Dosimetric validation of the anisotropic analytical algorithm for photon dose calculation: fundamental characterization in water

• Published in: Physics in medicine & biology 2006-03, Vol.51 (6), p.1421-1438
• Main Authors: Fogliata, Antonella, Nicolini, Giorgia, Vanetti, Eugenio, Clivio, Alessandro, Cozzi, Luca
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Algorithms; Anisotropy; Humans; Models, Statistical; Monte Carlo Method; Normal Distribution; Phantoms, Imaging; Photons; Radiometry - methods; Radiotherapy Dosage; Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted; Radiotherapy, High-Energy; Reproducibility of Results; Water
• ISSN: 0031-9155; 1361-6560
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/6/004

In July 2005 a new algorithm was released by Varian Medical Systems for the Eclipse planning system and installed in our institute. It is the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) for photon dose calculations, a convolution/superposition model for the first time implemented in a Varian planning system. It was therefore necessary to perform validation studies at different levels with a wide investigation approach. To validate the basic performances of the AAA, a detailed analysis of data computed by the AAA configuration algorithm was carried out and data were compared against measurements. To better appraise the performance of AAA and the capability of its configuration to tailor machine-specific characteristics, data obtained from the pencil beam convolution (PBC) algorithm implemented in Eclipse were also added in the comparison. Since the purpose of the paper is to address the basic performances of the AAA and of its configuration procedures, only data relative to measurements in water will be reported. Validation was carried out for three beams: 6 MV and 15 MV from a Clinac 2100C/D and 6 MV from a Clinac 6EX. Generally AAA calculations reproduced very well measured data, and small deviations were observed, on average, for all the quantities investigated for open and wedged fields. In particular, percentage depth-dose curves showed on average differences between calculation and measurement smaller than 1% or 1 mm, and computed profiles in the flattened region matched measurements with deviations smaller than 1% for all beams, field sizes, depths and wedges. Percentage differences in output factors were observed as small as 1% on average (with a range smaller than +/-2%) for all conditions. Additional tests were carried out for enhanced dynamic wedges with results comparable to previous results. The basic dosimetric validation of the AAA was therefore considered satisfactory.