ArticlePeerJ2026
Retrospective dosimetric evaluation of the collapsed cone, AAA, and Acuros XB algorithms for lung cancer Halcyon VMAT plans.
Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When RayStation is used for Halcyon treatment planning and the plan is transferred to the ARIA/Eclipse system for delivery verification, the dose must be recalculated using the Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) or AcurosXB algorithm for compatibility. This study evaluated the dosimetric differences among the Collapsed Cone (CC), AAA, and AcurosXB algorithms for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans on the Halcyon platform. Treatment plans for 60 lung cancer patients were initially generated using the CC algorithm in RayStation and then recalculated in Eclipse using AAA and AcurosXB without re-optimization or renormalization. Systematic variations were observed among the three algorithms. AcurosXB showed the largest reductions in target doses compared with CC (up to a 1.56% reduction in clinical target volume (CTV) D2%), while AAA demonstrated smaller differences. For planning target volume (PTV) metrics, both AAA and AcurosXB yielded lower doses than CC (AAA up to 2.16% in D95%; AcurosXB up to 1.58% in D2%). All variations in CTV and PTV metrics remained within approximately 1.7%. For organ-at-risk doses, AAA produced slightly lower values than CC, whereas AcurosXB yielded consistently lower doses across most parameters. Overall, this study shows that AAA and AcurosXB provide slightly lower dose estimates than CC for the same Halcyon plan, especially for PTV and organ-at-risk metrics. These results highlight the importance of consistent dose-calculation methodology in NSCLC radiotherapy, particularly in cross-platform workflows between RayStation and Eclipse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.