Virtual particle Monte Carlo: A new concept to avoid simulating secondary particles in proton therapy dose calculation.
GPU acceleration
Monte Carlo
intensity-modulated proton therapy
real-time adaptive treatment planning
secondary particles
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
revised:
29
07
2022
received:
03
02
2022
accepted:
29
07
2022
pubmed:
13
8
2022
medline:
19
10
2022
entrez:
12
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In proton therapy dose calculation, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are superior in accuracy but more time consuming, compared to analytical calculations. Graphic processing units (GPUs) are effective in accelerating MC simulations but may suffer thread divergence and racing condition in GPU threads that degrades the computing performance due to the generation of secondary particles during nuclear reactions. A novel concept of virtual particle (VP) MC (VPMC) is proposed to avoid simulating secondary particles in GPU-accelerated proton MC dose calculation and take full advantage of the computing power of GPU. Neutrons and gamma rays were ignored as escaping from the human body; doses of electrons, heavy ions, and nuclear fragments were locally deposited; the tracks of deuterons were converted into tracks of protons. These particles, together with primary and secondary protons, are considered to be the realistic particles. Histories of primary and secondary protons were replaced by histories of multiple VPs. Each VP corresponded to one proton (either primary or secondary). A continuous-slowing-down-approximation model, an ionization model, and a large angle scattering event model corresponding to nuclear interactions were developed for VPs by generating probability distribution functions (PDFs) based on simulation results of realistic particles using MCsquare. For efficient calculations, these PDFs were stored in the Compute Unified Device Architecture textures. VPMC was benchmarked with TOPAS and MCsquare in phantoms and with MCsquare in 13 representative patient geometries. Comparisons between the VPMC calculated dose and dose measured in water during patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) of the selected 13 patients were also carried out. Gamma analysis was used to compare the doses derived from different methods and calculation efficiencies were also compared. Integrated depth dose and lateral dose profiles in both homogeneous and inhomogeneous phantoms all matched well among VPMC, TOPAS, and MCsquare calculations. The 3D-3D gamma passing rates with a criterion of 2%/2 mm and a threshold of 10% was 98.49% between MCsquare and TOPAS and 98.31% between VPMC and TOPAS in homogeneous phantoms, and 99.18% between MCsquare and TOPAS and 98.49% between VPMC and TOPAS in inhomogeneous phantoms, respectively. In patient geometries, the 3D-3D gamma passing rates with 2%/2 mm/10% between dose distributions from VPMC and MCsquare were 98.56 ± 1.09% in patient geometries. The 2D-3D gamma analysis with 3%/2 mm/10% between the VPMC calculated dose distributions and the 2D measured planar dose distributions during PSQA was 98.91 ± 0.88%. VPMC calculation was highly efficient and took 2.84 ± 2.44 s to finish for the selected 13 patients running on four NVIDIA Ampere GPUs in patient geometries. VPMC was found to achieve high accuracy and efficiency in proton therapy dose calculation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In proton therapy dose calculation, Monte Carlo (MC) simulations are superior in accuracy but more time consuming, compared to analytical calculations. Graphic processing units (GPUs) are effective in accelerating MC simulations but may suffer thread divergence and racing condition in GPU threads that degrades the computing performance due to the generation of secondary particles during nuclear reactions.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
A novel concept of virtual particle (VP) MC (VPMC) is proposed to avoid simulating secondary particles in GPU-accelerated proton MC dose calculation and take full advantage of the computing power of GPU.
METHODS
METHODS
Neutrons and gamma rays were ignored as escaping from the human body; doses of electrons, heavy ions, and nuclear fragments were locally deposited; the tracks of deuterons were converted into tracks of protons. These particles, together with primary and secondary protons, are considered to be the realistic particles. Histories of primary and secondary protons were replaced by histories of multiple VPs. Each VP corresponded to one proton (either primary or secondary). A continuous-slowing-down-approximation model, an ionization model, and a large angle scattering event model corresponding to nuclear interactions were developed for VPs by generating probability distribution functions (PDFs) based on simulation results of realistic particles using MCsquare. For efficient calculations, these PDFs were stored in the Compute Unified Device Architecture textures. VPMC was benchmarked with TOPAS and MCsquare in phantoms and with MCsquare in 13 representative patient geometries. Comparisons between the VPMC calculated dose and dose measured in water during patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA) of the selected 13 patients were also carried out. Gamma analysis was used to compare the doses derived from different methods and calculation efficiencies were also compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Integrated depth dose and lateral dose profiles in both homogeneous and inhomogeneous phantoms all matched well among VPMC, TOPAS, and MCsquare calculations. The 3D-3D gamma passing rates with a criterion of 2%/2 mm and a threshold of 10% was 98.49% between MCsquare and TOPAS and 98.31% between VPMC and TOPAS in homogeneous phantoms, and 99.18% between MCsquare and TOPAS and 98.49% between VPMC and TOPAS in inhomogeneous phantoms, respectively. In patient geometries, the 3D-3D gamma passing rates with 2%/2 mm/10% between dose distributions from VPMC and MCsquare were 98.56 ± 1.09% in patient geometries. The 2D-3D gamma analysis with 3%/2 mm/10% between the VPMC calculated dose distributions and the 2D measured planar dose distributions during PSQA was 98.91 ± 0.88%. VPMC calculation was highly efficient and took 2.84 ± 2.44 s to finish for the selected 13 patients running on four NVIDIA Ampere GPUs in patient geometries.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
VPMC was found to achieve high accuracy and efficiency in proton therapy dose calculation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35960865
doi: 10.1002/mp.15913
pmc: PMC9588716
mid: NIHMS1830620
doi:
Substances chimiques
Protons
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Deuterium
AR09D82C7G
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6666-6683Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : K25 CA168984
Pays : United States
Organisme : the Kemper Marley Foundation
Organisme : Arizona Biomedical Research Commission Investigator Award
Organisme : National Cancer Institute (NCI) Career Developmental Award
ID : K25CA168984
Organisme : Lawrence W. and Marilyn W. Matteson Fund for Cancer Research
Informations de copyright
© 2022 American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jun 1;101(2):479-489
pubmed: 29550033
Med Phys. 2013 Apr;40(4):041718
pubmed: 23556888
Med Phys. 2020 Jun;47(6):2558-2574
pubmed: 32153029
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jan 7;54(1):N21-8
pubmed: 19075361
Med Phys. 2012 Jun;39(6):3089-101
pubmed: 22755694
World J Clin Oncol. 2014 Oct 10;5(4):568-75
pubmed: 25302161
Phys Med Biol. 1999 Jan;44(1):27-41
pubmed: 10071873
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014 Jul 15;89(4):846-53
pubmed: 24867532
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2019 Jul;20(7):15-27
pubmed: 31112371
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Dec 7;57(23):7783-97
pubmed: 23128424
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Sep 05;62(18):7482-7504
pubmed: 28873069
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Dec 19;63(1):015013
pubmed: 29131808
Med Phys. 2013 Feb;40(2):021709
pubmed: 23387732
Phys Med Biol. 2012 Feb 7;57(3):591-608
pubmed: 22222720
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2015 Mar-Apr;5(2):e77-86
pubmed: 25413400
Nucl Technol. 2009 Dec 1;168(3):736-740
pubmed: 20865140
J Cancer Ther. 2014 Feb;5(2):198-207
pubmed: 25506501
Med Phys. 2009 Jan;36(1):149-63
pubmed: 19235384
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Jan 08;64(2):025004
pubmed: 30523932
Med Phys. 2013 May;40(5):051711
pubmed: 23635259
Med Phys. 2012 Feb;39(2):1079-91
pubmed: 22320818
Med Phys. 2011 Jul;38(7):4032-5
pubmed: 21859001
Med Phys. 2018 Dec;45(12):5631-5642
pubmed: 30295950
Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 03;12:843175
pubmed: 35311159
Med Phys. 2007 May;34(5):1647-54
pubmed: 17555246
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Nov;18(6):88-96
pubmed: 28921881
Int J Part Ther. 2019 Spring;5(4):32-40
pubmed: 31773039
Med Phys. 2022 Jan;49(1):632-647
pubmed: 34843119
Med Phys. 2020 Nov;47(11):5428-5440
pubmed: 32964474
Med Phys. 2019 Nov;46(11):4755-4762
pubmed: 31498885
Phys Med Biol. 2019 Mar 29;64(7):075012
pubmed: 30695766
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2020 Nov;21(11):141-152
pubmed: 33058523
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Nov;19(6):140-148
pubmed: 30328674
Phys Med Biol. 2010 Dec 7;55(23):7107-20
pubmed: 21076192
Med Phys. 2012 Nov;39(11):6818-37
pubmed: 23127075
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Jan-Dec;18:1533033819887182
pubmed: 31755362
Med Phys. 1998 May;25(5):656-61
pubmed: 9608475
Phys Med. 2021 Aug;88:226-234
pubmed: 34311160
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Apr 7;58(7):2027-44
pubmed: 23458969
Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Jan-Dec;20:15330338211033076
pubmed: 34338058
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Mar 21;53(6):1689-700
pubmed: 18367797
Med Phys. 2019 Jan;46(1):382-393
pubmed: 30387870
Phys Med Biol. 1996 Aug;41(8):1305-30
pubmed: 8858722
Phys Med. 2017 Jun;38:10-15
pubmed: 28610689
Med Phys. 2020 Feb;47(2):745-752
pubmed: 31758864
Med Phys. 2016 Mar;43(3):1111-8
pubmed: 26936698
Med Phys. 2018 Apr;45(4):e53-e83
pubmed: 29443390
Med Phys. 2011 Mar;38(3):1672-84
pubmed: 21520880
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 May 1;107(1):181-193
pubmed: 31987967
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Mar;18(2):44-49
pubmed: 28300385
Med Phys. 2017 Jan;44(1):28-36
pubmed: 28044325
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018 Sep;19(5):558-572
pubmed: 30058170
Med Phys. 2019 Jan;46(1):5-14
pubmed: 30339270
Med Phys. 2021 Aug;48(8):4636-4647
pubmed: 34058026
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Nov 12;63(22):22TR02
pubmed: 30418942
Phys Med Biol. 2020 Jan 17;65(2):025006
pubmed: 31801119
Oncologist. 2011;16(3):366-77
pubmed: 21349950
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Dec 21;101(51):17571-5
pubmed: 15591337
Med Phys. 2018 Jan;45(1):460-469
pubmed: 29148570
Med Phys. 2021 Nov;48(11):7512-7525
pubmed: 34519357
Med Phys. 2020 Apr;47(4):1545-1557
pubmed: 31945191
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Nov 1;99(3):750-756
pubmed: 28843371
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016 May 1;95(1):523-533
pubmed: 26725727
Phys Med. 2020 Apr;72:114-121
pubmed: 32247964
J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2017 Mar;18(2):15-25
pubmed: 28300378
Phys Med Biol. 2017 Sep 12;62(19):7659-7681
pubmed: 28749373
Med Phys. 2016 Apr;43(4):1700
pubmed: 27036568
Med Phys. 2012 Feb;39(2):891-900
pubmed: 22320798
Phys Med Biol. 2022 Jun 08;67(12):
pubmed: 35588723
Phys Med Biol. 2015 Apr 21;60(8):R155-209
pubmed: 25803097
Med Phys. 2022 May;49(5):3497-3506
pubmed: 35305269
Front Oncol. 2016 May 11;6:116
pubmed: 27242956
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021 Jul 15;110(4):1189-1199
pubmed: 33621660
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2020 Feb;11(1):212-224
pubmed: 32175124
Med Phys. 2022 Jun;49(6):3550-3563
pubmed: 35443080
Med Phys. 2017 Dec;44(12):6138-6147
pubmed: 28976574
Med Phys. 2015 Jun;42(6):2967-78
pubmed: 26127050