Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 23, 2026

X-ray Dose Reduction through Adaptive Exposure in Fluoroscopic Imaging
Published on: September 11, 2011
From AAA to Acuros XB-clinical implications of selecting either Acuros XB dose-to-water or dose-to-medium
Jackson M Zifodya1, Cameron H C Challens2, Wen-Long Hsieh2
1North West Cancer Centre, Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital, Tamworth, NSW, 2340, Australia. jackson.zifodya@hnehealth.nsw.gov.au.
Abstract:
When implementing Acuros XB (AXB) as a substitute for anisotropic analytic algorithm (AAA) in the Eclipse Treatment Planning System, one is faced with a dilemma of reporting either dose to medium, AXB-Dm or dose to water, AXB-Dw. To assist with decision making on selecting either AXB-Dm or AXB-Dw for dose reporting, a retrospective study of treated patients for head & neck (H&N), prostate, breast and lung is presented. Ten patients, previously treated using AAA plans, were selected for each site and re-planned with AXB-Dm and AXB-Dw. Re-planning was done with fixed monitor units (MU) as well as non-fixed MUs. Dose volume histograms (DVH) of targets and organs at risk (OAR), were analyzed in conjunction with ICRU-83 recommended dose reporting metrics. Additionally, comparisons of plan homogeneity indices (HI) and MUs were done to further highlight the differences between the algorithms. Results showed that, on average AAA overestimated dose to the target volume and OARs by less than 2.0 %. Comparisons between AXB-Dw and AXB-Dm, for all sites, also showed overall dose differences to be small (<1.5 %). However, in non-water biological media, dose differences between AXB-Dw and AXB-Dm, as large as 4.6 % were observed. AXB-Dw also tended to have unexpectedly high 3D maximum dose values (>135 % of prescription dose) for target volumes with high density materials. Homogeneity indices showed that AAA planning and optimization templates would need to be adjusted only for the H&N and Lung sites. MU comparison showed insignificant differences between AXB-Dw relative to AAA and between AXB-Dw relative to AXB-Dm. However AXB-Dm MUs relative to AAA, showed an average difference of about 1.3 % signifying an underdosage by AAA. In conclusion, when dose is reported as AXB-Dw, the effect that high density structures in the PTV has on the dose distribution should be carefully considered. As the results show overall small dose differences between the algorithms, when transitioning from AAA to AXB, no significant change to existing prescription protocols is expected. As most of the clinical experience is dose-to-water based and calibration protocols and clinical trials are also dose-to-water based and there still exists uncertainties in converting CT number to medium, selecting AXB-Dw is strongly recommended.
More Related Videos
11:58Initial Evaluation of Antibody-conjugates Modified with Viral-derived Peptides for Increasing Cellular Accumulation and Improving Tumor Targeting
Published on: March 8, 2018
06:20Irradiator Commissioning and Dosimetry for Assessment of LQ α and β Parameters, Radiation Dosing Schema, and in vivo Dose Deposition
Published on: March 11, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Determination of Multiple Dosing Parameters: Loading and Maintenance Doses
Drug Dosing in Renal Diseases: Dose Adjustments Based on Drug Clearance and Elimination Rate Constant
Bioavailability Study Design: Single Versus Multiple Dose Studies
Drug Accumulation During Multiple Dosing: Intermittent IV Infusions
Dose Size and Dosing Frequency: Determination Methods
Radiological Investigation I: X-ray and CT