Dataset Information

Comparing 2 Monte Carlo Systems in Use for Proton Therapy Research.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Several Monte Carlo transport codes are available for medical physics users. To ensure confidence in the accuracy of the codes, they must be continually cross-validated. This study provides comparisons between MC² and Tool for Particle Simulation (TOPAS) simulations, that is, between medical physics applications for Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNPX) and Geant4.

Materials and methods

Monte Carlo simulations were repeated with 2 wrapper codes: TOPAS (based on Geant4) and MC² (based on MCNPX). Simulations increased in geometrical complexity from a monoenergetic beam incident on a water phantom, to a monoenergetic beam incident on a water phantom with a bone or tissue slab at various depths, to a spread-out Bragg peak incident on a voxelized computed tomography (CT) geometry. The CT geometry cases consisted of head and neck tissue and lung tissue. The results of the simulations were compared with one another through dose or energy deposition profiles, r ₉₀ calculations, and γ-analyses.

Results

Both codes gave very similar results with monoenergetic beams incident on a water phantom. Systematic differences were observed between MC² and TOPAS simulations when using a lung or bone slab in a water phantom, particularly in the r ₉₀ values, where TOPAS consistently calculated r ₉₀ to be deeper by about 0.4%. When comparing the performance of the 2 codes in a CT geometry, the results were still very similar, exemplified by a 3-dimensional γ-analysis pass rate > 95% at the 2%-2-mm criterion for tissues from both head and neck and lung.

Conclusion

Differences between TOPAS and MC² were minor and were not considered clinically relevant.

SUBMITTER: Newpower M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6871627 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing 2 Monte Carlo Systems in Use for Proton Therapy Research.

Newpower Mark M Schuemann Jan J Mohan Radhe R Paganetti Harald H Titt Uwe U

International journal of particle therapy 20190503 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Several Monte Carlo transport codes are available for medical physics users. To ensure confidence in the accuracy of the codes, they must be continually cross-validated. This study provides comparisons between MC<sup>2</sup> and Tool for Particle Simulation (TOPAS) simulations, that is, between medical physics applications for Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code (MCNPX) and Geant4.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Monte Carlo simulations were repeated with 2 wrapper codes: TOPAS (b ...[more]

PMID: 31773045

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose/objectivesMonte Carlo (MC) dose calculation has appeared in primary commercial treatment-planning systems and various in-house platforms. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) and metal artifact reduction (MAR) techniques complement MC capabilities. However, no publications have yet reported how proton therapy centers implement these new technologies, and a national survey is required to determine the feasibility of including MC and companion techniques in cooperative group clinical trials.Materials/methodsA 9-question survey was designed to query key clinical parameters: scope of MC utilization, validation methods for heterogeneities, clinical site-specific imaging guidance, proton range uncertainties, and how implants are handled. A national survey was distributed to all 29 operational US proton therapy centers on 13 May 2019.ResultsWe received responses from 25 centers (86% participation). Commercial MC was most commonly used for primary plan optimization (16 centers) or primary dose evaluation (18 centers), while in-house MC was used more frequently for secondary dose evaluation (7 centers). Based on the survey, MC was used infrequently for gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecology and extremity compared with other more heterogeneous disease sites (P < .007). Although many centers had published DECT research, only 3/25 centers had implemented DECT clinically, either in the treatment-planning system or to override implant materials. Most centers (64%) treated patients with metal implants on a case-by-case basis, with a variety of methods reported. Twenty-four centers (96%) used MAR images and overrode the surrounding tissue artifacts; however, there was no consensus on how to determine metal dimension, materials density, or stopping powers.ConclusionThe use of MC for primary dose calculation and optimization was prevalent and, therefore, likely feasible for clinical trials. There was consensus to use MAR and override tissues surrounding metals but no consensus about how to use DECT and MAR for human tissues and implants. Development and standardization of these advanced technologies are strongly encouraged for vendors and clinical physicists.

Project description:While Monte Carlo particle transport has proven useful in many areas (treatment head design, dose calculation, shielding design, and imaging studies) and has been particularly important for proton therapy (due to the conformal dose distributions and a finite beam range in the patient), the available general purpose Monte Carlo codes in proton therapy have been overly complex for most clinical medical physicists. The learning process has large costs not only in time but also in reliability. To address this issue, we developed an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform and tested the tool in a variety of proton therapy applications.Our approach was to take one of the already-established general purpose Monte Carlo codes and wrap and extend it to create a specialized user-friendly tool for proton therapy. The resulting tool, TOol for PArticle Simulation (TOPAS), should make Monte Carlo simulation more readily available for research and clinical physicists. TOPAS can model a passive scattering or scanning beam treatment head, model a patient geometry based on computed tomography (CT) images, score dose, fluence, etc., save and restart a phase space, provides advanced graphics, and is fully four-dimensional (4D) to handle variations in beam delivery and patient geometry during treatment. A custom-designed TOPAS parameter control system was placed at the heart of the code to meet requirements for ease of use, reliability, and repeatability without sacrificing flexibility.We built and tested the TOPAS code. We have shown that the TOPAS parameter system provides easy yet flexible control over all key simulation areas such as geometry setup, particle source setup, scoring setup, etc. Through design consistency, we have insured that user experience gained in configuring one component, scorer or filter applies equally well to configuring any other component, scorer or filter. We have incorporated key lessons from safety management, proactively removing possible sources of user error such as line-ordering mistakes. We have modeled proton therapy treatment examples including the UCSF eye treatment head, the MGH stereotactic alignment in radiosurgery treatment head and the MGH gantry treatment heads in passive scattering and scanning modes, and we have demonstrated dose calculation based on patient-specific CT data. Initial validation results show agreement with measured data and demonstrate the capabilities of TOPAS in simulating beam delivery in 3D and 4D.We have demonstrated TOPAS accuracy and usability in a variety of proton therapy setups. As we are preparing to make this tool freely available for researchers in medical physics, we anticipate widespread use of this tool in the growing proton therapy community.

Project description:BackgroundIn 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.PurposeA 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.MethodsNeutrons 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.ResultsIntegrated 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.ConclusionVPMC was found to achieve high accuracy and efficiency in proton therapy dose calculation.

Project description:To present the implementation and validation of a geometrical based variance reduction technique for the calculation of phase space data for proton therapy dose calculation.The treatment heads at the Francis H Burr Proton Therapy Center were modeled with a new Monte Carlo tool (TOPAS based on Geant4). For variance reduction purposes, two particle-splitting planes were implemented. First, the particles were split upstream of the second scatterer or at the second ionization chamber. Then, particles reaching another plane immediately upstream of the field specific aperture were split again. In each case, particles were split by a factor of 8. At the second ionization chamber and at the latter plane, the cylindrical symmetry of the proton beam was exploited to position the split particles at randomly spaced locations rotated around the beam axis. Phase space data in IAEA format were recorded at the treatment head exit and the computational efficiency was calculated. Depth-dose curves and beam profiles were analyzed. Dose distributions were compared for a voxelized water phantom for different treatment fields for both the reference and optimized simulations. In addition, dose in two patients was simulated with and without particle splitting to compare the efficiency and accuracy of the technique.A normalized computational efficiency gain of a factor of 10-20.3 was reached for phase space calculations for the different treatment head options simulated. Depth-dose curves and beam profiles were in reasonable agreement with the simulation done without splitting: within 1% for depth-dose with an average difference of (0.2 ± 0.4)%, 1 standard deviation, and a 0.3% statistical uncertainty of the simulations in the high dose region; 1.6% for planar fluence with an average difference of (0.4 ± 0.5)% and a statistical uncertainty of 0.3% in the high fluence region. The percentage differences between dose distributions in water for simulations done with and without particle splitting were within the accepted clinical tolerance of 2%, with a 0.4% statistical uncertainty. For the two patient geometries considered, head and prostate, the efficiency gain was 20.9 and 14.7, respectively, with the percentages of voxels with gamma indices lower than unity 98.9% and 99.7%, respectively, using 2% and 2 mm criteria.The authors have implemented an efficient variance reduction technique with significant speed improvements for proton Monte Carlo simulations. The method can be transferred to other codes and other treatment heads.

Project description:BackgroundIn quantitative biology, mathematical models are used to describe and analyze biological processes. The parameters of these models are usually unknown and need to be estimated from experimental data using statistical methods. In particular, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods have become increasingly popular as they allow for a rigorous analysis of parameter and prediction uncertainties without the need for assuming parameter identifiability or removing non-identifiable parameters. A broad spectrum of MCMC algorithms have been proposed, including single- and multi-chain approaches. However, selecting and tuning sampling algorithms suited for a given problem remains challenging and a comprehensive comparison of different methods is so far not available.ResultsWe present the results of a thorough benchmarking of state-of-the-art single- and multi-chain sampling methods, including Adaptive Metropolis, Delayed Rejection Adaptive Metropolis, Metropolis adjusted Langevin algorithm, Parallel Tempering and Parallel Hierarchical Sampling. Different initialization and adaptation schemes are considered. To ensure a comprehensive and fair comparison, we consider problems with a range of features such as bifurcations, periodical orbits, multistability of steady-state solutions and chaotic regimes. These problem properties give rise to various posterior distributions including uni- and multi-modal distributions and non-normally distributed mode tails. For an objective comparison, we developed a pipeline for the semi-automatic comparison of sampling results.ConclusionThe comparison of MCMC algorithms, initialization and adaptation schemes revealed that overall multi-chain algorithms perform better than single-chain algorithms. In some cases this performance can be further increased by using a preceding multi-start local optimization scheme. These results can inform the selection of sampling methods and the benchmark collection can serve for the evaluation of new algorithms. Furthermore, our results confirm the need to address exploration quality of MCMC chains before applying the commonly used quality measure of effective sample size to prevent false analysis conclusions.

Dataset Information

Comparing 2 Monte Carlo Systems in Use for Proton Therapy Research.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparing 2 Monte Carlo Systems in Use for Proton Therapy Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets