source size parameter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5689841
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56898412018-04-02 Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets Gardner, Stephen J. Lu, Siming Liu, Chang Wen, Ning Chetty, Indrin J. J Appl Clin Med Phys Radiation Oncology Physics This study details a method to evaluate the source size selection for small field intracranial stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) deliveries in Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) for AcurosXB dose calculation algorithm. Our method uses end‐to‐end dosimetric data to evaluate a total of five source size selections (0.50 mm, 0.75 mm, 1.00 mm, 1.25 mm, and 1.50 mm). The dosimetric leaf gap (DLG) was varied in this analysis (three DLG values were tested for each scenario). We also tested two MLC leaf designs (standard and high‐definition MLC) and two delivery types for intracranial SRS (volumetric modulated arc therapy [VMAT] and dynamic conformal arc [DCA]). Thus, a total of 10 VMAT plans and 10 DCA plans were tested for each machine type (TrueBeam [standard MLC] and Edge [high‐definition MLC]). Each plan was mapped to a solid water phantom and dose was calculated with each iteration of source size and DLG value (15 total dose calculations for each plan). To measure the dose, Gafchromic film was placed in the coronal plane of the solid water phantom at isocenter. The phantom was localized via on‐board CBCT and the plans were delivered at planned gantry, collimator, and couch angles. The planned and measured film dose was compared using Gamma (3.0%, 0.3 mm) criteria. The vendor‐recommended 1.00 mm source size was suitable for TrueBeam planning (both VMAT and DCA planning) and Edge DCA planning. However, for Edge VMAT planning, the 0.50 mm source size yielded the highest passing rates. The difference in dose calculation among the source size variations manifested primarily in two regions of the dose calculation: (1) the shoulder of the high‐dose region, and (2) for small targets (volume ≤ 0.30 cc), in the central portion of the high‐dose region. Selection of a larger than optimal source size can result in increased blurring of the shoulder for all target volume sizes tested, and can result in central axis dose discrepancies in excess of 10% for target volumes sizes ≤ 0.30 cc. Our results indicate a need for evaluation of the source size when AcurosXB is used to model intracranial SRS delivery, and our methods represent a feasible process for many clinics to perform tuning of the AcurosXB source size parameter. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5689841/ /pubmed/28470819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12091 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Radiation Oncology Physics
Gardner, Stephen J.
Lu, Siming
Liu, Chang
Wen, Ning
Chetty, Indrin J.
Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets
title Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets
title_full Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets
title_fullStr Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets
title_full_unstemmed Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets
title_short Tuning of AcurosXB source size setting for small intracranial targets
title_sort tuning of acurosxb source size setting for small intracranial targets
topic Radiation Oncology Physics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5689841/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28470819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12091
work_keys_str_mv AT gardnerstephenj tuningofacurosxbsourcesizesettingforsmallintracranialtargets
AT lusiming tuningofacurosxbsourcesizesettingforsmallintracranialtargets
AT liuchang tuningofacurosxbsourcesizesettingforsmallintracranialtargets
AT wenning tuningofacurosxbsourcesizesettingforsmallintracranialtargets
AT chettyindrinj tuningofacurosxbsourcesizesettingforsmallintracranialtargets