带虹膜准直器的电子刀 M6 的 GPU 加速蒙特卡罗剂量验证的临床应用。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Peng Zhou, Yankui Chang, Shijun Li, Jia Luo, Lin Lei, Yufen Shang, Xi Pei, Qiang Ren, Chuan Chen
{"title":"带虹膜准直器的电子刀 M6 的 GPU 加速蒙特卡罗剂量验证的临床应用。","authors":"Peng Zhou, Yankui Chang, Shijun Li, Jia Luo, Lin Lei, Yufen Shang, Xi Pei, Qiang Ren, Chuan Chen","doi":"10.1186/s13014-024-02446-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To apply an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose verification for CyberKnife M6 with Iris collimator and evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of RayTracing (TPS-RT) algorithm and Monte Carlo (TPS-MC) algorithm in the Precision treatment planning system (TPS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>GPU-accelerated MC algorithm (ArcherQA-CK) was integrated into a commercial dose verification system, ArcherQA, to implement the patient-specific quality assurance in the CyberKnife M6 system. 30 clinical cases (10 cases in head, and 10 cases in chest, and 10 cases in abdomen) were collected in this study. For each case, three different dose calculation methods (TPS-MC, TPS-RT and ArcherQA-CK) were implemented based on the same treatment plan and compared with each other. For evaluation, the 3D global gamma analysis and dose parameters of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed comparatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For gamma pass rates at the criterion of 2%/2 mm, the results were over 98.0% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in head cases, 84.9% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 98.0% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 83.3% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in chest cases, 98.2% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 99.4% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 94.5% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in abdomen cases. For dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) in chest cases, the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and ArcherQA-CK vs. TPS-MC had significant difference (P < 0.01), and the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK were similar (P > 0.05). ArcherQA-CK had less calculation time compared with TPS-MC (1.66 min vs. 65.11 min).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our proposed MC dose engine (ArcherQA-CK) has a high degree of consistency with the Precision TPS-MC algorithm, which can quickly identify the calculation errors of TPS-RT algorithm for some chest cases. ArcherQA-CK can provide accurate patient-specific quality assurance in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":49639,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11221037/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical application of a GPU-accelerated monte carlo dose verification for cyberknife M6 with Iris collimator.\",\"authors\":\"Peng Zhou, Yankui Chang, Shijun Li, Jia Luo, Lin Lei, Yufen Shang, Xi Pei, Qiang Ren, Chuan Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13014-024-02446-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To apply an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose verification for CyberKnife M6 with Iris collimator and evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of RayTracing (TPS-RT) algorithm and Monte Carlo (TPS-MC) algorithm in the Precision treatment planning system (TPS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>GPU-accelerated MC algorithm (ArcherQA-CK) was integrated into a commercial dose verification system, ArcherQA, to implement the patient-specific quality assurance in the CyberKnife M6 system. 30 clinical cases (10 cases in head, and 10 cases in chest, and 10 cases in abdomen) were collected in this study. For each case, three different dose calculation methods (TPS-MC, TPS-RT and ArcherQA-CK) were implemented based on the same treatment plan and compared with each other. For evaluation, the 3D global gamma analysis and dose parameters of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed comparatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For gamma pass rates at the criterion of 2%/2 mm, the results were over 98.0% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in head cases, 84.9% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 98.0% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 83.3% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in chest cases, 98.2% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 99.4% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 94.5% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in abdomen cases. For dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) in chest cases, the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and ArcherQA-CK vs. TPS-MC had significant difference (P < 0.01), and the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK were similar (P > 0.05). ArcherQA-CK had less calculation time compared with TPS-MC (1.66 min vs. 65.11 min).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our proposed MC dose engine (ArcherQA-CK) has a high degree of consistency with the Precision TPS-MC algorithm, which can quickly identify the calculation errors of TPS-RT algorithm for some chest cases. ArcherQA-CK can provide accurate patient-specific quality assurance in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiation Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11221037/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiation Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02446-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02446-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:为配备虹膜准直器的CyberKnife M6应用独立的GPU加速蒙特卡洛(MC)剂量验证,并评估精确治疗计划系统(TPS)中光线追踪(TPS-RT)算法和蒙特卡洛(TPS-MC)算法的剂量计算精度:将GPU加速的MC算法(ArcherQA-CK)集成到商业剂量验证系统ArcherQA中,在CyberKnife M6系统中实现特定患者的质量保证。本研究收集了 30 例临床病例(头部 10 例、胸部 10 例、腹部 10 例)。对于每个病例,都根据相同的治疗方案采用了三种不同的剂量计算方法(TPS-MC、TPS-RT 和 ArcherQA-CK),并进行了比较。为了进行评估,对三维全伽马分析以及靶体积和危险器官(OARs)的剂量参数进行了比较分析:以 2%/2 mm 为标准,TPS-MC 与 TPS-RT、TPS-MC 与 ArcherQA-CK 和 TPS-RT 与 ArcherQA-CK 在头部病例的伽马通过率超过 98.0%,TPS-MC 与 TPS-RT 为 84.9%,TPS-MC 与 ArcherQA-CK 为 98.0%,TPS-MC 与 ArcherQA-CK 为 84.9%,TPS-MC 与 ArcherQA-CK 为 98.0%。在胸部病例中,TPS-MC 与 ArcherQA-CK 相比,TPS-RT 为 84.9%;TPS-MC 与 ArcherQA-CK 相比,TPS-RT 为 98.9%;在腹部病例中,TPS-MC 与 ArcherQA-CK 相比,TPS-RT 为 99.4%;TPS-RT 与 ArcherQA-CK 相比,TPS-RT 为 94.5%。在胸部病例的规划靶体积(PTV)剂量参数方面,TPS-RT 与 TPS-MC 和 ArcherQA-CK 与 TPS-MC 的偏差有显著差异(P 0.05)。与 TPS-MC 相比,ArcherQA-CK 的计算时间更短(1.66 分钟对 65.11 分钟):我们提出的 MC 剂量引擎(ArcherQA-CK)与精密 TPS-MC 算法具有高度一致性,可快速识别 TPS-RT 算法在某些胸腔病例中的计算错误。ArcherQA-CK 可在临床实践中为特定患者提供准确的质量保证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical application of a GPU-accelerated monte carlo dose verification for cyberknife M6 with Iris collimator.

Purpose: To apply an independent GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo (MC) dose verification for CyberKnife M6 with Iris collimator and evaluate the dose calculation accuracy of RayTracing (TPS-RT) algorithm and Monte Carlo (TPS-MC) algorithm in the Precision treatment planning system (TPS).

Methods: GPU-accelerated MC algorithm (ArcherQA-CK) was integrated into a commercial dose verification system, ArcherQA, to implement the patient-specific quality assurance in the CyberKnife M6 system. 30 clinical cases (10 cases in head, and 10 cases in chest, and 10 cases in abdomen) were collected in this study. For each case, three different dose calculation methods (TPS-MC, TPS-RT and ArcherQA-CK) were implemented based on the same treatment plan and compared with each other. For evaluation, the 3D global gamma analysis and dose parameters of the target volume and organs at risk (OARs) were analyzed comparatively.

Results: For gamma pass rates at the criterion of 2%/2 mm, the results were over 98.0% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in head cases, 84.9% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 98.0% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 83.3% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in chest cases, 98.2% for TPS-MC vs.TPS-RT, 99.4% for TPS-MC vs. ArcherQA-CK and 94.5% for TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK in abdomen cases. For dose parameters of planning target volume (PTV) in chest cases, the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and ArcherQA-CK vs. TPS-MC had significant difference (P < 0.01), and the deviations of TPS-RT vs. TPS-MC and TPS-RT vs. ArcherQA-CK were similar (P > 0.05). ArcherQA-CK had less calculation time compared with TPS-MC (1.66 min vs. 65.11 min).

Conclusions: Our proposed MC dose engine (ArcherQA-CK) has a high degree of consistency with the Precision TPS-MC algorithm, which can quickly identify the calculation errors of TPS-RT algorithm for some chest cases. ArcherQA-CK can provide accurate patient-specific quality assurance in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Radiation Oncology
Radiation Oncology ONCOLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.80%
发文量
181
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Radiation Oncology encompasses all aspects of research that impacts on the treatment of cancer using radiation. It publishes findings in molecular and cellular radiation biology, radiation physics, radiation technology, and clinical oncology.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信