Dose calculation errors for volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of various complexity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2026.45698Keywords:
dose calculation algorithms, beam model, VMAT, dosimetric uncertainties, plan complexityAbstract
Background and purpose: Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans often involve small and irregular beam apertures (i.e. high complexity), which can pose challenges for accurate dose calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate plausible dose calculation errors for VMAT plans of various complexity.
Patient/material and methods: Twenty patient cases, each with three VMAT plans of different complexities (i.e. 60 plans in total), were included. All plans were calculated using six different dose calculation methods. It was assumed that greater differences between calculations reflect increased difficulty in accurately estimating dose. Basic performances of the six calculation methods were evaluated based on static fields. Three-dimensional distributions of voxel-wise two standard deviations (2SDs) in percent of local voxel dose were visually evaluated. 2SD volume histograms were analyzed as well as the mean (2SDMean) and maximum 2SD within 2 cm3 (2SD2cc) for different regions of interest.
Results: Higher 2SD values were generally found outside the planning target volume (PTV) compared to inside, particularly in low dose and buildup regions. Average (per treatment site) 2SDMean/2SD2cc values were 0.9–1.2%/1.8–5.1% in the PTV and 1.8–3.1/8.4–18.7% for the region 1 cm outside the PTV. For organs of interest, 2SDMean/2SD2cc values were larger than the equivalent values in the PTV, with highest values up to 5/15% observed for the prostate cases.
Interpretation: Variations between dose calculation methods were larger in organs of interest than in the PTVs. Differences in 2SD distributions between the patient cases were generally larger than differences between the complexity levels.
Downloads
References
Ma CMC, Chetty IJ, Deng J, Faddegon B, Jiang SB, Li J, et al. Beam modeling and beam model commissioning for Monte Carlo dose calculation-based radiation therapy treatment planning: report of AAPM Task Group 157. Med Phys. 2020;47(1):e1–18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13898
Stathakis S, Esquivel C, Quino LV, Myers P, Calvo O, Mavroidis P, et al. Accuracy of the small field dosimetry using the acuros XB dose calculation algorithm within and beyond heterogeneous media for 6 MV photon beams. Int J Med Phys Clin Eng Radiat Oncol. 2012;01(03):78–87 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ijmpcero.2012.13011
Das IJ, Ding GX, Ahnesjo A. Small fields: nonequilibrium radiation dosimetry. Med Phys. 2008;35(1):206–15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2815356
Wolfs CJA, Swinnen ACC, Nijsten S, Verhaegen F. Should dose from small fields be limited for dose verification procedures? Uncertainty versus small field dose in VMAT treatments. Phys Med Biol. 2018;63(20):20NT01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aae338
Liu HW, Nugent Z, Clayton R, Dunscombe P, Lau H, Khan R. Clinical impact of using the deterministic patient dose calculation algorithm Acuros XB for lung stereotactic body radiation therapy. Acta Oncol. 2014;53(3):324–9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2013.822552
Han T, Mikell JK, Salehpour M, Mourtada F. Dosimetric comparison of Acuros XB deterministic radiation transport method with Monte Carlo and model-based convolution methods in heterogeneous media. Med Phys. 2011;38(5):2651–64 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3582690
Rostami A, Neto AJC, Paloor SP, Khalid AS, Hammoud R. Comparison of four commercial dose calculation algorithms in different evaluation tests. J Xray Sci Technol. 2023;31(5):1013–33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-230079
Reis CQM, Nicolucci P, Fortes SS, Silva LP. Effects of heterogeneities in dose distributions under nonreference conditions: Monte Carlo simulation vs dose calculation algorithms. Med Dosim. 2019;44(1):74–82 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2018.02.009
Inoue K, Matsukawa H, Kasai Y, Edamitsu K, Matsumoto K, Suetsugu Y, et al. Difference in target dose distributions between Acuros XB and collapsed cone convolution/superposition and the impact of the tumor locations in clinical cases of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for lung cancer. J Cancer Res Ther. 2023;19(5):1261–6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_1740_21
Bosse C, Narayanasamy G, Saenz D, Myers P, Kirby N, Rasmussen K, et al. Dose calculation comparisons between three modern treatment planning systems. J Med Phys. 2020;45(3):143–47 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jmp.JMP_111_19
Fogliata A, Lobefalo F, Reggiori G, Stravato A, Tomatis S, Scorsetti M, et al. Evaluation of the dose calculation accuracy for small fields defined by jaw or MLC for AAA and Acuros XB algorithms. Med Phys. 2016;43(10):5685 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4963219
Younes T, Chatrie F, Zinutti M, Simon L, Fares G, Vieillevigne L. Optimization of the Eclipse TPS beam configuration parameters for small field dosimetry using Monte Carlo simulations and experimental measurements. Phys Med. 2023;114:103141 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.103141
Li S, Luo H, Tan X, Qiu T, Yang X, Feng B, et al. The impact of plan complexity on calculation and measurement-based pre-treatment verifications for sliding-window intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2024;31:100622 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2024.100622
Yang Y, Shoniyozov K, Li T, Lockamy V, Bieda M, Teo BK, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of an enhanced MLC leaf model for Linac-based stereotactic radiosurgery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2025;26(7):e70143 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70143
Saez J, Bar-Deroma R, Bogaert E, Cayez R, Chow T, Clark CH, et al. Universal evaluation of MLC models in treatment planning systems based on a common set of dynamic tests. Radiother Oncol. 2023;186:109775 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109775
Terzidis E, Nordstrom F, Gotstedt J, Back A. Impact of delivery variations on 3D dose distributions for volumetric modulated arc therapy plans of various complexity. Med Phys. 2024;51(11):8466–81 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.17310
Gotstedt J, Karlsson A, Back A. Development and evaluation of aperture-based complexity metrics using film and EPID measurements of static MLC openings. Med Phys. 2015;42(7):3911–21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4921733
Gotstedt J, Back A. Edge area metric complexity scoring of volumetric modulated arc therapy plans. Br J Radiol. 2021;17:124–9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2021.02.002
Lee JWL, Choi KS, Hong S, Kim YL, Chung JB, Lee D, et al. Effects of static dosimetric leaf gap on MLC‐based small‐beam dose distribution for intensity‐modulated radiosurgery. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2007;8(4):54–64 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v8i4.2397
Kielar KN, Mok E, Hsu A, Wang L, Luxton G. Verification of dosimetric accuracy on the TrueBeam STx: rounded leaf effect of the high definition MLC. Med Phys. 2012;39(10):6360–71 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4752444
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Emmanouil Terzidis, Fredrik Nordström, Magnus Gustafsson, Anna Karlsson, Julia Götstedt, Anna Bäck
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
