{"id":{"repo_id":"buffalo","oai_identifier":"oai:ubir.buffalo.edu:10477/86755"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/buffalo/oai:ubir.buffalo.edu:10477/86755","repository":{"repo_id":"buffalo","name":"Buffalo","base_url":"https://ubir.buffalo.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A Comparison of Acuros® XB Algorithm to AAA in Treatment Plans with Various Prostheses Present","abstract":"M.S.","abstract_html":"M.S.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Genco, Hope"],"institution":"State University of New York at Buffalo","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["de Boer, Steven","Radiology"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2025,"date_issued":"2025-02-21T21:44:46Z","date_published":"2025-02-21T21:44:46Z","updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:05:37Z","subjects":["therapy","oncology","medical imaging"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Users of works found in University at Buffalo Institutional Repository (UBIR) are responsible for identifying and contacting the copyright owner for permission to reuse. University at Buffalo Libraries do not manage rights for copyright-protected works and cannot assist with permissions.","Copyright retained by author."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10477/86755","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["de Boer, Steven","Radiology"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Genco, Hope"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2025-02-21T21:44:46Z","2020"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["State University of New York at Buffalo"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Text","Thesis"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["therapy","oncology","medical imaging"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Users of works found in University at Buffalo Institutional Repository (UBIR) are responsible for identifying and contacting the copyright owner for permission to reuse. University at Buffalo Libraries do not manage rights for copyright-protected works and cannot assist with permissions.","Copyright retained by author."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10477/86755"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["M.S.","Two commonly used algorithms in radiotherapy dose calculations are Acuros® XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm. These algorithms both attempt to calculate the dose in various mediums in the body accurately but do so in different ways. AXB is considered the superior algorithm because of its ability to model and calculate the dose better especially in areas of great inhomogenities, such as with metal present. The goal of this study was to create phantoms to mimic various situations where metal is commonly present in the body and determine to optimal assigned densities of the high-density materials for each case to more accurately model the protheses. The optimal densities were used in the treatment plan to compare the two algorithms' accuracy. Prosthetic devices (two hip, one knee, and dental implant set) were utilized to develop patient-like phantoms and CT image sets of each phantom was acquired. The phantoms were contoured in the treatment planning system and the prostheses were divided into components and assigned specific materials and densities. The treatment plans were calculated using both AAA and AXB algorithms and an iterative process to determine the optimal densities was performed. For the first hip prosthesis phantom two plans were generated, one with a single direct field and the other was a VMAT treatment plan that mimicked a clinical patient plan. The measured data was acquired using Sun Nuclear Corporation's ArcCHECK® and analyzed with the company's software, SNC Patient. The second hip prosthesis phantom utilized Sun Nuclear Corporation's MapCHECK® 2 and SNC Patient Software and two pieces of Gafchromic film to acquire the measured data. The knee and dental phantoms dose were measured with Gafchromic film and all film results were analyzed using Varian Medical Systems' DoseLab Pro software. The optimal assigned materials and densities were determined for each prosthesis set-up. The two metal-on-polyethylene hip prostheses phantoms yielded the same optimal assigned materials and densities, despite the varying sizes of the prostheses. The femoral head (\"ball\") optimal assigned material and density was Stainless Steel (7.24 g/cm3), the acetabular component (\"socket\") was assigned Aluminum (2.6113 g/cm3), and the femoral stem was divided and contoured into a \"neck\" and \"body\" region. The optimal material was Titanium Alloy, but the assigned densities differed. The \"neck\" region's optimal density was 4.31g/cm3 and the \"body\" was 4.4001g/cm3. The knee prosthesis was contoured into two regions: the metal and the plastic liner. The optimal material for the metal was Titanium Alloy (4.6144g/cm3) and the plastic liner was assigned PMMA (1.19g/cm3). The dental fillings were assigned Stainless Steel and a density of 8.0 g/cm3.The two algorithms yielded comparable pass rate results but typically AXB algorithm more accurately modeled the shape of the prostheses. The algorithm pass rates depended on how accurately the high-density materials were modeled in the treatment planning system. The accuracy of a treatment plan can be improved by contouring a prosthesis into regions to reflect the actual materials present and by assigning the appropriate densities to each region.","**To request an accessible version of the file(s) associated with this item, contact library@buffalo.edu. Please include the item's persistent URL [http://hdl.handle.net/. . .] in your request.**"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A Comparison of Acuros® XB Algorithm to AAA in Treatment Plans with Various Prostheses Present"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["de Boer, Steven","Radiology"],"dc:creator":["Genco, Hope"],"dc:date":["2025-02-21T21:44:46Z","2020"],"dc:description":["M.S.","Two commonly used algorithms in radiotherapy dose calculations are Acuros® XB and Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm. These algorithms both attempt to calculate the dose in various mediums in the body accurately but do so in different ways. AXB is considered the superior algorithm because of its ability to model and calculate the dose better especially in areas of great inhomogenities, such as with metal present. The goal of this study was to create phantoms to mimic various situations where metal is commonly present in the body and determine to optimal assigned densities of the high-density materials for each case to more accurately model the protheses. The optimal densities were used in the treatment plan to compare the two algorithms' accuracy. Prosthetic devices (two hip, one knee, and dental implant set) were utilized to develop patient-like phantoms and CT image sets of each phantom was acquired. The phantoms were contoured in the treatment planning system and the prostheses were divided into components and assigned specific materials and densities. The treatment plans were calculated using both AAA and AXB algorithms and an iterative process to determine the optimal densities was performed. For the first hip prosthesis phantom two plans were generated, one with a single direct field and the other was a VMAT treatment plan that mimicked a clinical patient plan. The measured data was acquired using Sun Nuclear Corporation's ArcCHECK® and analyzed with the company's software, SNC Patient. The second hip prosthesis phantom utilized Sun Nuclear Corporation's MapCHECK® 2 and SNC Patient Software and two pieces of Gafchromic film to acquire the measured data. The knee and dental phantoms dose were measured with Gafchromic film and all film results were analyzed using Varian Medical Systems' DoseLab Pro software. The optimal assigned materials and densities were determined for each prosthesis set-up. The two metal-on-polyethylene hip prostheses phantoms yielded the same optimal assigned materials and densities, despite the varying sizes of the prostheses. The femoral head (\"ball\") optimal assigned material and density was Stainless Steel (7.24 g/cm3), the acetabular component (\"socket\") was assigned Aluminum (2.6113 g/cm3), and the femoral stem was divided and contoured into a \"neck\" and \"body\" region. The optimal material was Titanium Alloy, but the assigned densities differed. The \"neck\" region's optimal density was 4.31g/cm3 and the \"body\" was 4.4001g/cm3. The knee prosthesis was contoured into two regions: the metal and the plastic liner. The optimal material for the metal was Titanium Alloy (4.6144g/cm3) and the plastic liner was assigned PMMA (1.19g/cm3). The dental fillings were assigned Stainless Steel and a density of 8.0 g/cm3.The two algorithms yielded comparable pass rate results but typically AXB algorithm more accurately modeled the shape of the prostheses. The algorithm pass rates depended on how accurately the high-density materials were modeled in the treatment planning system. The accuracy of a treatment plan can be improved by contouring a prosthesis into regions to reflect the actual materials present and by assigning the appropriate densities to each region.","**To request an accessible version of the file(s) associated with this item, contact library@buffalo.edu. Please include the item's persistent URL [http://hdl.handle.net/. . .] in your request.**"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/10477/86755"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:publisher":["State University of New York at Buffalo"],"dc:rights":["Users of works found in University at Buffalo Institutional Repository (UBIR) are responsible for identifying and contacting the copyright owner for permission to reuse. University at Buffalo Libraries do not manage rights for copyright-protected works and cannot assist with permissions.","Copyright retained by author."],"dc:subject":["therapy","oncology","medical imaging"],"dc:title":["A Comparison of Acuros® XB Algorithm to AAA in Treatment Plans with Various Prostheses Present"],"dc:type":["Text","Thesis"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:05:37Z"}