Z Tian1, M Zhang2, B Hrycushko3, K Albuquerque3, S B Jiang3, X Jia4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. Electronic address: zhen.tian@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. Electronic address: xun.jia@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Current clinical brachytherapy dose calculations are typically based on the Association of American Physicists in Medicine Task Group report 43 (TG-43) guidelines, which approximate patient geometry as an infinitely large water phantom. This ignores patient and applicator geometries and heterogeneities, causing dosimetric errors. Although Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is commonly recognized as the most accurate method, its associated long computational time is a major bottleneck for routine clinical applications. This article presents our recent developments of a fast MC dose calculation package for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, gBMC, built on a graphics processing unit (GPU) platform. METHODS AND MATERIALS: gBMC-simulated photon transport in voxelized geometry with physics in (192)Ir HDR brachytherapy energy range considered. A phase-space file was used as a source model. GPU-based parallel computation was used to simultaneously transport multiple photons, one on a GPU thread. We validated gBMC by comparing the dose calculation results in water with that computed TG-43. We also studied heterogeneous phantom cases and a patient case and compared gBMC results with Acuros BV results. RESULTS: Radial dose function in water calculated by gBMC showed <0.6% relative difference from that of the TG-43 data. Difference in anisotropy function was <1%. In two heterogeneous slab phantoms and one shielded cylinder applicator case, average dose discrepancy between gBMC and Acuros BV was <0.87%. For a tandem and ovoid patient case, good agreement between gBMC and Acruos BV results was observed in both isodose lines and dose-volume histograms. In terms of the efficiency, it took ∼47.5 seconds for gBMC to reach 0.15% statistical uncertainty within the 5% isodose line for the patient case. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and efficiency of a new GPU-based MC dose calculation package, gBMC, for HDR brachytherapy make it attractive for clinical applications.
PURPOSE: Current clinical brachytherapy dose calculations are typically based on the Association of American Physicists in Medicine Task Group report 43 (TG-43) guidelines, which approximate patient geometry as an infinitely large water phantom. This ignores patient and applicator geometries and heterogeneities, causing dosimetric errors. Although Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculation is commonly recognized as the most accurate method, its associated long computational time is a major bottleneck for routine clinical applications. This article presents our recent developments of a fast MC dose calculation package for high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, gBMC, built on a graphics processing unit (GPU) platform. METHODS AND MATERIALS: gBMC-simulated photon transport in voxelized geometry with physics in (192)Ir HDR brachytherapy energy range considered. A phase-space file was used as a source model. GPU-based parallel computation was used to simultaneously transport multiple photons, one on a GPU thread. We validated gBMC by comparing the dose calculation results in water with that computed TG-43. We also studied heterogeneous phantom cases and a patient case and compared gBMC results with Acuros BV results. RESULTS: Radial dose function in water calculated by gBMC showed <0.6% relative difference from that of the TG-43 data. Difference in anisotropy function was <1%. In two heterogeneous slab phantoms and one shielded cylinder applicator case, average dose discrepancy between gBMC and Acuros BV was <0.87%. For a tandem and ovoid patient case, good agreement between gBMC and Acruos BV results was observed in both isodose lines and dose-volume histograms. In terms of the efficiency, it took ∼47.5 seconds for gBMC to reach 0.15% statistical uncertainty within the 5% isodose line for the patient case. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and efficiency of a new GPU-based MC dose calculation package, gBMC, for HDR brachytherapy make it attractive for clinical applications.