Citations

AbstractBackgroundIn 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.

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of the RayStation Monte Carlo dose engine (RayStation MC) in modeling small‐field block apertures in proton pencil beam scanning. Furthermore, we evaluate the suitability of MCsquare as a second check for RayStation MC. Methods We have enhanced MCsquare to model block apertures. To test the accuracy of both RayStation MC and the newly enhanced MCsquare, we compare the dose predictions of each to in‐water dose measurements obtained using diode detectors and radiochromic film. Nine brass apertures with openings of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 cm and either 2 cm or 4 cm thickness were used in the irradiation of a water phantom. Two measurement setups were used, one with a range shifter and 119.7 MeV proton beam energy and the other with no range shifter and 147 MeV proton beam energy. To further test the validity of RayStation MC and MCsquare in modeling block apertures and to evaluate MCsquare as a second check tool, 10 small‐field (average target volume 8.3 cm 3 ) patient treatment plans were calculated by each dose engine followed by a statistical comparison. Results Comparing to the absolute dose measurements in water, RayStation MC differed by 1.2% ± 1.0% while MCsquare differed by −1.8% ± 3.7% in the plateau region of a pristine Bragg peak. Compared to the in‐water film measurements, RayStation MC and MCsquare both performed well with an average 2D‐3D gamma passing rate of 99.4% and 99.7% (3%/3 mm), respectively. A t ‐test comparing the agreement with the film measurements between RayStation MC and MCsquare suggested that the relative spatial dose distributions calculated by MCsquare and RayStation MC were statistically indistinguishable. Directly comparing the dose calculations between MCsquare and RayStation MC over 10 patients resulted in an average 3D‐3D gamma passing rates of 98.5% (3%/3 mm) and 94.1% (2%/2 mm), respectively. Conclusion The validity of RayStation MC algorithm for use with patient‐specific apertures has been expanded to include small apertures. MCsquare has been enhanced to model apertures and was found to be an adequate second check of RayStation MC in this scenario.

AbstractPurposeDue to the employment of quadratic programming using soft constraints to implement dose volume constraints and the “trial‐and‐error” procedure needed to achieve a clinically acceptable plan, conventional dose volume constraints (upper limit) are not adequately effective in controlling small and isolated hot spots in the dose/linear energy transfer (LET) distribution. Such hot spots can lead to adverse events. In order to mitigate the risk of brain necrosis, one of the most clinically significant adverse events in patients receiving intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for base of skull (BOS) cancer, we propose per‐voxel constraints to minimize hot spots in LET‐guided robust optimization.Methods and materialsTen BOS cancer patients treated with IMPT were carefully selected by meeting one of the following conditions: (1) diagnosis of brain necrosis during follow‐up; and (2) considered high risk for brain necrosis by not meeting dose constraints to the brain. An optimizing structure (BrainOPT) and an evaluating structure (BrainROI) that both contained the aforementioned hot dose regions in the brain were generated for optimization and evaluation, respectively. Two plans were generated for every patient: one using conventional dose‐only robust optimization, the other using LET‐guided robust optimization. The impact of LET was integrated into the optimization via a term of extra biological dose (xBD). A novel optimization tool of per‐voxel constraints to control small and isolated hot spots in either the dose, LET, or combined (dose/LET) distribution was developed and used to minimize dose/LET hot spots of the selected structures. Indices from dose‐volume histogram (DVH) and xBD dose‐volume histogram (xBDVH) were used in the plan evaluation. A newly developed tool of the dose‐LET‐volume histogram (DLVH) was also adopted to illustrate the underlying mechanism. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical comparison of the DVH and xBDVH indices between the conventional dose‐only and the LET‐guided robustly optimized plans.ResultsPer‐voxel constraints effectively and efficiently minimized dose hot spots in both dose‐only and LET‐guided robust optimization and LET hot spots in LET‐guided robust optimization. Compared to the conventional dose‐only robust optimization, the LET‐guided robust optimization could generate plans with statistically lower xBD hot spots in BrainROI (VxBD,50 Gy[RBE], p = 0.009; VxBD,60 Gy[RBE], p = 0.025; xBD1cc, p = 0.017; xBD2cc, p = 0.022) with comparable dose coverage, dose hot spots in the target, and dose hot spots in BrainROI. DLVH analysis indicated that LET‐guided robust optimization could either reduce LET at the same dose level or redistribute high LET from high dose regions to low dose regions.ConclusionPer‐voxel constraint is a powerful tool to minimize dose/LET hot spots in IMPT. The LET‐guided robustly optimized plans outperformed the conventional dose‐only robustly optimized plans in terms of xBD hot spots control.

Purpose To compare the dosimetric performances of small‐spot three‐dimensional (3D) and four‐dimensional (4D) robustly optimized intensity‐modulated proton (IMPT) plans in the presence of uncertainties and interplay effect simultaneously for distal esophageal carcinoma. Method and Materials Thirteen (13) patients were selected and re‐planned with small‐spot ( ~ 2–6 mm) 3D and 4D robust optimization in IMPT, respectively. The internal clinical target volumes (CTV high3d , CTV low3d ) were used in 3D robust optimization. Different CTVs (CTV high4d , CTV low4d ) were generated by subtracting an inner margin of the motion amplitudes in three cardinal directions from the internal CTVs and used in 4D robust optimization. All patients were prescribed the same dose to CTVs (50 Gy[RBE] for CTV high3d /CTV high4d and 45 Gy[RBE] for CTV low3d /CTV low4d ). Dose–volume histogram (DVH) indices were calculated to assess plan quality. Comprehensive plan robustness evaluations that consisted of 300 perturbed scenarios (10 different motion patterns to consider irregular motion (sampled from a Gaussian distribution) and 30 different uncertainties scenarios (sampled from a 4D uniform distribution) combined), were performed to quantify robustness to uncertainties and interplay effect simultaneously. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used for statistical analysis. Results Compared to 3D robustly optimized plans, 4D robustly optimized plans had statistically improved target coverage and better sparing of lungs and heart (heart D mean , P = 0.001; heart V 30Gy[RBE] , P = 0.001) in the nominal scenario. 4D robustly optimized plans had better robustness in target dose coverage (CTV high4d V 100% , P = 0.002) and the protection of lungs and heart (heart D mean , P = 0.001; heart V 30Gy[RBE] , P = 0.001) when uncertainties and interplay effect were considered simultaneously. Conclusions Even with small spots in IMPT, 4D robust optimization outperformed 3D robust optimization in terms of normal tissue protection and robustness to uncertainties and interplay effect simultaneously. Our findings support the use of 4D robust optimization to treat distal esophageal carcinoma with small spots in IMPT.

AbstractPurposePatient‐Specific Quality Assurance (PSQA) measurement analysis depends on generating metrics representative of calculation and measurement agreement. Considering the heightened capability of discrete spot scanning protons to modulate individual dose voxels, a dose plane comparison approach that maintained all of the capabilities of the well‐established γ test, but that also provided a more intuitive error parameterization, was desired.MethodsAnalysis was performed for 300 dose planes compared by searching all calculated points within a fixed radius around each measured pixel to determine the dose deviation. Dose plane agreement is reported as the dose difference minimum (DDM) within an empirically established search radius: ΔDmin(r). This per‐pixel metric is aggregated into a histogram binned by dose deviation. Search‐radius criteria were based on a weighted‐beamlet 3σ spatial deviation from imaging isocenter. Equipment setup error was mitigated during analysis using tracked image registration, ensuring beamlet deviations to be the dominant source of spatial error. The percentage of comparison points with <3% dose difference determined pass rate.ResultsThe mean beamlet radial deviation was 0.38mm from x‐ray isocenter, with a standard deviation of 0.19mm, such that 99.9% of relevant pencil beams were within 1 mm of nominal. The dose‐plane comparison data showed no change in passing rate between a 3%/1mm ΔDmin(r) analysis (97.6 +/‐ 3.6%) and a 3%/2mm γ test (97.7 +/‐ 3.2%).ConclusionsPSQA dose‐comparison agreements corresponding to a search radius outside of machine performance limits are likely false positives. However, the elliptical shape of the γ test is too dose‐restrictive with a spatial‐error threshold set at 1 mm. This work introduces a cylindrical search shape, proposed herein as more relevant to plan quality, as part of the new DDM planar‐dose comparison algorithm. DDM accepts all pixels within a given dose threshold inside the search radius, and carries forward plan‐quality metrics in a straightforward manner for evaluation.

Purpose Intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) is sensitive to uncertainties from patient setup and proton beam range, as well as interplay effect. In addition, respiratory motion may vary from cycle to cycle, and also from day to day. These uncertainties can severely degrade the original plan quality and potentially affect patient’s outcome. In this work, we developed a new tool to comprehensively consider the impact of all these uncertainties and provide plan robustness evaluation under them. Methods We developed a comprehensive plan robustness evaluation tool that considered both uncertainties from patient setup and proton beam range, as well as respiratory motion simultaneously. To mimic patients' respiratory motion, the time spent in each phase was randomly sampled based on patient‐specific breathing pattern parameters as acquired during the four‐dimensional (4D)‐computed tomography (CT) simulation. Spots were then assigned to one specific phase according to the temporal relationship between spot delivery sequence and patients’ respiratory motion. Dose in each phase was calculated by summing contributions from all the spots delivered in that phase. The final 4D dynamic dose was obtained by deforming all doses in each phase to the maximum exhalation phase. Three hundred (300) scenarios (10 different breathing patterns with 30 different setup and range uncertainty scenario combinations) were calculated for each plan. The dose‐volume histograms (DVHs) band method was used to assess plan robustness. Benchmarking the tool as an application’s example, we compared plan robustness under both three‐dimensional (3D) and 4D robustly optimized IMPT plans for 10 nonrandomly selected patients with non‐small cell lung cancer. Results The developed comprehensive plan robustness tool had been successfully applied to compare the plan robustness between 3D and 4D robustly optimized IMPT plans for 10 lung cancer patients. In the presence of interplay effect with uncertainties considered simultaneously, 4D robustly optimized plans provided significantly better CTV coverage (D 95% , P = 0.002), CTV homogeneity (D 5% ‐D 95% , P = 0.002) with less target hot spots (D 5% , P = 0.002), and target coverage robustness (CTV D 95% bandwidth, P = 0.004) compared to 3D robustly optimized plans. Superior dose sparing of normal lung (lung D mean , P = 0.020) favoring 4D plans and comparable normal tissue sparing including esophagus, heart, and spinal cord for both 3D and 4D plans were observed. The calculation time for all patients included in this study was 11.4 ± 2.6 min. Conclusion A comprehensive plan robustness evaluation tool was successfully developed and benchmarked for plan robustness evaluation in the presence of interplay effect, setup and range uncertainties. The very high efficiency of this tool marks its clinical adaptation, highly practical and versatile nature, including possible real‐time intra‐fractional interplay effect evaluation as a potential application for future use.

PurposeTo commission an open source Monte Carlo (MC) dose engine, “MCsquare” for a synchrotron‐based proton machine, integrate it into our in‐house C++‐based I/O user interface and our web‐based software platform, expand its functionalities, and improve calculation efficiency for intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT).MethodsWe commissioned MCsquare using a double Gaussian beam model based on in‐air lateral profiles, integrated depth dose of 97 beam energies, and measurements of various spread‐out Bragg peaks (SOBPs). Then we integrated MCsquare into our C++‐based dose calculation code and web‐based second check platform “DOSeCHECK.” We validated the commissioned MCsquare based on 12 different patient geometries and compared the dose calculation with a well‐benchmarked GPU‐accelerated MC (gMC) dose engine. We further improved the MCsquare efficiency by employing the computed tomography (CT) resampling approach. We also expanded its functionality by adding a linear energy transfer (LET)‐related model‐dependent biological dose calculation.ResultsDifferences between MCsquare calculations and SOBP measurements were <2.5% (<1.5% for ~85% of measurements) in water. The dose distributions calculated using MCsquare agreed well with the results calculated using gMC in patient geometries. The average 3D gamma analysis (2%/2 mm) passing rates comparing MCsquare and gMC calculations in the 12 patient geometries were 98.0 ± 1.0%. The computation time to calculate one IMPT plan in patients’ geometries using an inexpensive CPU workstation (Intel Xeon E5‐2680 2.50 GHz) was 2.3 ± 1.8 min after the variable resolution technique was adopted. All calculations except for one craniospinal patient were finished within 3.5 min.ConclusionsMCsquare was successfully commissioned for a synchrotron‐based proton beam therapy delivery system and integrated into our web‐based second check platform. After adopting CT resampling and implementing LET model‐dependent biological dose calculation capabilities, MCsquare will be sufficiently efficient and powerful to achieve Monte Carlo‐based and LET‐guided robust optimization in IMPT, which will be done in the future studies.

Purpose: To describe and validate the dose calculation algorithm of an independent second-dose check software for spot scanning proton delivery systems with full width at half maximum between 5 and 14 mm and with a negligible spray component. Methods: The analytical dose engine of our independent second-dose check software employs an altered pencil beam algorithm with 3 lateral Gaussian components. It was commissioned using Geant4 and validated by comparison to point dose measurements at several depths within spread-out Bragg peaks of varying ranges, modulations, and field sizes. Water equivalent distance was used to compensate for inhomogeneous geometry. Twelve patients representing different disease sites were selected for validation. Dose calculation results in water were compared to a fast Monte Carlo code and ionization chamber array measurements using dose planes and dose profiles as well as 2-dimensional–3-dimensional and 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis. Results in patient geometry were compared to Monte Carlo simulation using dose–volume histogram indices, 3-dimensional–3-dimensional γ-index analysis, and inpatient dose profiles. Results: Dose engine model parameters were tuned to achieve 1.5% agreement with measured point doses. The in-water γ-index passing rates for the 12 patients using 3%/2 mm criteria were 99.5% ± 0.5% compared to Monte Carlo. The average inpatient γ-index analysis passing rate compared to Monte Carlo was 95.8% ± 2.9%. The average difference in mean dose to the clinical target volume between the dose engine and Monte Carlo was −0.4% ± 1.0%. For a typical plan, dose calculation time was 2 minutes on an inexpensive workstation. Conclusions: Following our commissioning process, the analytical dose engine was validated for all treatment sites except for the lung or for calculating dose–volume histogram indices involving point doses or critical structures immediately distal to target volumes. Monte Carlo simulations are recommended for these scenarios.

PurposeApproximate dose calculation methods were used in the nominal dose distribution and the perturbed dose distributions due to uncertainties in a commercial treatment planning system (CTPS) for robust optimization in intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT). We aimed to investigate whether the approximations influence plan quality, robustness, and interplay effect of the resulting IMPT plans for the treatment of locally advanced lung cancer patients.Materials and methodsTen consecutively treated locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were selected. Two IMPT plans were created for each patient using our in‐house developed TPS, named “Solo,” and also the CTPS, EclipseTM (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively. The plans were designed to deliver prescription doses to internal target volumes (ITV) drawn by a physician on averaged four‐dimensional computed tomography (4D‐CT). Solo plans were imported back to CTPS, and recalculated in CTPS for fair comparison. Both plans were further verified for each patient by recalculating doses in the inhalation and exhalation phases to ensure that all plans met clinical requirements. Plan robustness was quantified on all phases using dose‐volume‐histograms (DVH) indices in the worst‐case scenario. The interplay effect was evaluated for every plan using an in‐house developed software, which randomized starting phases of each field per fraction and accumulated dose in the exhalation phase based on the patient's breathing motion pattern and the proton spot delivery in a time‐dependent fashion. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test.ResultsCompared to the plans generated using CTPS on the averaged CT, Solo plans had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity (normalized by the prescription dose) in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.04% vs 96.28%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.020; ITV D5%–D95%: 7.20% vs 9.03%, P = 0.049] while all DVH indices were comparable in the nominal scenario. On the inhalation phase, Solo plans had better target dose coverage and cord Dmax in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.36% vs 98.45%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.014; cord Dmax: 20.07 vs 23.71 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027] with better target coverage and cord Dmax in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 97.89% vs 96.47%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 24.57 vs 28.14 Gy(RBE), P = 0.037]. On the exhalation phase, similar phenomena were observed in the nominal scenario [ITV D95%: 99.63% vs 98.87%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.037; cord Dmax: 19.67 vs 23.66 Gy(RBE), P = 0.039] and in the worst‐case scenario [ITV D95%: 98.20% vs 96.74%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.027; cord Dmax: 23.47 vs 27.93 Gy(RBE), P = 0.027]. In terms of interplay effect, plans generated by Solo had significantly better target dose coverage and homogeneity, less hot spots, and lower esophageal Dmean, and cord Dmax [ITV D95%: 101.81% vs 98.68%, Solo vs CTPS, P = 0.002; ITV D5%–D95%: 2.94% vs 7.51%, P = 0.002; cord Dmax: 18.87 vs 22.29 Gy(RBE), P = 0.014].ConclusionsSolo‐generated IMPT plans provide improved cord sparing, better target robustness in all considered phases, and reduced interplay effect compared with CTPS. Consequently, the approximation methods currently used in commercial TPS programs may have space for improvement in generating optimal IMPT plans for patient cases with locally advanced lung cancer.

BackgroundEsophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer in the world. Volumetric‐modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is widely used to treat distal esophageal carcinoma due to high conformality to the target and good sparing of organs at risk (OAR). It is not clear if small‐spot intensity‐modulated proton therapy (IMPT) demonstrates a dosimetric advantage over VMAT. In this study, we compared dosimetric performance of VMAT and small‐spot IMPT for distal esophageal carcinoma in terms of plan quality, plan robustness, and interplay effects.Methods35 distal esophageal carcinoma patients were retrospectively reviewed; 19 patients received small‐spot IMPT and the remaining 16 of them received VMAT. Both plans were generated by delivering prescription doses to clinical target volumes (CTVs) on phase‐averaged 4D‐CT's. The dose‐volume‐histogram (DVH) band method was used to quantify plan robustness. Software was developed to evaluate interplay effects with randomized starting phases for each field per fraction. DVH indices were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum test. For fair comparison, all the treatment plans were normalized to have the same CTVhigh D95% in the nominal scenario relative to the prescription dose.ResultsIn the nominal scenario, small‐spot IMPT delivered statistically significantly lower liver Dmean and V30Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, heart Dmean compared with VMAT. CTVhigh dose homogeneity and protection of other OARs were comparable between the two treatments. In terms of plan robustness, the IMPT and VMAT plans were comparable for kidney V18Gy[RBE], liver V30Gy[RBE], stomach V45Gy[RBE], lung Dmean, V5Gy[RBE], and V20Gy[RBE], cord Dmax and , liver Dmean, heart V20Gy[RBE], and V30Gy[RBE], but IMPT was significantly worse for CTVhigh D95%, , and D5%‐D95%, CTVlow D95%, heart Dmean, and V40Gy[RBE], requiring careful and experienced adjustments during the planning process and robustness considerations. The small‐spot IMPT plans still met the standard clinical requirements after interplay effects were considered.ConclusionsSmall‐spot IMPT decreases doses to heart, liver, and total lung compared to VMAT as well as achieves clinically acceptable plan robustness. Our study supports the use of small‐spot IMPT for the treatment of distal esophageal carcinoma.