Technical Note: Integrating an open source Monte Carlo code "MCsquare" for clinical use in intensity-modulated proton therapy.
Mcsquare
Monte Carlo method
dose calculation
intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT)
robust optimization
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
11
10
2019
revised:
27
02
2020
accepted:
27
02
2020
pubmed:
11
3
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
11
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To commission an open source Monte Carlo (MC) dose engine, "MCsquare" for a synchrotron-based proton machine, integrate it into our in-house C++-based I/O user interface and our web-based software platform, expand its functionalities, and improve calculation efficiency for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We commissioned MCsquare using a double Gaussian beam model based on in-air lateral profiles, integrated depth dose of 97 beam energies, and measurements of various spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs). Then we integrated MCsquare into our C++-based dose calculation code and web-based second check platform "DOSeCHECK." We validated the commissioned MCsquare based on 12 different patient geometries and compared the dose calculation with a well-benchmarked GPU-accelerated MC (gMC) dose engine. We further improved the MCsquare efficiency by employing the computed tomography (CT) resampling approach. We also expanded its functionality by adding a linear energy transfer (LET)-related model-dependent biological dose calculation. Differences between MCsquare calculations and SOBP measurements were <2.5% (<1.5% for ~85% of measurements) in water. The dose distributions calculated using MCsquare agreed well with the results calculated using gMC in patient geometries. The average 3D gamma analysis (2%/2 mm) passing rates comparing MCsquare and gMC calculations in the 12 patient geometries were 98.0 ± 1.0%. The computation time to calculate one IMPT plan in patients' geometries using an inexpensive CPU workstation (Intel Xeon E5-2680 2.50 GHz) was 2.3 ± 1.8 min after the variable resolution technique was adopted. All calculations except for one craniospinal patient were finished within 3.5 min. MCsquare was successfully commissioned for a synchrotron-based proton beam therapy delivery system and integrated into our web-based second check platform. After adopting CT resampling and implementing LET model-dependent biological dose calculation capabilities, MCsquare will be sufficiently efficient and powerful to achieve Monte Carlo-based and LET-guided robust optimization in IMPT, which will be done in the future studies.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2558-2574Subventions
Organisme : Arizona Biomedical Research Commission Investigator Award
ID : ADHS16-162521
Organisme : Kemper Marley Foundation
Informations de copyright
© 2020 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Agostinelli S, Allison J, Ka A, et al. GEANT4-a simulation toolkit. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A. 2003;506:250-303.
Waters L, Hendricks J, McKinney G. Monte Carlo N-particle transport code system for multiparticle and high energy applications. Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory; 2002.
Battistoni G, Broggi F, Brugger M, et al. The FLUKA code and its use in hadron therapy. Nuovo Cimento Soc Ital Fis C. 2008;31:69-75.
Kozłowska WS, Böhlen TT, Cuccagna C, et al. FLUKA particle therapy tool for Monte Carlo independent calculation of scanned proton and carbon ion beam therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2019;64:075012.
Perl J, Shin J, Schümann J, Faddegon B, Paganetti H. TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. Med Phys. 2012;39:6818-6837.
Hong L, Goitein M, Bucciolini M, et al. A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:1305-1330.
Schaffner B, Pedroni E, Lomax A. Dose calculation models for proton treatment planning using a dynamic beam delivery system: an attempt to include density heterogeneity effects in the analytical dose calculation. Phys Med Biol. 1999;44:27-41.
Younkin JE, Morales DH, Shen J, et al. Clinical validation of a ray-casting analytical dose engine for spot scanning proton delivery systems. Technol Cancer Res Treatm. 2019;18:1533033819887182.
Taylor PA, Kry SF, Followill DS. Pencil beam algorithms are unsuitable for proton dose calculations in lung. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;99:750-756.
Wan Chan Tseung H, Ma J, Beltran C. A fast GPU-based Monte Carlo simulation of proton transport with detailed modeling of nonelastic interactions. Med Phys. 2015;42:2967-2978.
Jia X, Schümann J, Paganetti H, Jiang SB. GPU-based fast Monte Carlo dose calculation for proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:7783-7797.
Schiavi A, Senzacqua M, Pioli S, et al. Fred: a GPU-accelerated fast-Monte Carlo code for rapid treatment plan recalculation in ion beam therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:7482-7504.
Souris K, Lee JA, Sterpin E. Fast multipurpose Monte Carlo simulation for proton therapy using multi-and many-core CPU architectures. Med Phys. 2016;43:1700-1712.
Saini J, Maes D, Egan A, et al. Dosimetric evaluation of a commercial proton spot scanning Monte-Carlo dose algorithm: comparisons against measurements and simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:7659-7681.
Lin L, Huang S, Kang M, et al. A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton monte carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:44-49.
Chih-Wei Chang SH, Harms J, Zhou J, et al. A standardized commissioning framework of Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithms for proton pencil beam scanning treatment planning systems. Conditionally accepted by Medical Physics.
Ma J, Wan Chan Tseung HS, Herman MG, Beltran C. A robust intensity modulated proton therapy optimizer based on Monte Carlo dose calculation. Med Phys. 2018;45:4045-4054.
Gu W, Ruan D, O'Connor D, et al. Robust optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with soft spot sensitivity regularization. Med Phys. 2019;46:1408-1425.
An Y, Shan J, Patel SH, et al. Robust intensity-modulated proton therapy to reduce high linear energy transfer in organs at risk. Med Phys. 2017;44:6138-6147.
Unkelbach J, Bortfeld T, Martin BC, Soukup M. Reducing the sensitivity of IMPT treatment plans to setup errors and range uncertainties via probabilistic treatment planning. Med Phys. 2009;36:149-163.
Unkelbach J, Chan TC, Bortfeld T. Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52:2755-2773.
Pflugfelder D, Wilkens J, Oelfke U. Worst case optimization: a method to account for uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:1689-1700.
Fredriksson A, Forsgren A, Hårdemark B. Minimax optimization for handling range and setup uncertainties in proton therapy. Med Phys. 2011;38:1672-1684.
Fredriksson A. A characterization of robust radiation therapy treatment planning methods-from expected value to worst case optimization. Med Phys. 2012;39:5169-5181.
Wei L, Yupeng L, Xiaoqiang L, Wenhua C, Xiaodong Z. Influence of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy with different dose delivery techniques. Med Phys. 2012;39:3089-3101.
Liu W, Frank SJ, Li X, et al. Effectiveness of robust optimization in intensity-modulated proton therapy planning for head and neck cancers. Med Phys. 2013;40:051711.
Liu W, Liao Z, Schild SE, et al. Impact of respiratory motion on worst-case scenario optimized intensity modulated proton therapy for lung cancers. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015;5:e77-e86.
An Y, Liang J, Schild SE, Bues M, Liu W. Robust treatment planning with conditional value at risk chance constraints in intensity-modulated proton therapy. Med Phys. 2017;44:28-36.
Buti G, Souris K, Montero AMB, Lee JA, Sterpin E. Towards fast and robust 4D optimization for moving tumors with scanned proton therapy. Med Phys. 2019;46:5434-5443.
Souris K, Montero AB, Janssens G, Di Perri D, Sterpin E, Lee JA. Monte Carlo methods to comprehensively evaluate the robustness of 4D treatments in proton therapy. Med Phys. 2019;46:4676-4684.
Huang S, Kang M, Souris K, et al. Validation and clinical implementation of an accurate Monte Carlo code for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19:558-572.
Huang S, Souris K, Li S, et al. Validation and application of a fast Monte Carlo algorithm for assessing the clinical impact of approximations in analytical dose calculations for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Med Phys. 2018;45:5631-5642.
Augustine KE, Walsh TJ, Beltran CJ, et al. Spot scanning proton therapy plan assessment: design and development of a dose verification application for use in routine clinical practice. Paper presented at: Medical Imaging 2016: Physics of Medical Imaging; 2016.
Hernandez Morales D, Shan J, Liu W, et al. Automation of routine elements for spot-scanning proton patient-specific quality assurance. Med Phys. 2019;46:5-14.
Shen J, Tryggestad E, Younkin JE, et al. Using experimentally determined proton spot scanning timing parameters to accurately model beam delivery time. Med Phys. 2017;44:5081-5088.
Ding X, Liu W, Shen J, et al. Use of a radial projection to reduce the statistical uncertainty of spot lateral profiles generated by Monte Carlo simulation. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017;18:88-96.
Anand A, Sahoo N, Zhu XR, et al. A procedure to determine the planar integral spot dose values of proton pencil beam spots. Med Phys. 2012;39:891-900.
Commissioning procedure for MCsquare. http://www.openmcsquare.org/documentation_commissioning.html
Grevillot L, Bertrand D, Dessy F, Freud N, Sarrut D. A Monte Carlo pencil beam scanning model for proton treatment plan simulation using GATE/GEANT4. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:5203-5219.
Pedroni E, Scheib S, Böhringer T, et al. Experimental characterization and physical modelling of the dose distribution of scanned proton pencil beams. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50:541.
Shen J, Lentz JM, Hu Y, et al. Using field size factors to characterize the in-air fluence of a proton machine with a range shifter. Radiat Oncol. 2017;12:52.
Miften M, Olch A, Mihailidis D, et al. Tolerance limits and methodologies for IMRT measurement-based verification QA: recommendations of AAPM Task Group No. 218. Med Phys. 2018;45:e53-e83.
Paganetti H, Blakely E, Carabe-Fernandez A, et al. Report of the AAPM TG-256 on the relative biological effectiveness of proton beams in radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2019;46:e53-e78.
Paganetti H. Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:R419-R472.
Gentile MS, Yeap BY, Paganetti H, et al. Brainstem injury in pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors treated with proton beam therapy and associated dosimetric factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;100:719-729.
Underwood TS, Grassberger C, Bass R, et al. Asymptomatic Late-phase radiographic changes among chest-wall patients are associated with a proton RBE exceeding 1.1. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101:809-819.
Peeler CR, Mirkovic D, Titt U, et al. Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121:395-401.
Wilkens J, Oelfke U. A phenomenological model for the relative biological effectiveness in therapeutic proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2004;49:2811-2825.
Carabe A, Moteabbed M, Depauw N, Schuemann J, Paganetti H. Range uncertainty in proton therapy due to variable biological effectiveness. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57:1159-1172.
Wedenberg M, Lind BK, Hårdemark B. A model for the relative biological effectiveness of protons: the tissue specific parameter α/β of photons is a predictor for the sensitivity to LET changes. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:580-588.
McNamara AL, Schuemann J, Paganetti H. A phenomenological relative biological effectiveness (RBE) model for proton therapy based on all published in vitro cell survival data. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60:8399.
Grün R, Friedrich T, Krämer M, Scholz M. Systematics of relative biological effectiveness measurements for proton radiation along the spread out Bragg peak: experimental validation of the local effect model. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:890-908.
Paganetti H, Goitein M. Biophysical modelling of proton radiation effects based on amorphous track models. Int J Radiat Biol. 2001;77:911-928.
Unkelbach J, Botas P, Giantsoudi D, Gorissen BL, Paganetti H. Reoptimization of intensity modulated proton therapy plans based on linear energy transfer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;96:1097-1106.
Beltran C, Tseung HWC, Augustine KE, et al. Clinical implementation of a proton dose verification system utilizing a GPU accelerated Monte Carlo engine. Int J Part Ther. 2016;3:312-319.
Giantsoudi D, Grassberger C, Craft D, Niemierko A, Trofimov A, Paganetti H. Linear energy transfer-guided optimization in intensity modulated proton therapy: feasibility study and clinical potential. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;87:216-222.
Ödén J, Eriksson K, Toma-Dasu I. Inclusion of a variable RBE into proton and photon plan comparison for various fractionation schedules in prostate radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2017;44:810-822.