Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Panxia Wu, Wenheng Zheng, Longfei Xu, XingXing Yuan, Changfei Gong, Changwei Luo, Junming Jian, Shenggou Ding, Yun Zhang
{"title":"Complementary roles of GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo and ArcCHECK in TomoTherapy quality assurance.","authors":"Panxia Wu, Wenheng Zheng, Longfei Xu, XingXing Yuan, Changfei Gong, Changwei Luo, Junming Jian, Shenggou Ding, Yun Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s13246-026-01750-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The complex dose delivery mechanisms of TomoTherapy (TOMO) demand rigorous patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). This study systematically evaluates the relationship between ArcCHECK measurements and GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (GPU-MC) calculations for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) TOMO plans across multiple gamma criteria, aiming to delineate their respective strengths and inform an optimized verification strategy. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 317 TOMO plans for NPC, each optimized using the Accuray Precision Treatment Planning System. Patient-specific dose verification was performed using ArcCHECK measurements and independent MC calculations implemented through PlanQA. Gamma passing rates (GPRs) were evaluated under nine different conditions, including both same-criterion and cross-criterion comparisons. To assess differences, agreement, and correlations between methods, statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Bland-Altman analysis, and Spearman correlation. Under identical Gamma criteria, there was no statistically significant difference in GPR between ArcCHECK and MC. However, cross-criterion comparisons revealed marked discrepancies, highlighting the criterion-dependent nature of GPR outcomes. Lenient standards typically exhibit good consistency and relatively minor deviations. Furthermore, the correlations among all combinations of these standards can be considered negligible. The comparable performance of GPU-MC and ArcCHECK under conventional criteria (3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm) validates ArcCHECK's established role in verifying delivery fidelity. Crucially, under the stringent 2%/2 mm criterion where ArcCHECK passing rates decline, MC provides critical diagnostic power to differentiate between discrepancies originating from the dose calculation algorithm and those arising from the physical delivery process. For TOMO PSQA, GPU-MC and ArcCHECK are complementary. An integrated approach leveraging both methods is therefore recommended.</p>","PeriodicalId":48490,"journal":{"name":"Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1383-1391"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-026-01750-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The complex dose delivery mechanisms of TomoTherapy (TOMO) demand rigorous patient-specific quality assurance (PSQA). This study systematically evaluates the relationship between ArcCHECK measurements and GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (GPU-MC) calculations for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) TOMO plans across multiple gamma criteria, aiming to delineate their respective strengths and inform an optimized verification strategy. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 317 TOMO plans for NPC, each optimized using the Accuray Precision Treatment Planning System. Patient-specific dose verification was performed using ArcCHECK measurements and independent MC calculations implemented through PlanQA. Gamma passing rates (GPRs) were evaluated under nine different conditions, including both same-criterion and cross-criterion comparisons. To assess differences, agreement, and correlations between methods, statistical analyses were conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Bland-Altman analysis, and Spearman correlation. Under identical Gamma criteria, there was no statistically significant difference in GPR between ArcCHECK and MC. However, cross-criterion comparisons revealed marked discrepancies, highlighting the criterion-dependent nature of GPR outcomes. Lenient standards typically exhibit good consistency and relatively minor deviations. Furthermore, the correlations among all combinations of these standards can be considered negligible. The comparable performance of GPU-MC and ArcCHECK under conventional criteria (3%/3 mm, 3%/2 mm) validates ArcCHECK's established role in verifying delivery fidelity. Crucially, under the stringent 2%/2 mm criterion where ArcCHECK passing rates decline, MC provides critical diagnostic power to differentiate between discrepancies originating from the dose calculation algorithm and those arising from the physical delivery process. For TOMO PSQA, GPU-MC and ArcCHECK are complementary. An integrated approach leveraging both methods is therefore recommended.

gpu加速蒙特卡罗和ArcCHECK在TomoTherapy质量保证中的互补作用。
TOMO复杂的给药机制需要严格的患者特异性质量保证(PSQA)。本研究系统地评估了ArcCHECK测量和gpu加速蒙特卡罗(GPU-MC)计算之间的关系,以跨多个伽马标准对鼻咽癌(NPC) TOMO计划进行评估,旨在描述它们各自的优势,并为优化的验证策略提供信息。回顾性分析了317个NPC的TOMO计划,每个计划都使用Accuray精密治疗计划系统进行优化。患者特异性剂量验证使用ArcCHECK测量和独立MC计算通过PlanQA实现。伽玛通过率(GPRs)在九种不同的条件下进行评估,包括相同标准和交叉标准的比较。为了评估方法之间的差异、一致性和相关性,使用Wilcoxon sign -rank检验、Bland-Altman分析和Spearman相关进行了统计分析。在相同的Gamma标准下,ArcCHECK和MC之间的GPR没有统计学意义上的差异。然而,跨标准比较显示了显著的差异,突出了GPR结果的标准依赖性。宽松的标准通常表现出良好的一致性和相对较小的偏差。此外,这些标准的所有组合之间的相关性可以被认为可以忽略不计。GPU-MC和ArcCHECK在常规标准(3%/ 3mm, 3%/ 2mm)下的可比性能验证了ArcCHECK在验证传输保真度方面的既定作用。至关重要的是,在严格的2%/ 2mm标准下,ArcCHECK通过率下降,MC提供了关键的诊断能力,以区分剂量计算算法引起的差异和物理给药过程引起的差异。对于TOMO PSQA, GPU-MC和ArcCHECK是互补的。因此,建议采用综合利用这两种方法的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
110
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书