Dosimetric evaluation of a treatment planning system using the AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) validation tests

Verifying the accuracy of the dose calculation algorithm is considered one of the most critical steps in radiotherapy treatment for delivering an accurate dose to the patient. This work aimed to evaluate the dosimetric performance of the treatment planning system (TPS) algorithms; the AAA (v. 15.6), AXB (v. 15.6) and eMC (v. 15.6) following the AAPM medical physics practice guideline 5.a (MPPG 5.a) validation tests package in a Varian iX Linear Accelerator (Linac). A series of tests were developed based on the MPPG 5.a. on a Varian's Eclipse TPS (v. 15.6) (Varian Medical Systems). First, the basic photon and electron tests were validated by comparing the TPS calculated dose with the measurements. Next, for heterogeneity tests, we verified the Computed Tomography number to electron density (CT-to-ED) curve by comparing it with the baseline values, and TPS calculated point doses beyond heterogeneous media were compared to the measurements. Finally, for IMRT/VMAT dose validation tests, clinical reference plans were re-calculated on ArcCheck's virtual phantom (Sun Nuclear Corporation, Melbourne, FL, USA) and exported to the Linac for delivery using the ArcCheck dosimetry system. All validation tests were evaluated following the MPPG 5.a recommended tolerances. In basic dose validation tests, the TPS calculated depth dose profiles agreed well with the measurements, with a minimum gamma passing rate of 95% at 2%/2 mm criteria. However, disagreements are seen in the build-up and penumbra region. Results for most point doses in homogeneous water phantoms were within the MPPG 5.a tolerance. For the heterogeneity tests, the CT-to-ED curve was established, and calculated point doses were all within 3% of the measurements for heterogeneous media for both photon algorithms at three energies. These results are within the MPPG5.a the recommended tolerance of 3%. Moreover, for electron beams, the differences between the calculated and measured point doses averaged 5% and 7%, but were just within the MPPG 5.a tolerance of 7%. For IMRT and VMAT validation tests using a gamma criteria of a 2%/2 mm, IMRT plans showed maximum and minimum passing rates of 98.2% and 97.4%, respectively. Whereas VMAT plans showed maximum and minimum passing rates of 100% and 94.3%, respectively. We conclude that the dosimetric accuracy of the Eclipse TPS (v15.6) algorithm is adequate for clinical use. The MPPG 5.a tests are valuable for evaluating dose calculation accuracy and are very useful for TPS upgrade checks, commissioning tests, and routine TPS QA.