Evidence Hub

Beyond TG‑43: A PRISMA-based systematic review on model-based dose-calculation algorithms in brachytherapy

Tran D, Duong TT, Wadi-Ramahi S, Bradley D, Chow JCL

Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026

1 citation

Abstract

Background and purpose: The AAPM TG-43 formalism has long served as the clinical standard for brachytherapy dose calculation but assumes a homogeneous water equivalent medium, overlooking limited scattering conditions and tissue heterogeneities. Model-based dose-calculation algorithms (MBDCAs), including Monte Carlo (MC) simulations overcome these limitations by accounting for real tissue composition, scatter, and applicator attenuation. This systematic review evaluates TG-43, MBDCAs/MC methods in terms of dosimetric accuracy, validation strategies, computational feasibility, clinical implementation barriers, and emerging innovations.

Methods: A PRISMA-guided literature search was conducted using the Scopus database, identifying 284 records, of which 42 full-text studies met inclusion criteria. Eligible studies compared at least two of the three dose-calculation approaches (TG-43, MBDCAs and MCs) in pelvic, breast, or head-and-neck brachytherapy. Extracted data encompassed dosimetric discrepancies, validation approaches, computational performance, workflow integration, and enabling technologies.

Results: Across anatomical sites, TG‑43 showed no consistent bias. Its differences from heterogeneity‑aware models depended on tissue composition, scatter conditions, and source geometry. In soft‑tissue regions with minimal heterogeneity, TG‑43 generally overestimated target coverage by about 0.5%-5%. Near low‑density interfaces or in reduced‑scatter configurations, TG‑43 could…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free