## 3 Results
### Anthropomorphic Phantom Tests  
The agreement between film measurements and TPS computed doses, DC reconstructed doses with PB, and DC reconstructed doses with CC algorithms, respectively, is reported in Figure 5. Overall, the film measurements and TPS data show a good agreement: the best results were found for brain plans (96.5%) and for prostate plans (94.3%), while for lung and head and neck plans, the agreement was, respectively, 90.0% and 91.3% (at 3%/3 mm 2D local gamma comparison, threshold 10%). The agreement between film and EPID is shown in Figures 5 and 6. In all anatomical sites except the lung, the GAI of film vs. DC doses was high and very similar for both the PB and the CCC algorithms. The best agreement was found in the head and the neck (98.6% for the PB algorithm and 96.6% for the CCC). In the brain, the agreement was 94.6% for the CC algorithm and 94.1% for the PB, in prostate plans it was 92.7% for the CC and 93.2% for the PB, and a large drop was observed for lung plans where the agreement was 93.9% for the CC and only 54.1% for the PB.  
Figure 4: Percentage depth dose (PDD) on the slab phantom with air inhomogeneity on the central axis computed by the treatment planning system Monaco 5.11 with MonteCarlo algorithm and reconstructed with the pencil beam (PB) algorithm and the Collapsed Cone Convolution algorithm of the EPID algorithm Dosimetry Check 5.8.  
Figure 3: In this figure, the primary fluence reconstructed by the deconvolution kernel of DC in the slab phantom with homogeneous insert is shown with bone-like insert and with air insert.  
Figure 5: Gamma agreement index at 3%/3 mm local normalization with 10% dose threshold between film dosimetry at the central axial slice, the two Dosimetry Check algorithms, pencils beam (PB) and Collapsed Cone Convolution (CCC), and the planned dose distributions computed by the treatment planning system (TPS).  
Figure 6: Isodose lines comparison (DC in bold and EBT3 in thin) and map of the gamma values (local, 3%/3 mm, threshold 10%) for the different considered treatment sites and calculation algorithms. (**a**) Brain plan and PB calculation algorithm; (**b**) Brain plan and CC calculation algorithm; (**c**) H&N plan and PB calculation algorithm; (**d**) H&N plan and CC calculation algorithm; (**e**) Lung plan and PB calculation algorithm; (**f**) Lung plan and CC calculation algorithm; (**g**) Prostate plan and PB calculation algorithm; (**h**) Prostate plan and CC calculation algorithm.  
The agreement between DC and TPS is reported in Figures 7 and 8. The GAI was good for the DC doses reconstructed with the CC algorithm, while the PB algorithm results were less satisfactory. In the lung, as expected, the PB algorithm performed worse and the results of the comparisons with the TPS dose were not acceptable. Conversely, the CC obtained a good agreement with the calculated dose (94.7%). In the head and the neck, the PB algorithm GAI was 87.1% and the CC algorithm obtained a higher agreement (95.5%). In the brain, PB and CC algorithms obtained similar results: 93.5% vs. 93.8%. Finally, in the prostate, the PB GAI was 96.3% against the 99.6% obtained by the CC algorithm.