Objective: This study evaluated the clinical feasibility of a new low-cost TomoTherapy system (OnradTM) and compared it with low-cost linear accelerator models (linacs).
Methods: Various aspects of treatment and cost were compared between Onrad and linacs for 3-dimensional radiotherapy (3DCRT). Dosimetric comparisons of 10 patients each with breast, stage III lung, prostate, head and neck, and cervical cancers were carried out (total 100 plans).
Results: Onrad had advantages in terms of availability of long treatment fields and a smaller mechanical footprint. For breast cancers and lung cancers, target dose homogeneity in Onrad plans was better than that in 3DCRT. In the prostate plans, Onrad plans provided superior D95, conformity and homogeneity. The rectum doses of Onrad plans were lower than those with 3DCRT. Onrad plans provided superior homogeneity and D95 in head and neck cancer. The mean dose and V10-40 Gy of the parotid glands was lower using Onrad. In the cervical cancer plans, target doses were similar with both systems. Normal tissue doses were equal.
Conclusions: Onrad is useful in the clinical setting. Onrad can achieve favorable or comparable dose distributions compared with those of 3DCRT in actual clinical treatment of breast, lung, prostate, head and neck, and cervical cancers.
Keywords: Onrad; TomoDirect; breast cancer; cervical cancer; head and neck cancer; lung cancer; prostate cancer.