# Experimental and computational dosimetry in an integrated workflow for remote audits in Ir‐192 interstitial brachytherapy: Development and pilot implementation

## TL;DR

This paper introduces a new remote audit system for Ir-192 brachytherapy using combined experimental and computational dosimetry methods.

## Contribution

A unified workflow integrating experimental and computational dosimetry for remote audits in Ir-192 brachytherapy is developed and tested.

## Key findings

- Excellent agreement was found between model-based dose predictions and experimental or Monte Carlo results.
- TG43 systematically overestimates doses by about 2.16% compared to Monte Carlo simulations due to missing scatter effects.
- The developed protocol enables reliable remote audits with acceptable uncertainties despite being labor-intensive.

## Abstract

This work presents the development and pilot implementation of a comprehensive remote (postal) dosimetry audit for Ir‐192 High Dose Rate interstitial brachytherapy, integrating independent experimental and computational dosimetry procedures into a unified workflow.

A compact, water‐equivalent phantom was designed to accommodate two plastic catheters, ten Optically Stimulated Luminescent Dosimeters (OSLDs), and two radiochromic films, allowing for independent point‐approximating and 2D dose measurements. In the pilot study, a user‐selected treatment plan (36 source dwell positions) was generated using a clinical Treatment Planning System (TPS), after considering the optimal dose range of the dosimeters. By analyzing the DICOM‐RT files, a computational dosimetry audit test was also performed using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, enabling independent 3D dose calculations for the same plan and phantom geometry. All dosimetry results were compared to TPS calculations (TG43 and a Model‐Based Dose Calculation Algorithm, MBDCA) using the 3D Gamma Index (GI) test, dose difference maps, and dose‐volume histogram comparisons, wherever applicable. All procedures were designed for a minimum clinical workload burden.

The pilot study was completed within 10 days of phantom delivery to the clinical site. If necessary, measurements were corrected by applying appropriate correction factors determined by conducting side studies. GI passing criteria were adapted to the uncertainty of each dosimetry system. Excellent agreement between MBDCA dose predictions and experimental or MC results was observed. Within the volume of interest, a systematic overestimation by TG43 relative to MC results (median difference: +2.16%) was attributed to missing scatter conditions and phantom material.

Despite the labor‐intensive workflow for the auditing institution, the developed protocol is suitable for remote Ir‐192 audits with acceptable uncertainties. Combining experimental and computational methods strengthens the reliability of audit outcomes. Overall results of this work highlight the advantages of an integrated dosimetry protocol for comprehensive and rigorous auditing programs.