Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB over Anisotropic analytical algorithm in kilo voltage Cone-beam CT based treatment planning

Clinto, C.O.; Bindhu, B.

doi:10.61186/ijrr.23.2.5

[Home ] [Archive]

International Journal of Radiation Research

Main Menu

Home

IJRR Information

For Authors

For Reviewers

Subscription

News & Events

Web Mail

Search in website

Receive site information

ISSN

Hard Copy 2322-3243

Online 2345-4229

Online Submission

Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.

Volume 23, Issue 2 (5-2025)

Int J Radiat Res 2025, 23(2): 291-296

Back to browse issues page

Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB over Anisotropic analytical algorithm in kilo voltage Cone-beam CT based treatment planning

C.O. Clinto

, B. Bindhu

Department of Physics, Noorul Islam Centre for Higher Education, Kumaracoil, Tamil Nadu, India , clintoco@gmail.com

Abstract: (557 Views)

Background: The Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based planning is an effective approach and can act as an indicator for adaptive radiotherapy. This study assesses the dosimetric impact of Acuros in comparison to the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) in kilo voltage-CBCT dose calculation using protocol-specific calibration and Hounsfield unit (HU) override techniques. Materials and Methods: In this study, three anatomical sites—pelvis, head and neck and thorax—were considered for evaluation. The anthropomorphic phantoms used were the BrainLab pelvis phantom, Accuray’s head phantom, and an indigenously developed thorax phantom, respectively. Results: In the prostate case, the maximum difference between AAA and Acuros was 0.3% for protocol-specific calibration and 0.6% for HU override. In the head and neck case, the differences were 1.1% and 0.9% for the respective techniques. In the study on lung tumors, there was an 8% underestimation in the ipsilateral lung mean dose for the protocol-specific CBCT calibration with Acuros, compared to a 0.6% overestimation with AAA. Compared with the EBT3 film dose profile, the mismatch was evident, with Acuros showing greater accuracy over AAA. Conclusion: The dosimetric accuracy of CBCT-based dose calculation is affected by the choice of dose calculation algorithm for a given image quality and technique. The effect of the dose calculation algorithm depends on site-specific inhomogeneity: it is least for the pelvic region and significant for the head and neck and thorax regions. Acuros appears to be much more effective than AAA in accounting for the image quality differences of CBCT.

Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography, Acuros XB, Anisotropic analytical algorithm.

Full-Text [PDF 842 kb] (140 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Radiation Biology

References

1. Sonke JJ, Aznar M, Rasch C (2019) Adaptive radiotherapy for anatomical changes. Seminars in Radiation Oncology, 29(3): 245-257.

2. Green OL, Henke LE, Hugo GD (2019) Practical clinical workflows for online and offline adaptive radiation therapy. Seminars in Radiation Oncology, 29(3): 219-227.

3. Yoo S and Yin FF (2006) Dosimetric feasibility of cone-beam CT-based treatment planning compared to CT-based treatment planning. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol Phys, 66(5): 1553-1561.

4. Annkah JK, Rosenberg I, Hindocha N, Moinuddin SA, Ricketts K, Adeyemi A, Royle G (2014) Assessment of the dosimetric accuracies of CATPhan 504 and CIRS 062 using kV-CBCT for performing direct calculations. J Med Phys, 39(3): 133-141.

5. de Smet M, Schuring D, Nijsten S, Verhaegen F (2016) Accuracy of dose calculations on kV cone beam CT images of lung cancer patients. Medical Physics, 43(11): 5934.

6. Giacometti V, King RB, Agnew CE, Irvine DM, Jain S, Hounsell AR, McGarry CK (2019) An evaluation of techniques for dose calculation on cone beam computed tomography. BJR, 92(1096): 20180383.

7. Rong Y, Smilowitz J, Tewatia D, Tomé WA, Paliwal B (2010) Dose calculation on kV cone beam CT images: an investigation of the Hu-density conversion stability and dose accuracy using the site-specific calibration. Medical Dosimetry, 35(3): 195-207.

8. Jarema T and Aland T (2019) Using the iterative kV CBCT reconstruction on the Varian Halcyon linear accelerator for radiation therapy planning for pelvis patients. Physica Medica, 68: 112-116.

9. Onozato Y, Kadoya N, Fujita Y, Arai K, Dobashi S, Takeda K, et al. (2014) Evaluation of on-board kV cone beam computed tomography-based dose calculation with deformable image registration using Hounsfield unit modifications. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol Phys, 89(2): 416-423.

10. Rafic KM, Amalan S, Timothy Peace BS, Ravindran BP (2018) Extended localization and adaptive dose calculation using HU corrected cone beam CT: Phantom study. Reports of Practical Oncology and Radiotherapy, 23(2): 126-135.

11. Fotina I, Hopfgartner J, Stock M, Steininger T, Lütgendorf-Caucig C, Georg D (2012) Feasibility of CBCT-based dose calculation: comparative analysis of HU adjustment techniques. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 104(2): 249-256.

12. Cole AJ, Veiga C, Johnson U, D'Souza D, Lalli NK, McClelland JR (2018) Toward adaptive radiotherapy for lung patients: feasibility study on deforming planning CT to CBCT to assess the impact of anatomical changes on dosimetry. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 63(15): 155014.

13. Marchant TE, Joshi KD, Moore CJ (2018) Accuracy of radiotherapy dose calculations based on cone-beam CT: comparison of deformable registration and image correction-based methods. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 63(6): 065003.

14. Wen N, Glide-Hurst C, Nurushev T, Xing L, Kim J, Zhong H, et al. (2012) Evaluation of the deformation and corresponding dosimetric implications in prostate cancer treatment. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 57(17): 5361-5379.

15. Veiga C, Lourenço AM, Mouinuddin S, van Herk M, Modat M, Ourselin S, et al. (2015). Toward adaptive radiotherapy for head and neck patients: Uncertainties in dose warping due to the choice of deformable registration algorithm. Medical Physics, 42(2): 760-769.

16. Veiga C, Janssens G, Teng CL, Baudier T, Hotoiu L, McClelland JR., et al. (2016) First clinical investigation of cone beam computed tomography and deformable registration for adaptive proton therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol Phys, 95(1): 549-559.

17. Moteabbed M, Sharp GC, Wang Y, Trofimov A, Efstathiou JA, Lu HM (2015) Validation of a deformable image registration technique for cone beam CT-based dose verification. Medical Physics, 42(1): 196-205.

18. Disher B, Hajdok G, Wang A, Craig J, Gaede S, Battista JJ (2013) Correction for 'artificial' electron disequilibrium due to cone-beam CT density errors: implications for on-line adaptive stereotactic body radiation therapy of lung. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 58(12): 4157-4174.

19. Schröder L, Stankovic U, Remeijer P, Sonke JJ (2019) Evaluating the impact of cone-beam computed tomography scatter mitigation strategies on radiotherapy dose calculation accuracy. Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology, 10: 35-40.

20. Giacometti V, Hounsell AR, McGarry CK (2020) A review of dose calculation approaches with cone beam CT in photon and proton therapy. Physica Medica, 76: 243-276.

21. Lechuga L and Weidlich GA (2016) Cone beam CT vs. fan beam CT: A comparison of image quality and dose delivered between two differing CT imaging modalities. Cureus, 8(9): e778.

22. Meng H, Meng X, Qiu Q, Zhang Y, Ming X, Li Q, et al. (2021) Feasibility evaluation of kilovoltage cone-beam computed tomography dose calculation following scatter correction: investigations of phantom and representative tumor sites. Translational Cancer Research, 10(8): 3726-3738.

23. Hansen DC, Landry G, Kamp F, Li M, Belka C, Parodi K, Kurz C (2018) ScatterNet: A convolutional neural network for cone-beam CT intensity correction. Medical Physics, 45(11): 4916-4926.

24. Rossi M and Cerveri P (2021) Comparison of Supervised and Unsupervised Approaches for the Generation of Synthetic CT from Cone-Beam CT. Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 11(8): 1435.

25. Thing RS, Nilsson R., Andersson S, Berg M, Lund MD (2022) Evaluation of CBCT based dose calculation in the thorax and pelvis using two generic algorithms. Physica Medica, 103: 157-165.

26. Joseph J, Singh A, Pournami PN., Jayaraj PB, Puzhakkal N (2023) Cone beam computed tomography enhancement using feature‐embedded variational autoencoder with a perceptual loss function. Int J Imaging Syst Technol, 33(5): 1767-1778

27. Gong H, Liu B, Zhang G, Dai X, Qu B, Cai B, Xie C, Xu S (2023) Evaluation of dose calculation based on cone-beam CT using different measuring correction methods for head and neck cancer patients. Technology in Cancer Research Treatment, 22: 15330338221148317.

28. Title: Evaluations of the dose discrepancies calculated on CT and cone-beam CT using pencil beam convolution and analytical anisotropic algorithms. aapm.org/60-14895-10292-364; Abstract ID: 14895

29. Catphan 504 Manual 2013 (Greenwich, NY: The Phantom Laboratory, Inc.)

30. Tuomas Torsti LK, Petaja V. Using Varian Photon Beam Source Model for Dose Calculation of Small Fields. Varian Medical Systems; 2013. (Training material from Varian).

31. Kroon PS, Hol S, Essers M (2013) Dosimetric accuracy and clinical quality of Acuros XB and AAA dose calculation algorithm for stereotactic and conventional lung volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Radiation Oncology, 8: 149.

32. Yan C, Combine AG, Bednarz G, Lalonde RJ, Hu B, Dickens K, et al. (2017). Clinical implementation and evaluation of the Acuros dose calculation algorithm. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 18(5): 195-209.

33. Seniwal B, Bhatt CP, Fonseca TCF (2020) Comparison of dosimetric accuracy of acuros XB and analytical anisotropic algorithm against Monte Carlo technique. Biomedical physics engineering express, 6(1): 015035.

34. Gopalakrishnan Z, Bhasi SPR, Menon SVBS, Thayil AG, Nair RK (2022). Dosimetric comparison of analytical anisotropic algorithm and the two dose reporting modes of Acuros XB dose calculation algorithm in volumetric modulated arc therapy of carcinoma lung and carcinoma prostate. Medical Dosimetry, 47(3): 280-287.

35. Prasath SS and Ramesh Babu P (2023) Dosimetric comparison between Acuros XB (AXB) and anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) in volumetric modulated Arc therapy. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 24(5): 1677-1685.

36. Abdullah C, Farag H, El-Sheshtawy W, Aboelenein H, Guirguis OW (2021) Clinical impact of anisotropic analytical algorithm and Acuros XB dose calculation algorithms for intensity modulated radiation therapy in lung cancer patients. Journal of X-ray Science and Technology, 29(6): 1019-1031.

37. Kang SW, Chung JB, Lee JW, Kim MJ, Kim YL, Kim JS, et al. (2017) Dosimetric accuracy of the Acuros XB and Anisotropic analytical algorithm near interface of the different density media for the small fields of a 6- MV flattening-filter-free beam. Int J Radiat Res, 15(2): 157-165.

38. Ragab H, Abdelaziz DM, Khalil MM, Elbakry MN (2023) Assessment of image quality of two cone-beam computed tomography of the Varian Linear accelerators: Comparison with spiral CT simulator. Int J Radiat Res, 21(3): 491-497.

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

‎ 10.61186/ijrr.23.2.5

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Clinto C, Bindhu B. Dosimetric impact of Acuros XB over Anisotropic analytical algorithm in kilo voltage Cone-beam CT based treatment planning. Int J Radiat Res 2025; 23 (2) :291-296
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-6226-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 23, Issue 2 (5-2025)

Back to browse issues page

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.04 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4714