Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy planning considerations were developed for the previous calculation algorithms yielding dose to water-in-water (D(w,w)). Advanced algorithms improve accuracy, but their dose values in terms of dose to medium-in-medium (D(m,m)) depend on the medium considered. This work aimed to show how mimicking D(w,w) planning with D(m,m) can introduce new issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A head and neck case involving bone and metal heterogeneities outside the CTV was considered. Two different commercial algorithms were used to obtain D(m,m) and D(w,w) distributions. First, a plan was optimised to irradiate the PTV uniformly and get a homogeneous D(w,w) distribution. Second, another plan was optimised to achieve homogeneous D(m,m). Both plans were calculated with D(w,w) and D(m,m), and the differences between their dose distributions, clinical impact, and robustness were evaluated. RESULTS: Uniform irradiation produced D(m,m) cold spots in bone (-4%) and implants (-10%). Uniform D(m,m) compensated them by increasing fluence but, when recalculated in D(w,w), the fluence compensations produced higher doses that affected homogeneity. Additionally, doses were 1% higher for the target, and + 4% for the mandible, thus increasing toxicity risk. Robustness was impaired when increased fluence regions and heterogeneities mismatched. CONCLUSION: Planning with D(m,m) as with D(w,w) can impact clinical outcome and impair robustness. In optimisation, uniform irradiation instead of homogeneous D(m,m) distributions should be pursued when media with different D(m,m) responses are involved. However, this requires adapting evaluation criteria or avoiding medium effects. Regardless of the approach, there can be systematic differences in dose prescription and constraints.