Dosimetry of oblique tangential photon beams calculated by superposition/convolution algorithms: a Monte Carlo evaluation

Abstract

Although there are many works on evaluating dose calculations of the anisotropic analytical algorithm (AAA) using various homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms, related work concerning dosimetry due to tangential photon beam is lacking. In this study, dosimetry predicted by the AAA and collapsed cone convolution (CCC) algorithm was evaluated using the tangential photon beam and phantom geometry. The photon beams of 6 and 15 MV with field sizes of 4×4 (or 7×7), 10×10 and 20×20 cm2, produced by a Varian 21 EX linear accelerator, were used to test performances of the AAA and CCC using Monte Carlo (MC) simulation (EGSnrc‐based code) as a benchmark. Horizontal dose profiles at different depths, phantom skin profiles (i.e., vertical dose profiles at a distance of 2 mm from the phantom lateral surface), gamma dose distributions, and dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) of skin slab were determined. For dose profiles at different depths, the CCC agreed better with doses in the air‐phantom region, while both the AAA and CCC agreed well with doses in the penumbra region, when compared to the MC. Gamma evaluations between the AAA/CCC and MC showed that deviations of 2D dose distribution occurred in both beam edges in the phantom and air‐phantom interface. Moreover, the gamma dose deviation is less significant in the air‐phantom interface than the penumbra. DVHs of skin slab showed that both the AAA and CCC underestimated the width of the dose drop‐off region for both the 6 and 15MV photon beams. When the gantry angle was 0°, it was found that both the AAA and CCC overestimated doses in the phantom skin profiles compared to the MC, with various photon beam energies and field sizes. The mean dose differences with doses normalized to the prescription point for the AAA and CCC were respectively:7.6%±2.6% and 2.1%±1.3% for a 10×10 cm2 field, 6 MV; 16.3%±2.1% and 6.7%±2.1% for a 20×20 cm2 field, 6 MV; 5.5%±1.2% and 1.7%±1.4% for a 10×10 cm2, 15 MV; 18.0%±1.3% and 8.3%±1.8% for a 20×20 cm2, 15 MV. However, underestimations of doses in the phantom skin profile were found with small fields of 4×4 and 7×7 cm2 for the 6 and 15 MV photon beams, respectively, when the gantry was turned 5° anticlockwise. As surface dose with tangential photon beam geometry is important in some radiation treatment sites such as breast, chest wall and sarcoma, it is found that neither of the treatment planning system algorithms can predict the dose well at depths shallower than 2 mm. The dosimetry data and beam and phantom geometry in this study provide a better knowledge of a dose calculation algorithm in tangential‐like irradiation.PACS numbers: 87.55.‐x, 87.53.Bn, 87.55.K‐, 87.55.kh, 87.56.jf

Evaluation of superficial dosimetry between treatment planning system and measurement for several breast cancer treatment techniques

“…Although AAA can calculate dose distribution more accurately than older algorithms such as pencil beam convolution, 31 the accuracy of AAA in the present study was not sufficient for calculating superficial dosimetry in breast treatment. Chow et al 32 compared the calculation accuracy of a superposition/convolution algorithm for oblique beams with Monte Carlo calculation, and reported that both the AAA and collapsed cone algorithms cannot accurately calculate dose distribution at depths less than 2 mm. On the other hand, Chakarova et al 12 reported that the AAA calculation showed good agreement with Monte Carlo calculation, within 3%/4 mm tolerance.…”

Dosimetry of small bone joint calculated by the analytical anisotropic algorithm: a Monte Carlo evaluation using the EGSnrc

“…Photon beams of 6 and 15 MV () produced by the Varian 21 EX linear accelerator were used in the irradiation. The dose grid was set to the minimum of 1 mm, according to the treatment planning system (22) . Depth doses along the cartilage (vertical broken line in Figs.…”

Investigation of Surface Dose Using Film Dosimetry and Commercial Treatment Planning System for Larynx Cancer Treatment with Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy and Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy

“…Polednik et al [18] investigated various TPS and found that the collapsed-cone algorithm underestimates the surface dose by 20%. Chow et al [19] studied the accuracy of superposition/convolution algorithm for oblique photon beams using Monte Carlo calculation and reported that AAA and collapsed-cone algorithms cannot accurately calculate the dose below 2 mm. In our study, dose measurements for IMRT and VMAT were made at the surface of the phantom and TPS underestimated the dose by up to 22.2%.…”