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

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 [Formula: see text] (or [Formula: see text]), [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] , 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: [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for a [Formula: see text] field, 6 MV; [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for a [Formula: see text] field, 6 MV; [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for a [Formula: see text] , 15 MV; [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] for a [Formula: see text] , 15 MV. However, underestimations of doses in the phantom skin profile were found with small fields of [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] 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