scholarly journals Statistical evaluation of dosimetric differences changes between the Modified Batho's density correction method and the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm for clinical practice

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 4217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulhamid Chaikh ◽  
Jacques Balosso
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Statistical Evaluation ◽  
Correction Method ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Density Correction ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

scholarly journals Quality Assurance of Dose Distribution of Photon Beam Planning by Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA)

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-49
Author(s):  
M Jahangir Alam ◽  
Syed Md Akram Hussain ◽  
Kamila Afroj ◽  
Shyam Kishore Shrivastava
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Dose Distribution ◽  
Maximum Dose ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

A three dimensional treatment planning system has been installed in the Oncology Center, Bangladesh. This system is based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA). The aim of this study is to verify the validity of photon dose distribution which is calculated by this treatment planning system by comparing it with measured photon beam data in real water phantom. To do this verification, a quality assurance program, consisting of six tests, was performed. In this program, both the calculated output factors and dose at different conditions were compared with the measurement. As a result of that comparison, we found that the calculated output factor was in excellent agreement with the measured factors. Doses at depths beyond the depth of maximum dose calculated on-axis or off-axis in both the fields or penumbra region were found in good agreement with the measured dose under all conditions of energy, SSD and field size, for open and wedged fields. In the build up region, calculated and measured doses only agree (with a difference 2.0%) for field sizes > 5 × 5 cm2 up to 25 × 25 cm2. For smaller fields, the difference was higher than 2.0% because of the difficulty in dosimetry in that region. Dose calculation using treatment planning system based on the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) is accurate enough for clinical use except when calculating dose at depths above maximum dose for small field size.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bjmp.v4i1.14686 Bangladesh Journal of Medical Physics Vol.4 No.1 2011 43-49

scholarly journals Dosimetric verification of the anisotropic analytical algorithm in lung equivalent heterogeneities with and without bone equivalent heterogeneities

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 4456-4463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaoru Ono ◽  
Satoru Endo ◽  
Kenichi Tanaka ◽  
Masaharu Hoshi ◽  
Yutaka Hirokawa
Keyword(s):  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Dosimetric Verification

A comparison of Monte Carlo, anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB algorithms in assessing dosimetric perturbations during enhanced dynamic wedged radiotherapy deliveries in heterogeneous media

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashfaq Zaman ◽  
Muhammad Basim Kakakhel ◽  
Amjad Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Heterogeneous Media ◽  
Dose Calculation ◽  
Field Size ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Acuros Xb ◽  
Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Lung Phantom ◽  
Dose Calculation Algorithms ◽  
Dose Perturbation

AbstractBackgroundA comparison of anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) and Acuros XB (AXB) dose calculation algorithms with Electron Gamma Shower (EGSnrc) Monte Carlo (MC) for modelling lung and bone heterogeneities encountered during enhanced dynamic wedged (EDWs) radiotherapy dose deliveries was carried out.Materials and methodsIn three heterogenous slab phantoms: water–bone, lung–bone and bone–lung, wedged percentage depth doses with EGSnrc, AAA and AXB algorithms for 6 MV photons for various field sizes (5×5, 10×10 and 20×20 cm2) and EDW angles (15°, 30°, 45° and 60°) have been scored.ResultsFor all the scenarios, AAA and AXB results were within ±1% of the MC in the pre-inhomogeneity region. For water–bone AAA and AXB deviated by 6 and 1%, respectively. For lung–bone an underestimation in lung (AAA: 5%, AXB: 2%) and overestimation in bone was observed (AAA: 13%, AXB: 4%). For bone–lung phantom overestimation in bone (AAA: 7%, AXB: 1%), a lung underdosage (AAA: 8%, AXB: 5%) was found. Post bone up to 12% difference in the AAA and MC results was observed as opposed to 6% in case of AXB.ConclusionThis study demonstrated the limitation of the AAA (in certain scenarios) and accuracy of AXB for dose estimation inside and around lung and bone inhomogeneities. The dose perturbation effects were found to be slightly dependent on the field size with no obvious EDW dependence.

scholarly journals The dependence of inhomogeneity correction factors on photon beam quality index performed with the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 127-134
Author(s):  
Md Akhtaruzzaman ◽  
Paweł Kukołowicz
Keyword(s):  
Lung Tissue ◽  
Quality Index ◽  
Beam Quality ◽  
Photon Beam ◽  
Planning System ◽  
Treatment Planning System ◽  
Correction Factors ◽  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Inhomogeneity Correction ◽  
Analytical Algorithm

AbstractPurpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate the dependence of tissue inhomogeneity correction factors (ICFs) on the photon beam quality index (QI).Materials and Methods: Heterogeneous phantoms, comprising semi-infinite slabs of the lung (0.10, 0.20, 0.26 and 0.30 g/cm3), adipose tissue (0.92 g/cm3) and bone (1.85 g/cm3) in water, were constructed in the Eclipse treatment planning system. Several calculation models of 6 MV and 15 MV photon beams for quality index (TPR20,10) = 0.670±k*0.01 and TPR20,10 = 0.760±k*0.01, k = -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 respectively were built in the Eclipse. The ICFs were calculated with the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for several beam sizes and points lying at several depths inside of and below inhomogeneities of different thicknesses.Results: The ICFs increased for lung and adipose tissues with increasing beam quality (TPR20,10), while decreased for bone. Calculations with AAA predict that the maximum difference in ICFs of 1.0% and 2.5% for adipose and bone tissues, respectively. For lung tissue, changes of ICFs of a maximum of 9.2% (6 MV) and 13.8% (15 MV). For points where charged particle equilibrium exists, a linear dependence of ICFs on TPR20,10 was observed. If CPE doesn’t exist, the dependence became more complex. For points inside of the low-density inhomogeneity, the dependence of the ICFs on energy was not linear but the changes of ICFs were smaller than 3.0%. Measurements results carried out with the CIRS phantom were consistent with the calculation results.Conclusions: A negligible dependence of the ICFs on energy was found for adipose and bone tissue. For lung tissue, in the CPE region, the dependence of ICFs on different beam quality indexes with the same nominal energy may not be neglected, however, this dependence was linear. Where there is no CPE, the dependence of the ICFs on energy was more complicated.

SU-GG-T-303: Evaluation of the Sensitivity of the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) to the Commissioning Dataset

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (6Part20) ◽  
pp. 3255-3255
Author(s):  
D Yaldo ◽  
R Tailor ◽  
S Scarboro ◽  
N Sahoo ◽  
S Kry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm ◽  
Analytical Algorithm
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document