Back to all available

Dosimetric evaluation and comparison of collapsed cone, AAA, and AcurosXB algorithms for lung cancer on the Varian Halcyon linear accelerator

biophysics
evidence-based-medicine
oncology
radiology-and-medical-imaging
respiratory-medicine

Abstract

Background: When using RayStation for Halcyon planning and transferring to Aria Eclipse for delivery, compatibility with the record and verification system requires dose recalculation using either the AAA or AcurosXB algorithm. This study evaluates radiotherapy planning for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by comparing dosimetric calculations from RayStation’s Collapsed Cone (CC) algorithm with those from the Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) and AcurosXB on the Eclipse system.

Methods: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans for 60 NSCLC patients were initially computed using the CC algorithm and then recalculated using AAA and AcurosXB without re-optimization or dose rescaling. Dosimetric comparisons focused on clinical target volume (CTV), planning target volume (PTV), and organ-at-risk (OAR) metrics.

Results: Systematic variations were observed between algorithms. AcurosXB showed greater deviations from CC (up to 1.56% reduction in CTV D2%) compared to AAA’s subtler differences. For PTV metrics, both AAA and AcurosXB showed dose reductions (AAA up to 2.16% in D95%, AcurosXB up to 1.58% in D2%), with all CTV/PTV differences remaining within 1.7%. Specifically, AAA resulted in a 2.15% decrease in PTV D95%, while AcurosXB showed a 1.26% reduction compared to CC. In OAR evaluations, AAA delivered slightly lower doses than CC, while AcurosXB consistently delivered lower doses than both across various metrics.

Conclusion: For the same treatment plan, AAA and AcurosXB yield slightly lower doses than CC, particularly for PTV indices and organs at risk. These inter-algorithm variations highlight the importance of consistent dose calculation methodology when implementing cross-platform workflows on Halcyon accelerators for NSCLC radiotherapy.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].