Qin Nan, Botas Pablo, Giantsoudi Drosoula, Schuemann Jan, Tian Zhen, Jiang Steve B, Paganetti Harald, Jia Xun
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Phys Med Biol. 2016 Oct 21;61(20):7347-7362. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/61/20/7347. Epub 2016 Oct 3.
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 cm to 1 × 1 cm, 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.
蒙特卡罗(MC)模拟通常被认为是质子治疗中最精确的剂量计算方法。为了实现用于临床应用的快速MC剂量计算,我们之前开发了一种基于图形处理单元(GPU)的MC工具gPMC。在本文中,我们报告了gPMC在准确性、可移植性和功能方面的最新更新,以及对该工具的全面测试。新版本gPMC v2.0是在OpenCL环境下开发的,以实现跨不同计算平台的可移植性。核相互作用的物理模型得到了改进,以提高计算精度。gPMC的计分函数得到了扩展,以能够统计粒子注量、不同粒子类型沉积的剂量以及剂量平均线能量转移(LETd)。采用了多重计数器方法,通过减少计分过程中内存写入冲突的频率来提高效率。对于剂量计算,在水模体案例和一个患者案例中均观察到相对于gPMC v1.0在准确性上有所提高。对于一个使用高能质子束计划治疗的前列腺癌案例,gPMC v1.0与质子蒙特卡罗模拟的金标准工具(TOPAS)结果相比,在束流入口和靶区的剂量差异大幅减小,伽马测试通过率(1%/1毫米)从82.7%提高到了93.1%。gPMC和TOPAS之间LETd的平均相对差异为1.7%。初级、次级和其他较重粒子沉积剂量的平均相对差异分别在2.3%、0.4%和0.2%以内。根据源质子能量和模体复杂性,在AMD Radeon R9 290x GPU上模拟[公式:见原文]个源质子需要8 - 17秒,平均统计不确定性小于[公式:见原文]。当射野尺寸从10×10厘米减小到1×1厘米时,使用八个计数器计分的时间仅增加了4.