Evaluation of Dose Calculation Algorithms Accuracy for ISOgray Treatment Planning System in Motorized Wedged Treatment Fields

Abstract

Abstract Background: Different dose calculation methods vary in accuracy and speed. While most methods sacrifice precision for efficiency Monte Carlo (MC) simulation offers high accuracy but slower calculation. ISOgray treatment planning system (TPS) uses Clarkson, collapsed cone convolution (CCC), and fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithms for dose distribution. This study’s primary goal is to evaluate the dose calculation accuracy for ISOgray TPS algorithms in the presence of a wedge. Methods: This study evaluates the dose calculation algorithms using the ISOgray TPS in the context of radiation therapy. The authors compare ISOgray TPS algorithms on an Elekta Compact LINAC through MC simulations. The study compares MC simulations for open and wedge fields with ISOgray algorithms by using gamma index analysis for validation. Results: The percentage depth dose results for all open and wedge fields showed a more than 98% pass rate for points. However, there were differences in the dose profile gamma index results. Open fields passed the gamma index analysis in the in-plane direction, but not all points passed in the cross-plane direction. Wedge fields passed in the cross-plane direction, but not all in the in-plane direction, except for the Clarkson algorithms. Conclusion: In all investigated algorithms, error increases in the penumbra areas, outside the field, and at cross-plane of open fields and in-plane direction of wedged fields. By increasing the wedge angle, the discrepancy between the TPS algorithms and MC simulations becomes more pronounced. This discrepancy is attributed to the increased presence of scattered photons and the variation in the delivered dose within the wedge field, consequently impacts the beam quality. While the CCC and FFT algorithms had better accuracy, the Clarkson algorithm, particularly at larger effective wedge angles, exhibited greater effectiveness than the two mentioned algorithms.