一个Python包快速基于gpu的质子铅笔束剂量计算。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Mahasweta Bhattacharya, Calin Reamy, Heng Li, Junghoon Lee, William T Hrinivich
{"title":"一个Python包快速基于gpu的质子铅笔束剂量计算。","authors":"Mahasweta Bhattacharya, Calin Reamy, Heng Li, Junghoon Lee, William T Hrinivich","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Open-source GPU-based Monte Carlo (MC) proton dose calculation algorithms provide high speed and unparalleled accuracy but can be complex to integrate with new applications and remain slower than GPU-based pencil beam (PB) methods, which sacrifice some physical accuracy for sub-second plan calculation. We developed and validated a Python package implementing a GPU-based double Gaussian PB algorithm for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning research applications requiring a simple, widely compatible, and ultra-fast proton dose calculation solution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Beam parameters were derived from pristine Bragg peaks generated with MC for 98 energies in our clinical treatment planning system (TPS). We validated the PB approach against measurements by comparing lateral spot profiles (using single-Gaussian sigma) and proton ranges (using R80) for pristine Bragg peaks, as well as spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) in water. Further comparisons of PB and MC from the TPS were performed in a heterogeneous digital phantom and patient plans for four cancer sites using 3D gamma passing rates and dose metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PB algorithm enabled dose calculation following a single Python import statement. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) errors in sigma, R80, and SOBP dose were 0.05 ± 0.01, 0.0 ± 0.1 mm, and 0.4 ± 1.1%, respectively. Mean ± SD patient plan computation time was 0.28 ± 0.07 s for PB versus 4.68 ± 2.68 s for MC. Mean ± SD gamma passing rate at 2%/2 mm criteria was 96.0 ± 5.1%, and the mean ± SD percent difference in dose metrics was 0.5 ± 3.6%. PB accuracy degraded beyond bone and lung boundaries, characterized by inaccuracies in lateral proton scatter.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We developed a GPU-based proton PB algorithm compiled as a Python package, providing simple beam modeling, interface, and fast dose calculation for IMPT plan optimization research and development. Like other PB algorithms, accuracy is limited in highly heterogeneous regions such as the thorax.</p>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":" ","pages":"e70093"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Python package for fast GPU-based proton pencil beam dose calculation.\",\"authors\":\"Mahasweta Bhattacharya, Calin Reamy, Heng Li, Junghoon Lee, William T Hrinivich\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Open-source GPU-based Monte Carlo (MC) proton dose calculation algorithms provide high speed and unparalleled accuracy but can be complex to integrate with new applications and remain slower than GPU-based pencil beam (PB) methods, which sacrifice some physical accuracy for sub-second plan calculation. We developed and validated a Python package implementing a GPU-based double Gaussian PB algorithm for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning research applications requiring a simple, widely compatible, and ultra-fast proton dose calculation solution.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Beam parameters were derived from pristine Bragg peaks generated with MC for 98 energies in our clinical treatment planning system (TPS). We validated the PB approach against measurements by comparing lateral spot profiles (using single-Gaussian sigma) and proton ranges (using R80) for pristine Bragg peaks, as well as spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) in water. Further comparisons of PB and MC from the TPS were performed in a heterogeneous digital phantom and patient plans for four cancer sites using 3D gamma passing rates and dose metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PB algorithm enabled dose calculation following a single Python import statement. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) errors in sigma, R80, and SOBP dose were 0.05 ± 0.01, 0.0 ± 0.1 mm, and 0.4 ± 1.1%, respectively. Mean ± SD patient plan computation time was 0.28 ± 0.07 s for PB versus 4.68 ± 2.68 s for MC. Mean ± SD gamma passing rate at 2%/2 mm criteria was 96.0 ± 5.1%, and the mean ± SD percent difference in dose metrics was 0.5 ± 3.6%. PB accuracy degraded beyond bone and lung boundaries, characterized by inaccuracies in lateral proton scatter.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We developed a GPU-based proton PB algorithm compiled as a Python package, providing simple beam modeling, interface, and fast dose calculation for IMPT plan optimization research and development. Like other PB algorithms, accuracy is limited in highly heterogeneous regions such as the thorax.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e70093\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70093\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.70093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:基于gpu的开源蒙特卡罗(MC)质子剂量计算算法提供了高速和无与伦比的精度,但与新应用程序集成可能很复杂,并且比基于gpu的铅笔束(PB)方法慢,后者牺牲了亚秒计划计算的一些物理精度。我们开发并验证了一个Python包,实现了基于gpu的双高斯PB算法,用于强度调制质子治疗(IMPT)计划研究应用,需要一个简单,广泛兼容和超快速的质子剂量计算解决方案。方法:在我们的临床治疗计划系统(TPS)中,从MC产生的98个能量的原始布拉格峰中获得光束参数。我们通过比较水中原始布拉格峰的横向斑点分布(使用单高斯西格玛)和质子范围(使用R80)来验证PB方法。进一步比较来自TPS的PB和MC的异质性数字幻影和使用3D伽马通过率和剂量指标的四个癌症部位的患者计划。结果:PB算法在一个Python导入语句后启用剂量计算。sigma、R80和SOBP剂量的平均±标准差(SD)误差分别为0.05±0.01、0.0±0.1 mm和0.4±1.1%。平均±SD患者计划计算时间PB为0.28±0.07 s, MC为4.68±2.68 s。在2%/2 mm标准下,平均±SD γ γ合格率为96.0±5.1%,剂量指标的平均±SD百分比差异为0.5±3.6%。PB的准确性在骨和肺边界以外下降,其特征是侧向质子散射不准确。结论:开发了基于gpu的质子PB算法(Python包),为IMPT方案优化研发提供了简单的束流建模、接口和快速的剂量计算。与其他PB算法一样,在高度异构的区域(如胸腔),准确性受到限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Python package for fast GPU-based proton pencil beam dose calculation.

Purpose: Open-source GPU-based Monte Carlo (MC) proton dose calculation algorithms provide high speed and unparalleled accuracy but can be complex to integrate with new applications and remain slower than GPU-based pencil beam (PB) methods, which sacrifice some physical accuracy for sub-second plan calculation. We developed and validated a Python package implementing a GPU-based double Gaussian PB algorithm for intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) planning research applications requiring a simple, widely compatible, and ultra-fast proton dose calculation solution.

Methods: Beam parameters were derived from pristine Bragg peaks generated with MC for 98 energies in our clinical treatment planning system (TPS). We validated the PB approach against measurements by comparing lateral spot profiles (using single-Gaussian sigma) and proton ranges (using R80) for pristine Bragg peaks, as well as spread-out Bragg peaks (SOBPs) in water. Further comparisons of PB and MC from the TPS were performed in a heterogeneous digital phantom and patient plans for four cancer sites using 3D gamma passing rates and dose metrics.

Results: The PB algorithm enabled dose calculation following a single Python import statement. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) errors in sigma, R80, and SOBP dose were 0.05 ± 0.01, 0.0 ± 0.1 mm, and 0.4 ± 1.1%, respectively. Mean ± SD patient plan computation time was 0.28 ± 0.07 s for PB versus 4.68 ± 2.68 s for MC. Mean ± SD gamma passing rate at 2%/2 mm criteria was 96.0 ± 5.1%, and the mean ± SD percent difference in dose metrics was 0.5 ± 3.6%. PB accuracy degraded beyond bone and lung boundaries, characterized by inaccuracies in lateral proton scatter.

Conclusion: We developed a GPU-based proton PB algorithm compiled as a Python package, providing simple beam modeling, interface, and fast dose calculation for IMPT plan optimization research and development. Like other PB algorithms, accuracy is limited in highly heterogeneous regions such as the thorax.

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
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
×
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