Radiobiological assessment of dose-to-medium or dose-to-water with Acuros XB algorithm compared with Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm for lung cancer radiotherapy- What should we know to manage the transition?

Abdulhamid Chaikh, Catherine Khamphan, Alexia Delbaere, Jarkko Ojala, Robin Garcia, Jacques Balosso


Purpose: To track the dosimetric changes for similar dose prescriptions, when dose calculation algorithms are upgraded in the treatment planning system (TPS). Clinically significant representations of the treatment outcomes are used to provide interpretable data for radiation oncologists, as the equivalent uniform dose (EUD), the tumor control probability (TCP), the late toxicity as normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) and the uncomplicated tumor control probability (UTCP) scores. Results are presented and discussed in a clinical perspective.

Methods: Ten lung cancer patients were included in this study. For each patient, five treatment plans were generated. The doses were calculated using Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) and both Acuros XB (AXB) dose reporting modes: dose-to-medium AXB D(m,m) and dose-to-water AXB D(w,m). In plans 1, 2 and 3, the doses were calculated respectively with AAA, AXB D(m,m) and AXB D(w,m) using exactly the same prescription dose and beam set-up. The doses in plans 4 and 5 were calculated using both AXB dose reporting modes using, as input, the same number of monitor units (MUs) as yielded by AAA, with the same beam set-up. The EUD, TCP and NTCP were computed using the assumed radiobiological parameters from literature. The Wilcoxon paired test was used to calculate p-values.

Results: Using the same prescription dose, TCP values were higher with AXB than with AAA, and corresponding UTCP scores were 1-2% better with p < 0.05. In addition, absolute NTCP values were slightly increased with AXB. Both AXB dose reporting modes yielded comparable lower TCP and NTCP values (again in the order of 1-2%) than with AAA, when using same MU numbers as with AAA.

Conclusion: Compared to AAA, taken as reference, both AXB dose reporting modes yielded better results. AAA showed very close values to AXB D(w,m), but it is difficult to give recommendation between D(w,m) and D(m,m) yet, due to the lack of recommended radiobiological parameters associated with these dose reporting modes. We suggest doing experimental and modelling studies to determine the real radiobiological effects in both targets and organs at risks. Should the differences be substantial in some conditions and relevant to clinical practice, discussions regarding dose prescription and optimization of the tolerance doses to OAR should be undertaken between medical physicists and radiation oncologists.



Full Text:



Sievinen J, Ulmer W, Kaissl W. AAA photon dose calculation model in Eclipse. Palo Alto (CA): Varian Medical Systems; 2005: 1–18. [RAD #7170B].

Ojala JJ, Kapanen MK, Hyödynmaa SJ et al. Performance of dose calculation algorithms from three generations in lung SBRT: comparison with full Monte Carlo-based dose distributions. Journal of applied clinical medical physics.2014; 15(2):4-18.

Failla GA, Wareing T, Archambault Y, Thompson S. Acuros XB advanced dose calculation for the Eclipse treat¬ment planning system. Clinical Perspectives 2010. Palo Alto, CA: Varian Medical Systems; 2010.

Rana S. Clinical dosimetric impact of Acuros XB and analytical anisotropic algorithm (AAA) on real lung cancer treatment plans: review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2:02019.

Xiao Y, Papiez L, Paulus R et al. Dosimetric Evaluation of Heterogeneity Corrections for RTOG 0236: Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy of Inoperable Stage I/II Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 March 15; 73(4): 1235–1242.

Chaikh A, Balosso J. Should the dose prescription be readjusted when using tissues density corrections algorithms for radiation oncology ? J Case Rep Onc Ther 2014; 1(1):01018.

Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Balosso J. A method to quantify and assess the dosimetric and clinical impact resulting from the heterogeneity correction in radiotherapy for lung cancer. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(1): 020110.

Agren A, Brahme A, Turesson I. Optimization of uncomplicated control for head and neck tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1990;19:1077-85.

Chaikh A, Docquière N, Bondiau PY, Balosso J. Impact of dose calculation models on radiotherapy outcomes and quality adjusted life years for lung cancer treatment: do we need to measure radiotherapy outcomes to tune the radiobiological parameters of a normal tissue complication probability model? Transl Lung Cancer Res 2016;5(6):673-680.3.

Vassiliev ON, Wareing TA, McGhee J, Failla G, Salehpour MR, Mourtada F. Validation of a new grid-based Boltzmann equation solver for dose calculation in radiotherapy with photon beams. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55(3):581–98.

Ulmer W, Harder D. A triple Gaussian pencil beam model for photon beam treatment planning. Z Med Phys. 1995;5(1):25–30.

Ulmer W, Harder D. Applications of a triple Gaussian pencil beam model for photon beam treatment planning. Z Med Phys. 1996;6(2):68–74.

Ulmer W, Kaissl W. The inverse problem of a Gaussian convolution and its application to the finite size of the measurement chambers/detectors in photon and proton dosimetry. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48(6):707–27.

Ulmer W, Pyyry J, Kaissl W. A 3D photon superposition/convolution algorithm and its foundation on results of Monte Carlo calculations. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(8):1767–90.

Tillikainen L, Siljamäki S, Helminen H, Alakuijala J, Pyyry J. Determination of parameters for a multiple-source model of megavoltage photon beams using optimization methods. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(5):1441–67.

Tillikainen L, Helminen H, Torsti T et al. A 3D pencil-beam-based superposition algorithm for photon dose calculation in heterogeneous media. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(14):3821–39.

Niemierko A. Reporting and analyzing dose distributions: A concept of equivalent uniform dose. Med Phys 1997; 24(1):103–110.

Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Physica Medica 2007; 23: 115-125.

Allen Li X, Alber M, Deasy OJ et al. The use and QA of biologically related models for treatment planning: Short. Med. Phys.2012; 39 (3):1386-1409.

Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Deasy JO et al. Radiation dose–volume effects in the lung. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. 2010; 76(3): S70–S76.

Gagliardi G, Constine LS, Moiseenko V et al. Radiation dose–volume effects in the heart. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. 2010; 76(3):S77–S85.

Wasik MW, Yorke E, Deasy J, et al. Radiation dose-volume effects in the esophagus. Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys.2010; (76) 3: S86–S93, 2010.

Okunieff P, Morgan D, Niemierko A, Suit HD. Radiation dose-response of human tumors. Inr. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. 1995 ; (32)4: 1227- 1237.

Hedin E, Bäck A. Influence of different dose calculation algorithms on the estimate of NTCP for lung complications. Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2013; 14(5): 127-139.

Burman C, Kutcher GJ, Emami B, Goitein M. Fitting of normal tissue tolerance data to an analytic function. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:123–35.

Niemierko A. Biological optimization. In: Bortfeld T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, De Neve W, Wazer DE, editors. Image-guided IMRT. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2006. p. 199–216.

Gay HA, Niemierko A. A free program for calculating EUD-based NTCP and TCP in external beam radiotherapy. Physica Medica 2007; 23: 115-125.

Chaikh A, Balosso J. A decision protocol to propose proton versus photon radiotherapy: in silico comparison. Radiotherapy and oncology, 2016: 119(1), EP-2077: S979.

Chaikh A, Giraud JY, Perrin E, Bresciani JP, Balosso J. The choice of statistical methods for comparisons of dosimetric data in radiotherapy. Radiation oncology 2014; 9:205.

Liang X, Penagaricano J, Zheng D. Radiobiological impact of dose calculation algorithms on biologically optimized IMRT lung stereotactic body radiation therapy plans. Radiation Oncology. 2016; 11:10.

Chaikh A, Balosso J. Statistic and dosimetric criteria to assess the shift of the prescribed dose for lung radiotherapy plans when integrating point kernel models in medical physics: are we ready? Transl Lung Cancer Res 2016;5(6):681-687.

Ojala J. The accuracy of the Acuros XB algorithm in external beam radiotherapy – a comprehensive review. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol 2014; 2(4):020417.

Caglar HB, Othus M, Allen MA. Esophagus in-field: A new predictor for esophagitis. Radiotherapy and Oncology.2010; 97:48–53.

Belderbos J, Heemsbergen W, Hoogeman M, Pengel K, Rossi M, Lebesque J. Acute esophageal toxicity in non-small cell lung cancer patients after high dose conformal radiotherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2005; 75: 157–164.

Lyman JT. Complication probability as assessed from dose volume histograms. Radiat Res Suppl 1985;8:S13–S19.

Kutcher GJ, Burman C, Brewster L, et al. Histogram reduction method for calculating complication probabilities for threedimensional treatment planning evaluations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1991;21:137–146.

Peeters ST, Hoogeman MS, Heemsbergen WD, Hart AA, Koper PC, Lebesque JV. Rectal bleeding, fecal incontinence, and high stool frequency after conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer: normal tissue complication probability modeling. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2006;66:11–9.

Langendijk JA, Lambin P, Ruysscher D, Widder J, Bos M, Verheij M. Selection of patients for radiotherapy with protons aiming at reduction of side effects: The model-based approach. Radiotherapy and Oncology,2013; 107: 267–273.

Chaikh A, Khamphan C, Kumar T, Garcia R, Balosso J. What should we know about photon dose calculation algorithms used for radiotherapy? Their impact on dose distribution and medical decisions based on TCP/NTCP. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2016; 4(4):4418.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.


International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (ISSN 2330-4049)

© International Journal of Cancer Therapy and Oncology (IJCTO)

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.


Number of visits since October, 2013