Literature DB >> 27694712

Recent developments and comprehensive evaluations of a GPU-based Monte Carlo package for proton therapy.

Nan Qin1, Pablo Botas, Drosoula Giantsoudi, Jan Schuemann, Zhen Tian, Steve B Jiang, Harald Paganetti, Xun Jia.   

Abstract

Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is commonly considered as the most accurate dose calculation method for proton therapy. Aiming at achieving fast MC dose calculations for clinical applications, we have previously developed a graphics-processing unit (GPU)-based MC tool, gPMC. In this paper, we report our recent updates on gPMC in terms of its accuracy, portability, and functionality, as well as comprehensive tests on this tool. The new version, gPMC v2.0, was developed under the OpenCL environment to enable portability across different computational platforms. Physics models of nuclear interactions were refined to improve calculation accuracy. Scoring functions of gPMC were expanded to enable tallying particle fluence, dose deposited by different particle types, and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd). A multiple counter approach was employed to improve efficiency by reducing the frequency of memory writing conflict at scoring. For dose calculation, accuracy improvements over gPMC v1.0 were observed in both water phantom cases and a patient case. For a prostate cancer case planned using high-energy proton beams, dose discrepancies in beam entrance and target region seen in gPMC v1.0 with respect to the gold standard tool for proton Monte Carlo simulations (TOPAS) results were substantially reduced and gamma test passing rate (1%/1 mm) was improved from 82.7%-93.1%. The average relative difference in LETd between gPMC and TOPAS was 1.7%. The average relative differences in the dose deposited by primary, secondary, and other heavier particles were within 2.3%, 0.4%, and 0.2%. Depending on source proton energy and phantom complexity, it took 8-17 s on an AMD Radeon R9 290x GPU to simulate [Formula: see text] source protons, achieving less than [Formula: see text] average statistical uncertainty. As the beam size was reduced from 10  ×  10 cm2 to 1  ×  1 cm2, the time on scoring was only increased by 4.8% with eight counters, in contrast to a 40% increase using only one counter. With the OpenCL environment, the portability of gPMC v2.0 was enhanced. It was successfully executed on different CPUs and GPUs and its performance on different devices varied depending on processing power and hardware structure.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27694712      PMCID: PMC5378691          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/20/7347

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  23 in total

1.  A particle track-repeating algorithm for proton beam dose calculation.

Authors:  J S Li; B Shahine; E Fourkal; C-M Ma
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2005-02-17       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  A study of potential numerical pitfalls in GPU-based Monte Carlo dose calculation.

Authors:  Vincent Magnoux; Benoît Ozell; Éric Bonenfant; Philippe Després
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 3.  Relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values for proton beam therapy. Variations as a function of biological endpoint, dose, and linear energy transfer.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Comparison of linear energy transfer scoring techniques in Monte Carlo simulations of proton beams.

Authors:  Dal A Granville; Gabriel O Sawakuchi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  TOPAS: an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications.

Authors:  J Perl; J Shin; J Schumann; B Faddegon; H Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  GPU-based high-performance computing for radiation therapy.

Authors:  Xun Jia; Peter Ziegenhein; Steve B Jiang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Validation of a GPU-based Monte Carlo code (gPMC) for proton radiation therapy: clinical cases study.

Authors:  Drosoula Giantsoudi; Jan Schuemann; Xun Jia; Stephen Dowdell; Steve Jiang; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Monte Carlo fast dose calculator for proton radiotherapy: application to a voxelized geometry representing a patient with prostate cancer.

Authors:  Pablo Yepes; Sharmalee Randeniya; Phillip J Taddei; Wayne D Newhauser
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-12-10       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  Site-specific range uncertainties caused by dose calculation algorithms for proton therapy.

Authors:  J Schuemann; S Dowdell; C Grassberger; C H Min; H Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  A Monte Carlo dose calculation algorithm for proton therapy.

Authors:  Matthias Fippel; Martin Soukup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.071

View more
  15 in total

1.  Initial development of goCMC: a GPU-oriented fast cross-platform Monte Carlo engine for carbon ion therapy.

Authors:  Nan Qin; Marco Pinto; Zhen Tian; Georgios Dedes; Arnold Pompos; Steve B Jiang; Katia Parodi; Xun Jia
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Robust optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy with soft spot sensitivity regularization.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Dan Ruan; Daniel O'Connor; Wei Zou; Lei Dong; Min-Yu Tsai; Xun Jia; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2019-01-21       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 3.  Treatment planning for proton therapy: what is needed in the next 10 years?

Authors:  Hakan Nystrom; Maria Fuglsang Jensen; Petra Witt Nystrom
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Adaptive proton therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Pablo Botas; Gregory C Sharp; Brian Winey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 3.609

5.  Improving Proton Dose Calculation Accuracy by Using Deep Learning.

Authors:  Chao Wu; Dan Nguyen; Yixun Xing; Ana Barragan Montero; Jan Schuemann; Haijiao Shang; Yuehu Pu; Steve Jiang
Journal:  Mach Learn Sci Technol       Date:  2021-04-06

6.  Density overwrites of internal tumor volumes in intensity modulated proton therapy plans for mobile lung tumors.

Authors:  Pablo Botas; Clemens Grassberger; Gregory Sharp; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  A full-scale clinical prototype for proton range verification using prompt gamma-ray spectroscopy.

Authors:  Fernando Hueso-González; Moritz Rabe; Thomas A Ruggieri; Thomas Bortfeld; Joost M Verburg
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  The TOPAS tool for particle simulation, a Monte Carlo simulation tool for physics, biology and clinical research.

Authors:  Bruce Faddegon; José Ramos-Méndez; Jan Schuemann; Aimee McNamara; Jungwook Shin; Joseph Perl; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 2.685

9.  Linear energy transfer weighted beam orientation optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Wenbo Gu; Dan Ruan; Wei Zou; Lei Dong; Ke Sheng
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Comparison of weekly and daily online adaptation for head and neck intensity-modulated proton therapy.

Authors:  Mislav Bobić; Arthur Lalonde; Gregory C Sharp; Clemens Grassberger; Joost M Verburg; Brian A Winey; Antony J Lomax; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-02-25       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.