Commissioning and dosimetric validation of a novel compensator‐based Co‐60 IMRT system for evaluating suitability to automated treatment planning
Authors: Oh Kyuhak , Sengupta Bishwambhar , Olanrewaju Adenike , Zhang Lifei , Nair Sajeesh S. , Mani Tamilarasan , Palanisamy Manikandan , KanduKuri UdayKumar S , Netherton Tucker J. , Cardenas Carlos E. , Court Laurence E. , Ford Eric C. 
Published: April 2023

AbstractPurposeA novel compensator‐based system has been proposed which delivers intensity‐modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) with cobalt‐60 beams. This could improve access to advanced radiotherapy in low‐ and middle‐income countries. For this system to be clinically viable and to be adapted into the Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA), being developed to offer automated planning services in low‐ and middle‐income countries, it is necessary to commission and validate it in a commercial treatment planning system (TPS).MethodsThe novel treatment device considered here employs a cobalt‐60 source and nine compensators. Each compensator is produced by 3‐D printing a thin plastic mold which is then filled on‐demand within the machine with reusable 2‐mm‐diameter spherical tungsten balls. This system was commissioned in the Eclipse TPS and validation tests were conducted with Monte Carlo using Geant4 Application for Tomographic Emission for percentage depth dose, in‐plane profiles, penumbra, and IMRT dose validation. And the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 119 benchmarking testing was performed. Additionally, compensator‐based cobalt‐60 IMRT plans were created for 46 head‐and‐neck cancer cases and compared to the linac‐based volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans used clinically, then dosimetric parameters were evaluated. Beam‐on time for each field was calculated. In addition, the measurement was also performed in a limited environment and compared with the Monte Carlo simulations.ResultsThe differences in percent depth doses and in‐plane profiles between the Eclipse and Monte Carlo simulations were 0.65% ± 0.41% and 1.02% ± 0.99%, respectively, and the 80%–20% penumbra agreed within 0.46 ± 0.27 mm. For the Task Group 119 validation plans, all treatment planning goals were met and gamma passing rates were >95% (3%/3 mm criteria). In 46 clinical head‐and‐neck cases, the cobalt‐60 compensator‐based IMRT plans had planning target volume (PTV) coverages similar to linac‐based VMAT plans: all dosimetric values for PTV were within 1.5%. The organs at risk dose parameters were somewhat higher in cobalt‐60 compensator‐based IMRT plans versus linac‐based VMAT plans. The mean dose differences for the spinal cord, brain, and brainstem were 4.43 ± 1.92, 3.39 ± 4.67, and 2.40 ± 3.71 Gy, while those for the rest of the organs were <1 Gy. The average beam‐on time per field was 0.42 ± 0.10 min for the 6 MV multi‐leaf‐collimator plans while those for the cobalt‐60 compensator plans were 0.17 ± 0.01 and 0.31 ± 0.01 min at the dose rates of 350 and 175 cGy/min. There was a good agreement between in‐plane profiles from measurements and Monte Carlo simulations, which differences are 1.34 ± 1.90% and 0.13 ± 2.16% for two different fields.ConclusionsA novel compensator‐based IMRT system using cobalt‐60 beams was commissioned and validated in a commercial TPS. Plan quality with this system was comparable to that of linac‐based plans in all test cases with shorter estimated beam‐on times. This system enables reliable, high‐quality plans with reduced cost and complexity and may have benefits for underserved regions of the world. This system is being integrated into the RPA, a web‐based platform for auto‐contouring and auto‐planning.