Cargando…

Clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast: Plan quality and subvolume analysis

PURPOSE: Two dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse‐based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequent...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guebert, Alexandra, Conroy, Leigh, Weppler, Sarah, Alghamdi, Majed, Conway, Jessica, Harper, Lindsay, Phan, Tien, Olivotto, Ivo A., Smith, Wendy L., Quirk, Sarah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5978944/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29696752
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12329
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Two dose calculation algorithms are available in Varian Eclipse software: Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and Acuros External Beam (AXB). Many Varian Eclipse‐based centers have access to AXB; however, a thorough understanding of how it will affect plan characteristics and, subsequently, clinical practice is necessary prior to implementation. We characterized the difference in breast plan quality between AXB and AAA for dissemination to clinicians during implementation. METHODS: Locoregional irradiation plans were created with AAA for 30 breast cancer patients with a prescription dose of 50 Gy to the breast and 45 Gy to the regional node, in 25 fractions. The internal mammary chain (IMC(CTV)) nodes were covered by 80% of the breast dose. AXB, both dose‐to‐water and dose‐to‐medium reporting, was used to recalculate plans while maintaining constant monitor units. Target coverage and organ‐at‐risk doses were compared between the two algorithms using dose–volume parameters. An analysis to assess location‐specific changes was performed by dividing the breast into nine subvolumes in the superior–inferior and left–right directions. RESULTS: There were minimal differences found between the AXB and AAA calculated plans. The median difference between AXB and AAA for breast(CTV) V (95%), was <2.5%. For IMC(CTV), the median differences V (95%), and V (80%) were <5% and 0%, respectively; indicating IMC(CTV) coverage only decreased when marginally covered. Mean superficial dose increased by a median of 3.2 Gy. In the subvolume analysis, the medial subvolumes were “hotter” when recalculated with AXB and the lateral subvolumes “cooler” with AXB; however, all differences were within 2 Gy. CONCLUSION: We observed minimal difference in magnitude and spatial distribution of dose when comparing the two algorithms. The largest observable differences occurred in superficial dose regions. Therefore, clinical implementation of AXB from AAA for breast radiotherapy is not expected to result in changes in clinical practice for prescribing or planning breast radiotherapy.