■本研究旨在验证AcurosXB(AXB)(AXB,瓦里安医疗系统PaloAltoCA,美国),基于两个模型的算法,与前列腺的各向异性分析算法(AAA)计算相比,通过体积调制电弧疗法(VMAT)治疗头颈部和肺癌,没有对AA进行初步修改。目前,我们部门在临床上使用了众所周知且经过验证的AA算法,用于不同病理的VMAT治疗。AXB无需额外测量即可替换它。所递送的剂量的治疗结果和准确性取决于剂量计算算法。
■使用Eclipse版本15.0.4治疗计划系统(TPS)生成了针对不同病理的95个复杂VMAT计划。使用AA和AXB计算剂量分布(剂量对水,AXBw和剂量对培养基,AXBm),所有VMAT计划的计划参数相同。计算每个计划目标体积(PTV)和涉及的危险器官(OAR)的剂量学参数。Octavius®-4D幻影已针对不同算法验证了所有VMAT计划的患者特定质量保证。
■AA,AXBw和AXBm,关于前列腺,头颈部低于1%的PTVD95%。然而,由机管局计算的PTVD95%倾向于高估,在肺部治疗的情况下,相对剂量差异为3.23%。相对差值的绝对平均值分别为1.1±1.2%和2.0±1.2%,当比较AXBW和AA时,AXBm和AA,分别。在AA和AXBm的体积3D分析的大多数情况下,对于测量和计算的剂量,观察到伽马通过率超过97.4%和99.4%,分别。
■该研究表明,使用AXBm算法计算的对培养基的剂量优于AAA,可以在临床上使用。将剂量计算算法从AA切换到AXB不需要额外的测量。
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to verify the dosimetric impact of Acuros XB (AXB) (AXB, Varian Medical Systems Palo Alto CA, USA), a two model-based algorithm, in comparison with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA ) calculations for prostate, head and neck and lung cancer treatment by volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT ), without primary modification to AA. At present, the well-known and validated AA algorithm is clinically used in our department for VMAT treatments of different pathologies. AXB could replace it without extra measurements. The treatment result and accuracy of the dose delivered depend on the dose calculation algorithm.
UNASSIGNED: Ninety-five complex VMAT plans for different pathologies were generated using the Eclipse version 15.0.4 treatment planning system (TPS). The dose distributions were calculated using AA and AXB (dose-to-water, AXBw and dose-to-medium, AXBm), with the same plan parameters for all VMAT plans. The dosimetric parameters were calculated for each planning target volume (PTV) and involved organs at risk (OA R). The patient specific quality assurance of all VMAT plans has been verified by Octavius®-4D phantom for different algorithms.
UNASSIGNED: The relative differences among AA, AXBw and AXBm, with respect to prostate, head and neck were less than 1% for PTV D95%. However, PTV D95% calculated by AA tended to be overestimated, with a relative dose difference of 3.23% in the case of lung treatment. The absolute mean values of the relative differences were 1.1 ± 1.2% and 2.0 ± 1.2%, when comparing between AXBw and AA, AXBm and AA, respectively. The gamma pass rate was observed to exceed 97.4% and 99.4% for the measured and calculated doses in most cases of the volumetric 3D analysis for AA and AXBm, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: This study suggests that the dose calculated to medium using AXBm algorithm is better than AAA and it could be used clinically. Switching the dose calculation algorithm from AA to AXB does not require extra measurements.