1
|
Vidal M, Gérard A, Floquet V, Forthomme J, Christensen JB, Almhagen E, Grusell E, Heymans V, Rossomme S, Dumas S, Trimaud R, Hérault J. Beam monitor chamber calibration of a synchro-cyclotron high dose rate per pulse pulsed scanned proton beam. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:085016. [PMID: 38252970 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad2123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2022] [Accepted: 01/22/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
Objective. Ionization chambers, mostly used for beam calibration and for reference dosimetry, can show high recombination effects in pulsed high dose rate proton beams. The aims of this paper are: first, to characterize the linearity response of newly designed asymmetrical beam monitor chambers (ABMC) in a 100-226 MeV pulsed high dose rate per pulse scanned proton beam; and secondly, to calibrate the ABMC with a PPC05 (IBA Dosimetry) plane parallel ionization chamber and compare to calibration with a home-made Faraday cup (FC).Approach. The ABMC response linearity was evaluated with both the FC and a PTW 60019 microDiamond detector. Regarding ionometry-based ABMC calibration, recombination factors were evaluated theoretically, then numerically, and finally experimentally measured in water for a plane parallel ionization chamber PPC05 (IBA Dosimetry) throughkssaturation curves. Finally, ABMC calibration was also achieved with FC and compared to the ionometry method for 7 energies.Main results. Linearity measurements showed that recombination losses in the new ABMC design were well taken into account for the whole range of the machine dose rates. The two-voltage-method was not suitable for recombination correction, but Jaffé's plots analysis was needed, emphasizing the current IAEA TRS-398 reference protocol limitations. Concerning ABMC calibration, FC based absorbed dose estimation and PPC05-based absorbed dose estimation differ by less than 6.3% for the investigated energies.Significance.So far, no update on reference dosimetry protocols is available to estimate the absorbed dose in ionization chambers for clinical high dose rate per pulse pulsed scanned proton beams. This work proposes a validation of the new ABMC design, a method to take into account the recombination effect for ionometry-based ABMC calibration and a comparison with FC dose estimation in this type of proton beams.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie Vidal
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie-Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, France
| | - Anaïs Gérard
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie-Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, France
| | - Vincent Floquet
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie-Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, France
| | | | - Jeppe Brage Christensen
- DTU Health Tech, Technical University of Denmark, Roskilde, Denmark
- Department of Radiation Safety and Security, Paul Scherrer Institute, PSI Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Erik Almhagen
- Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Medical Radiation Science-Skandion Clinics Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Erik Grusell
- Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Medical Radiation Science-Skandion Clinics Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | | | - Serge Dumas
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie-Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, France
| | - Richard Trimaud
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie-Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, France
| | - Joël Hérault
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie-Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Galve P, Arias-Valcayo F, Villa-Abaunza A, Ibáñez P, Udías JM. UMC-PET: a fast and flexible Monte Carlo PET simulator. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:035018. [PMID: 38198727 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad1cf9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 01/10/2024] [Indexed: 01/12/2024]
Abstract
Objective.The GPU-based Ultra-fast Monte Carlo positron emission tomography simulator (UMC-PET) incorporates the physics of the emission, transport and detection of radiation in PET scanners. It includes positron range, non-colinearity, scatter and attenuation, as well as detector response. The objective of this work is to present and validate UMC-PET as a a multi-purpose, accurate, fast and flexible PET simulator.Approach.We compared UMC-PET against PeneloPET, a well-validated MC PET simulator, both in preclinical and clinical scenarios. Different phantoms for scatter fraction (SF) assessment following NEMA protocols were simulated in a 6R-SuperArgus and a Biograph mMR scanner, comparing energy histograms, NEMA SF, and sensitivity for different energy windows. A comparison with real data reported in the literature on the Biograph scanner is also shown.Main results.NEMA SF and sensitivity estimated by UMC-PET where within few percent of PeneloPET predictions. The discrepancies can be attributed to small differences in the physics modeling. Running in a 11 GB GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU, UMC-PET is ∼1500 to ∼2000 times faster than PeneloPET executing in a single core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU W-2155 @ 3.30 GHz.Significance.UMC-PET employs a voxelized scheme for the scanner, patient adjacent objects (such as shieldings or the patient bed), and the activity distribution. This makes UMC-PET extremely flexible. Its high simulation speed allows applications such as MC scatter correction, faster SRM estimation for complex scanners, or even MC iterative image reconstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pablo Galve
- Grupo de Física Nuclear, EMFTEL & IPARCOS, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, CEI Moncloa, 28040 Madrid, Spain
- Université Paris Cité, Inserm, PARCC, F-75015 Paris, France
- Health Research Institute of the Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Fernando Arias-Valcayo
- Grupo de Física Nuclear, EMFTEL & IPARCOS, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, CEI Moncloa, 28040 Madrid, Spain
- Health Research Institute of the Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Amaia Villa-Abaunza
- Grupo de Física Nuclear, EMFTEL & IPARCOS, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, CEI Moncloa, 28040 Madrid, Spain
| | - Paula Ibáñez
- Grupo de Física Nuclear, EMFTEL & IPARCOS, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, CEI Moncloa, 28040 Madrid, Spain
- Health Research Institute of the Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid, Spain
| | - José Manuel Udías
- Grupo de Física Nuclear, EMFTEL & IPARCOS, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, CEI Moncloa, 28040 Madrid, Spain
- Health Research Institute of the Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Henthorn NT, Gardner LL, Aitkenhead AH, Rowland BC, Shin J, Smith EAK, Merchant MJ, Mackay RI, Kirkby KJ, Chaudhary P, Prise KM, McMahon SJ, Underwood TSA. Proposing a Clinical Model for RBE Based on Proton Track-End Counts. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023; 116:916-926. [PMID: 36642109 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.12.056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Revised: 12/21/2022] [Accepted: 12/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE In proton therapy, the clinical application of linear energy transfer (LET) optimization remains contentious, in part because of challenges associated with the definition and calculation of LET and its exact relationship with relative biological effectiveness (RBE) because of large variation in experimental in vitro data. This has raised interest in other metrics with favorable properties for biological optimization, such as the number of proton track ends in a voxel. In this work, we propose a novel model for clinical calculations of RBE, based on proton track end counts. METHODS AND MATERIALS We developed an effective dose concept to translate between the total proton track-end count per unit mass in a voxel and a proton RBE value. Dose, track end, and dose-averaged LET (LETd) distributions were simulated using Monte Carlo models for a series of water phantoms, in vitro radiobiological studies, and patient treatment plans. We evaluated the correlation between track ends and regions of elevated biological effectiveness in comparison to LETd-based models of RBE. RESULTS Track ends were found to correlate with biological effects in in vitro experiments with an accuracy comparable to LETd. In patient simulations, our track end model identified the same biological hotspots as predicted by LETd-based radiobiological models of proton RBE. CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that, for clinical optimization and evaluation, an RBE model based on proton track end counts may match LETd-based models in terms of information provided while also offering superior statistical properties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas T Henthorn
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.
| | - Lydia L Gardner
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Benjamin C Rowland
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Jungwook Shin
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Edward A K Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Pankaj Chaudhary
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Kevin M Prise
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen J McMahon
- Patrick G. Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy S A Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Leo Cancer Care Ltd, Unit 1 Woodbridge House, Chapel Rd, Smallfield, Horley RH6 9NW, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schafasand M, Resch AF, Traneus E, Glimelius L, Fossati P, Stock M, Gora J, Georg D, Carlino A. Technical note: In silico benchmarking of the linear energy transfer-based functionalities for carbon ion beams in a commercial treatment planning system. Med Phys 2023; 50:1871-1878. [PMID: 36534738 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 12/04/2022] [Accepted: 12/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The increasing number of studies dealing with linear energy transfer (LET)-based evaluation and optimization in the field of carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT) indicates the rising demand for LET implementation in commercial treatment planning systems (TPS). Benchmarking studies could play a key role in detecting (and thus preventing) computation errors prior implementing such functionalities in a TPS. PURPOSE This in silico study was conducted to benchmark the following two LET-related functionalities in a commercial TPS against Monte Carlo simulations: (1) dose averaged LET (LETd ) scoring and (2) physical dose filtration based on LET for future LET-based treatment plan evaluation and optimization studies. METHODS The LETd scoring and LET-based dose filtering (in which the deposited dose can be separated into the dose below and above the user specified LET threshold) functionalities for carbon ions in the research version RayStation (RS) 9A-IonPG TPS (RaySearch Laboratories, Sweden) were benchmarked against GATE/Geant4 simulations. Pristine Bragg peaks (BPs) and cuboid targets, positioned at different depths in a homogeneous water phantom and a setup with heterogeneity were used for this study. RESULTS For all setups (homogeneous and heterogeneous), the mean absolute (and relative) LETd difference was less than 1 keV/ μ $\umu$ m (3.5%) in the plateau and target and less than 2 keV/ μ $\umu$ m (8.3%) in the fragmentation tail. The maximum local differences were 4 and 6 keV/ μ $\umu$ m, respectively. The mean absolute (and relative) physical dose differences for both low- and high-LET doses were less than 1 cGy (1.5%) in the plateau, target and tail with a maximum absolute difference of 2 cGy. CONCLUSIONS No computation error was found in the tested functionalities except for LETd in lateral direction outside the target, showing the limitation of the implemented monochrome model in the tested TPS version.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mansure Schafasand
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Andreas Franz Resch
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | | | - Piero Fossati
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- Department of Oncology, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems an der Donau, Austria
| | - Markus Stock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- Department of Oncology, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems an der Donau, Austria
| | - Joanna Gora
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
McNamara K, Schiavi A, Borys D, Brzezinski K, Gajewski J, Kopeć R, Rucinski A, Skóra T, Makkar S, Hrbacek J, Weber DC, Lomax AJ, Winterhalter C. GPU accelerated Monte Carlo scoring of positron emitting isotopes produced during proton therapy for PET verification. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67. [PMID: 36541512 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aca515] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Objective.Verification of delivered proton therapy treatments is essential for reaping the many benefits of the modality, with the most widely proposedin vivoverification technique being the imaging of positron emitting isotopes generated in the patient during treatment using positron emission tomography (PET). The purpose of this work is to reduce the computational resources and time required for simulation of patient activation during proton therapy using the GPU accelerated Monte Carlo code FRED, and to validate the predicted activity against the widely used Monte Carlo code GATE.Approach.We implement a continuous scoring approach for the production of positron emitting isotopes within FRED version 5.59.9. We simulate treatment plans delivered to 95 head and neck patients at Centrum Cyklotronowe Bronowice using this GPU implementation, and verify the accuracy using the Monte Carlo toolkit GATE version 9.0.Main results.We report an average reduction in computational time by a factor of 50 when using a local system with 2 GPUs as opposed to a large compute cluster utilising between 200 to 700 CPU threads, enabling simulation of patient activity within an average of 2.9 min as opposed to 146 min. All simulated plans are in good agreement across the two Monte Carlo codes. The two codes agree within a maximum of 0.95σon a voxel-by-voxel basis for the prediction of 7 different isotopes across 472 simulated fields delivered to 95 patients, with the average deviation over all fields being 6.4 × 10-3σ.Significance.The implementation of activation calculations in the GPU accelerated Monte Carlo code FRED provides fast and reliable simulation of patient activation following proton therapy, allowing for research and development of clinical applications of range verification for this treatment modality using PET to proceed at a rapid pace.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Keegan McNamara
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.,Physics Department, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Angelo Schiavi
- Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Damian Borys
- Department of Systems Biology and Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland.,Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
| | - Karol Brzezinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
| | - Jan Gajewski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
| | - Renata Kopeć
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
| | - Tomasz Skóra
- Department of Radiotherapy, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Kraków Branch, Kraków, Poland
| | - Shubhangi Makkar
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.,Physics Department, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Jan Hrbacek
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland
| | - Damien C Weber
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.,Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Antony J Lomax
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.,Physics Department, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Carla Winterhalter
- Centre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Villigen, Switzerland.,Physics Department, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Herald M, Nicuşan A, Wheldon TK, Seville J, Windows-Yule C. Autonomous digitizer calibration of a Monte Carlo detector model through evolutionary simulation. Sci Rep 2022; 12:19535. [PMID: 36376375 PMCID: PMC9663564 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-24022-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 11/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Simulating the response of a radiation detector is a modelling challenge due to the stochastic nature of radiation, often complex geometries, and multi-stage signal processing. While sophisticated tools for Monte Carlo simulation have been developed for radiation transport, emulating signal processing and data loss must be accomplished using a simplified model of the electronics called the digitizer. Due to a large number of free parameters, calibrating a digitizer quickly becomes an optimisation problem. To address this, we propose a novel technique by which evolutionary algorithms calibrate a digitizer autonomously. We demonstrate this by calibrating six free parameters in a digitizer model for the ADAC Forte. The accuracy of solutions is quantified via a cost function measuring the absolute percent difference between simulated and experimental coincidence count rates across a robust characterisation data set, including three detector configurations and a range of source activities. Ultimately, this calibration produces a count rate response with 5.8% mean difference to the experiment, improving from 18.3% difference when manually calibrated. Using evolutionary algorithms for model calibration is a notable advancement because this method is novel, autonomous, fault-tolerant, and achieved through a direct comparison of simulation to reality. The software used in this work has been made freely available through a GitHub repository.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Herald
- School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
| | - Andrei Nicuşan
- School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tzany Kokalova Wheldon
- School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Positron Imaging Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jonathan Seville
- School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Positron Imaging Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Christopher Windows-Yule
- School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Positron Imaging Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sarrut D, Arbor N, Baudier T, Borys D, Etxebeste A, Fuchs H, Gajewski J, Grevillot L, Jan S, Kagadis GC, Kang HG, Kirov A, Kochebina O, Krzemien W, Lomax A, Papadimitroulas P, Pommranz C, Roncali E, Rucinski A, Winterhalter C, Maigne L. The OpenGATE ecosystem for Monte Carlo simulation in medical physics. Phys Med Biol 2022; 67:10.1088/1361-6560/ac8c83. [PMID: 36001985 PMCID: PMC11149651 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac8c83] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2022] [Accepted: 08/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
This paper reviews the ecosystem of GATE, an open-source Monte Carlo toolkit for medical physics. Based on the shoulders of Geant4, the principal modules (geometry, physics, scorers) are described with brief descriptions of some key concepts (Volume, Actors, Digitizer). The main source code repositories are detailed together with the automated compilation and tests processes (Continuous Integration). We then described how the OpenGATE collaboration managed the collaborative development of about one hundred developers during almost 20 years. The impact of GATE on medical physics and cancer research is then summarized, and examples of a few key applications are given. Finally, future development perspectives are indicated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Sarrut
- Université de Lyon; CREATIS; CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1294; INSA-Lyon; Université Lyon 1, Léon Bérard cancer center, Lyon, France
| | - Nicolas Arbor
- Université de Strasbourg, IPHC, CNRS, UMR7178, F-67037 Strasbourg, France
| | - Thomas Baudier
- Université de Lyon; CREATIS; CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1294; INSA-Lyon; Université Lyon 1, Léon Bérard cancer center, Lyon, France
| | - Damian Borys
- Department of Systems Biology and Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
| | - Ane Etxebeste
- Université de Lyon; CREATIS; CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1294; INSA-Lyon; Université Lyon 1, Léon Bérard cancer center, Lyon, France
| | - Hermann Fuchs
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Wiener Neustadt, Austria
- Medical University of Vienna, Department of Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, A-1090 Wien, Austria
| | - Jan Gajewski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | | | - Sébastien Jan
- Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm, CNRS, CEA, Laboratoire d'Imagerie Biomédicale Multimodale (BioMaps), F-91401 Orsay, France
| | - George C Kagadis
- 3DMI Research Group, Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
| | - Han Gyu Kang
- National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology (QST), 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan
| | - Assen Kirov
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer, New York, NY 10021, United States of America
| | - Olga Kochebina
- Université Paris-Saclay, Inserm, CNRS, CEA, Laboratoire d'Imagerie Biomédicale Multimodale (BioMaps), F-91401 Orsay, France
| | - Wojciech Krzemien
- High Energy Physics Division, National Centre for Nuclear Research, Otwock-Świerk, Poland
- Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Applied Computer Science, Jagiellonian University, S. Lojasiewicza 11, 30-348 Krakow, Poland
- Centre for Theranostics, Jagiellonian University, Kopernika 40 St, 31 501 Krakow, Poland
| | - Antony Lomax
- Center for Proton Therapy, PSI, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Christian Pommranz
- Werner Siemens Imaging Center, Department of Preclinical Imaging and Radiopharmacy, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Roentgenweg 13, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany
- Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Eberhard Karls University Tuebingen, Sand 1, D-72076 Tuebingen, Germany
| | - Emilie Roncali
- University of California Davis, Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Radiology, Davis, CA 95616, United States of America
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Carla Winterhalter
- Center for Proton Therapy, PSI, Switzerland
- Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Lydia Maigne
- Université Clermont Auvergne, Laboratoire de Physique de Clermont, CNRS, UMR 6533, F-63178 Aubière, France
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Resch AF, Schafasand M, Lackner N, Niessen T, Beck S, Elia A, Boersma D, Grevillot L, Fossati P, Glimelius L, Stock M, Georg D, Carlino A. Technical note: Impact of beamline-specific particle energy spectra on clinical plans in carbon ion beam therapy. Med Phys 2022; 49:4092-4098. [PMID: 35416302 PMCID: PMC9321194 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15652] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2021] [Revised: 03/17/2022] [Accepted: 03/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The Local Effect Model version one (LEM I) is applied clinically across Europe to quantify the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of carbon ion beams. It requires the full particle fluence spectrum differential in energy in each voxel as input parameter. Treatment planning systems (TPSs) use beamline-specific look-up tables generated with Monte Carlo (MC) codes. In this study, the changes in RBE weighted dose were quantified using different levels of details in the simulation or different MC codes. METHODS The particle fluence differential in energy was simulated with FLUKA and Geant4 at 500 depths in water in 1-mm steps for 58 initial carbon ion energies (between 120.0 and 402.8 MeV/u). A dedicated beam model was applied, including the full description of the Nozzle using GATE-RTionV1.0 (Geant4.10.03p03). In addition, two tables generated with FLUKA were compared. The starting points of the FLUKA simulations were phase space (PhS) files from, firstly, the Geant4 nozzle simulations, and secondly, a clinical beam model where an analytic approach was used to mimic the beamline. Treatment plans (TPs) were generated with RayStation 8B (RaySearch Laboratories AB, Sweden) for cubic targets in water and 10 clinical patient cases using the clinical beam model. Subsequently, the RBE weighted dose was re-computed using the two other fluence tables (FLUKA PhS or Geant4). RESULTS The fluence spectra of the primary and secondary particles simulated with Geant4 and FLUKA generally agreed well for the primary particles. Differences were mainly observed for the secondary particles. Interchanging the two energy spectra (FLUKA vs. GEANT4) to calculate the RBE weighted dose distributions resulted in average deviations of less than 1% in the entrance up to the end of the target region, with a maximum local deviation at the distal edge of the target. In the fragment tail, larger discrepancies of up to 5% on average were found for deep-seated targets. The patient and water phantom cases demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSION RBE weighted doses agreed well within all tested setups, confirming the clinical beam model provided by the TPS vendor. Furthermore, the results showed that the open source and generally available MC code Geant4 (in particular using GATE or GATE-RTion) can also be used to generate basic beam data required for RBE calculation in carbon ion therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Alessio Elia
- MedAustron Ion Therapy CentreWiener NeustadtAustria
| | - David Boersma
- MedAustron Ion Therapy CentreWiener NeustadtAustria
- ACMITGmbHWiener NeustadtAustria
| | | | | | | | - Markus Stock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy CentreWiener NeustadtAustria
| | - Dietmar Georg
- Department of Radiation OncologyMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Efficient full Monte Carlo modelling and multi-energy generative model development of an advanced X-ray device. Z Med Phys 2022:S0939-3889(22)00061-7. [DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.04.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2022] [Revised: 04/28/2022] [Accepted: 04/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
10
|
Ali Y, Monini C, Russeil E, Létang JM, Testa E, Maigne L, Beuve M. Estimate of the Biological Dose in Hadrontherapy Using GATE. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:1667. [PMID: 35406438 PMCID: PMC8996851 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14071667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2022] [Revised: 03/16/2022] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/10/2022] Open
Abstract
For the evaluation of the biological effects, Monte Carlo toolkits were used to provide an RBE-weighted dose using databases of survival fraction coefficients predicted through biophysical models. Biophysics models, such as the mMKM and NanOx models, have previously been developed to estimate a biological dose. Using the mMKM model, we calculated the saturation corrected dose mean specific energy z1D* (Gy) and the dose at 10% D10 for human salivary gland (HSG) cells using Monte Carlo Track Structure codes LPCHEM and Geant4-DNA, and compared these with data from the literature for monoenergetic ions. These two models were used to create databases of survival fraction coefficients for several ion types (hydrogen, carbon, helium and oxygen) and for energies ranging from 0.1 to 400 MeV/n. We calculated α values as a function of LET with the mMKM and the NanOx models, and compared these with the literature. In order to estimate the biological dose for SOBPs, these databases were used with a Monte Carlo toolkit. We considered GATE, an open-source software based on the GEANT4 Monte Carlo toolkit. We implemented a tool, the BioDoseActor, in GATE, using the mMKM and NanOx databases of cell survival predictions as input, to estimate, at a voxel scale, biological outcomes when treating a patient. We modeled the HIBMC 320 MeV/u carbon-ion beam line. We then tested the BioDoseActor for the estimation of biological dose, the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) and the cell survival fraction for the irradiation of the HSG cell line. We then tested the implementation for the prediction of cell survival fraction, RBE and biological dose for the HIBMC 320 MeV/u carbon-ion beamline. For the cell survival fraction, we obtained satisfying results. Concerning the prediction of the biological dose, a 10% relative difference between mMKM and NanOx was reported.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yasmine Ali
- Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, 4 rue Enrico Fermi, 69622 Villeurbanne, France; (Y.A.); (C.M.); (E.T.); (M.B.)
| | - Caterina Monini
- Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, 4 rue Enrico Fermi, 69622 Villeurbanne, France; (Y.A.); (C.M.); (E.T.); (M.B.)
| | - Etienne Russeil
- Laboratoire de Physique de Clermont, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, 4 Avenue Blaise Pascal, 63178 Aubière, France;
| | - Jean Michel Létang
- CREATIS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1294, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, 69373 Lyon, France;
| | - Etienne Testa
- Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, 4 rue Enrico Fermi, 69622 Villeurbanne, France; (Y.A.); (C.M.); (E.T.); (M.B.)
| | - Lydia Maigne
- Laboratoire de Physique de Clermont, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, 4 Avenue Blaise Pascal, 63178 Aubière, France;
| | - Michael Beuve
- Institut de Physique des 2 Infinis de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, 4 rue Enrico Fermi, 69622 Villeurbanne, France; (Y.A.); (C.M.); (E.T.); (M.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ramesh P, Liu H, Gu W, Sheng K. Fixed Beamline Optimization for Intensity Modulated Carbon-Ion Therapy. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RADIATION AND PLASMA MEDICAL SCIENCES 2022; 6:288-293. [PMID: 36092271 PMCID: PMC9457306 DOI: 10.1109/trpms.2021.3092296] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
A major obstacle for the adoption of heavy ion therapy is the cost and technical difficulties to construct and maintain a rotational gantry. Many heavy ion treatment facilities instead choose to construct fixed beamlines as a compromise, which we propose to mitigate with optimized treatment couch angle. We formulate the integrated beam orientation and scanning spot optimization problem as a quadratic cost function with a group sparsity regularization term. The optimization problem is efficiently solved using fast iterative shrinkage-thresholding algorithm (FISTA). To test the method, we created the fixed beamline plans with couch rotation (FBCR) and without couch rotation (FB) for intensity modulated carbon-ion therapy (IMCT) and compared with the ideal scenario where both the couch and gantry have 360 degrees of freedom (GCR). FB, FBCR, and GCR IMCT plans were compared for ten pancreas cases. The FBCR plans show comparable PTV coverage and OAR doses for each pancreas case. In conclusion, the dosimetric limitation of fixed beams in heavy ion radiotherapy may be largely mitigated with integrated beam orientation optimization of the couch rotation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pavitra Ramesh
- Physics and Biology in Medicine interdepartmental program, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
| | - Hengjie Liu
- Physics and Biology in Medicine interdepartmental program, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
| | - Wenbo Gu
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
| | - Ke Sheng
- Physics and Biology in Medicine interdepartmental program, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Hahn C, Ödén J, Dasu A, Vestergaard A, Fuglsang Jensen M, Sokol O, Pardi C, Bourhaleb F, Leite A, de Marzi L, Smith E, Aitkenhead A, Rose C, Merchant M, Kirkby K, Grzanka L, Pawelke J, Lühr A. Towards harmonizing clinical linear energy transfer (LET) reporting in proton radiotherapy: a European multi-centric study. Acta Oncol 2022; 61:206-214. [PMID: 34686122 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1992007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/18/2021] [Accepted: 10/06/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical data suggest that the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in proton therapy (PT) varies with linear energy transfer (LET). However, LET calculations are neither standardized nor available in clinical routine. Here, the status of LET calculations among European PT institutions and their comparability are assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight European PT institutions used suitable treatment planning systems with their center-specific beam model to create treatment plans in a water phantom covering different field arrangements and fulfilling commonly agreed dose objectives. They employed their locally established LET simulation environments and procedures to determine the corresponding LET distributions. Dose distributions D1.1 and DRBE assuming constant and variable RBE, respectively, and LET were compared among the institutions. Inter-center variability was assessed based on dose- and LET-volume-histogram parameters. RESULTS Treatment plans from six institutions fulfilled all clinical goals and were eligible for common analysis. D1.1 distributions in the target volume were comparable among PT institutions. However, corresponding LET values varied substantially between institutions for all field arrangements, primarily due to differences in LET averaging technique and considered secondary particle spectra. Consequently, DRBE using non-harmonized LET calculations increased inter-center dose variations substantially compared to D1.1 and significantly in mean dose to the target volume of perpendicular and opposing field arrangements (p < 0.05). Harmonizing LET reporting (dose-averaging, all protons, LET to water or to unit density tissue) reduced the inter-center variability in LET to the order of 10-15% within and outside the target volume for all beam arrangements. Consequentially, inter-institutional variability in DRBE decreased to that observed for D1.1. CONCLUSION Harmonizing the reported LET among PT centers is feasible and allows for consistent multi-centric analysis and reporting of tumor control and toxicity in view of a variable RBE. It may serve as basis for harmonized variable RBE dose prescription in PT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian Hahn
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Department of Radiotherapy and Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
| | - Jakob Ödén
- RaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Alexandru Dasu
- The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden
- Medical Radiation Sciences, Department of Immunology, Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - Anne Vestergaard
- Danish Centre for Particle Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | | | - Olga Sokol
- GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Claudia Pardi
- I-SEE (Internet-Simulation Evaluation Envision), Torino, Italy
| | - Faiza Bourhaleb
- I-SEE (Internet-Simulation Evaluation Envision), Torino, Italy
| | - Amélia Leite
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation Oncology Department, Proton Therapy Centre, Centre Universitaire, Orsay, France
| | - Ludovic de Marzi
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Radiation Oncology Department, Proton Therapy Centre, Centre Universitaire, Orsay, France
- Institut Curie, PSL Research University, University Paris Saclay, Inserm LITO, Orsay, France
| | - Edward Smith
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Adam Aitkenhead
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Christopher Rose
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Michael Merchant
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Karen Kirkby
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, UK
| | - Leszek Grzanka
- Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Krakow, Poland
| | - Jörg Pawelke
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| | - Armin Lühr
- OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Dresden, and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Physics and Radiotherapy, Department of Physics, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
- Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Dresden, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Smith EAK, Winterhalter C, Underwood TSA, Aitkenhead AH, Richardson JC, Merchant MJ, Kirkby NF, Kirby KJ, Mackay RI. A Monte Carlo study of different LET definitions and calculation parameters for proton beam therapy. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2021; 8. [PMID: 34874308 DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ac3f50] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
The strongin vitroevidence that proton Relative Biological Effectiveness (RBE) varies with Linear Energy Transfer (LET) has led to an interest in applying LET within treatment planning. However, there is a lack of consensus on LET definition, Monte Carlo (MC) parameters or clinical methodology. This work aims to investigate how common variations of LET definition may affect potential clinical applications. MC simulations (GATE/GEANT4) were used to calculate absorbed dose and different types of LET for a simple Spread Out Bragg Peak (SOBP) and for four clinical PBT plans covering a range of tumour sites. Variations in the following LET calculation methods were considered: (i) averaging (dose-averaged LET (LETd) & track-averaged LET); (ii) scoring (LETdto water, to medium and to mass density); (iii) particle inclusion (LETdto all protons, to primary protons and to particles); (iv) MC settings (hit type and Maximum Step Size (MSS)). LET distributions were compared using: qualitative comparison, LET Volume Histograms (LVHs), single value criteria (maximum and mean values) and optimised LET-weighted dose models. Substantial differences were found between LET values in averaging, scoring and particle type. These differences depended on the methodology, but for one patient a difference of ∼100% was observed between the maximum LETdfor all particles and maximum LETdfor all protons within the brainstem in the high isodose region (4 keVμm-1and 8 keVμm-1respectively). An RBE model using LETdincluding heavier ions was found to predict substantially different LET-weighted dose compared to those using other LET definitions. In conclusion, the selection of LET definition may affect the results of clinical metrics considered in treatment planning and the results of an RBE model. The authors' advocate for the scoring of dose-averaged LET to water for primary and secondary protons using a random hit type and automated MSS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward A K Smith
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Carla Winterhalter
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tracy S A Underwood
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Adam H Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Jenny C Richardson
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Michael J Merchant
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Norman F Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Karen J Kirby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Ranald I Mackay
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lin L, Taylor PA, Shen J, Saini J, Kang M, Simone CB, Bradley JD, Li Z, Xiao Y. NRG Oncology Survey of Monte Carlo Dose Calculation Use in US Proton Therapy Centers. Int J Part Ther 2021; 8:73-81. [PMID: 34722813 PMCID: PMC8489489 DOI: 10.14338/ijpt-d-21-00004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose/Objective(s) Monte 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/Methods A 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. Results We 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. Conclusion The 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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Jatinder Saini
- Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Proton Therapy Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Zuofeng Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Ying Xiao
- University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Leste J, Younes T, Chauvin M, Franceries X, Delbaere A, Vieillevigne L, Ferrand R, Bardies M, Simon L. Technical note: GAMMORA, a free, open-source, and validated GATE-based model for Monte-Carlo simulations of the Varian TrueBeam. Phys Med 2021; 89:211-218. [PMID: 34416389 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.07.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2021] [Revised: 07/30/2021] [Accepted: 07/31/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Monte Carlo (MC) is the reference computation method for medical physics. In radiotherapy, MC computations are necessary for some issues (such as assessing figures of merit, double checks, and dose conversions). A tool based on GATE is proposed to easily create full MC simulations of the Varian TrueBeam STx. METHODS GAMMORA is a package that contains photon phase spaces as a pre-trained generative adversarial network (GAN) and the TrueBeam's full geometry. It allows users to easily create MC simulations for simple or complex radiotherapy plans such as VMAT. To validate the model, the characteristics of generated photons are first compared to those provided by Varian (IAEA format). Simulated data are also compared to measurements in water and heterogeneous media. Simulations of 8 SBRT plans are compared to measurements (in a phantom). Two examples of applications (a second check and interplay effect assessment) are presented. RESULTS The simulated photons generated by the GAN have the same characteristics (energy, position, and direction) as the IAEA data. Computed dose distributions of simple cases (in water) and complex plans delivered in a phantom are compared to measurements, and the Gamma index (3%/3mm) was always superior to 98%. The feasibility of both clinical applications is shown. CONCLUSIONS This model is now shared as a free and open-source tool that generates radiotherapy MC simulations. It has been validated and used for five years. Several applications can be envisaged for research and clinical purposes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeremy Leste
- Centre de Recherches en Cancerologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Universite de Toulouse, UPS, INSERM, Toulouse, France
| | - Tony Younes
- Centre de Recherches en Cancerologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Universite de Toulouse, UPS, INSERM, Toulouse, France
| | - Maxime Chauvin
- Centre de Recherches en Cancerologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Universite de Toulouse, UPS, INSERM, Toulouse, France
| | - Xavier Franceries
- Centre de Recherches en Cancerologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Universite de Toulouse, UPS, INSERM, Toulouse, France
| | - Alexia Delbaere
- Centre de Recherches en Cancerologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Universite de Toulouse, UPS, INSERM, Toulouse, France
| | - Laure Vieillevigne
- Centre de Recherches en Cancerologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Universite de Toulouse, UPS, INSERM, Toulouse, France; Institut Claudius Regaud (ICR), Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse-Oncopole (IUCT-O), Departement Ingenierie Physique Medicale, Toulouse, France
| | | | - Manuel Bardies
- Cancer Research Institute of Montpellier, U1194 INSERM/ICM/Montpellier University, and Cancer Institute of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - Luc Simon
- Centre de Recherches en Cancerologie de Toulouse (CRCT), Universite de Toulouse, UPS, INSERM, Toulouse, France; Institut Claudius Regaud (ICR), Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse-Oncopole (IUCT-O), Departement Ingenierie Physique Medicale, Toulouse, France.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Sarrut D, Bała M, Bardiès M, Bert J, Chauvin M, Chatzipapas K, Dupont M, Etxebeste A, M Fanchon L, Jan S, Kayal G, S Kirov A, Kowalski P, Krzemien W, Labour J, Lenz M, Loudos G, Mehadji B, Ménard L, Morel C, Papadimitroulas P, Rafecas M, Salvadori J, Seiter D, Stockhoff M, Testa E, Trigila C, Pietrzyk U, Vandenberghe S, Verdier MA, Visvikis D, Ziemons K, Zvolský M, Roncali E. Advanced Monte Carlo simulations of emission tomography imaging systems with GATE. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:10.1088/1361-6560/abf276. [PMID: 33770774 PMCID: PMC10549966 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abf276] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 03/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Built on top of the Geant4 toolkit, GATE is collaboratively developed for more than 15 years to design Monte Carlo simulations of nuclear-based imaging systems. It is, in particular, used by researchers and industrials to design, optimize, understand and create innovative emission tomography systems. In this paper, we reviewed the recent developments that have been proposed to simulate modern detectors and provide a comprehensive report on imaging systems that have been simulated and evaluated in GATE. Additionally, some methodological developments that are not specific for imaging but that can improve detector modeling and provide computation time gains, such as Variance Reduction Techniques and Artificial Intelligence integration, are described and discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Sarrut
- Université de Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1294, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
| | | | - Manuel Bardiès
- Cancer Research Institute of Montpellier, U1194 INSERM/ICM/Montpellier University, 208 Av des Apothicaires, F-34298 Montpellier cedex 5, France
| | - Julien Bert
- LaTIM, INSERM UMR 1101, IBRBS, Faculty of Medicine, Univ Brest, 22 avenue Camille Desmoulins, F-29238, Brest, France
| | - Maxime Chauvin
- CRCT, UMR 1037, INSERM, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
| | | | | | - Ane Etxebeste
- Université de Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1294, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
| | - Louise M Fanchon
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, United States of America
| | - Sébastien Jan
- Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, CNRS, Inserm, BioMaps, Service Hospitalier Frédéric Joliot, F-91401, Orsay, France
| | - Gunjan Kayal
- CRCT, UMR 1037, INSERM, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France
- SCK CEN, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, Boeretang 200, Mol 2400, Belgium
| | - Assen S Kirov
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, 10065, United States of America
| | - Paweł Kowalski
- High Energy Physics Division, National Centre for Nuclear Research, Otwock-Świerk, Poland
| | - Wojciech Krzemien
- High Energy Physics Division, National Centre for Nuclear Research, Otwock-Świerk, Poland
| | - Joey Labour
- Université de Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1294, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France
| | - Mirjam Lenz
- FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany
- Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
| | - George Loudos
- Bioemission Technology Solutions (BIOEMTECH), Alexandras Av. 116, Athens, Greece
| | | | - Laurent Ménard
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, F-91405 Orsay, France
- Université de Paris, IJCLab, F-91405 Orsay France
| | | | | | - Magdalena Rafecas
- Institute of Medical Engineering, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Julien Salvadori
- Department of Nuclear Medicine and Nancyclotep molecular imaging platform, CHRU-Nancy, Université de Lorraine, F-54000, Nancy, France
| | - Daniel Seiter
- Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, 53705, United States of America
| | - Mariele Stockhoff
- Medical Image and Signal Processing (MEDISIP), Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Etienne Testa
- Univ. Lyon, Univ. Claude Bernard Lyon 1, CNRS/IN2P3, IP2I Lyon, F-69622, Villeurbanne, France
| | - Carlotta Trigila
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 United States of America
| | - Uwe Pietrzyk
- Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
| | | | - Marc-Antoine Verdier
- Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, F-91405 Orsay, France
- Université de Paris, IJCLab, F-91405 Orsay France
| | - Dimitris Visvikis
- LaTIM, INSERM UMR 1101, IBRBS, Faculty of Medicine, Univ Brest, 22 avenue Camille Desmoulins, F-29238, Brest, France
| | - Karl Ziemons
- FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany
| | - Milan Zvolský
- Institute of Medical Engineering, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Emilie Roncali
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Bolsa-Ferruz M, Palmans H, Boersma D, Stock M, Grevillot L. Monte Carlo computation of 3D distributions of stopping power ratios in light ion beam therapy using GATE-RTion. Med Phys 2021; 48:2580-2591. [PMID: 33465819 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14726] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2020] [Revised: 12/11/2020] [Accepted: 12/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This paper presents a novel method for the calculation of three-dimensional (3D) Bragg-Gray water-to-detector stopping power ratio (sw,det ) distributions for proton and carbon ion beams. METHODS Contrary to previously published fluence-based calculations of the stopping power ratio, the sw,det calculation method used in this work is based on the specific way GATE/Geant4 scores the energy deposition. It only requires the use of the so-called DoseActor, as available in GATE, for the calculation of the sw,det at any point of a 3D dose distribution. The simulations are performed using GATE-RTion v1.0, a dedicated GATE release that was validated for the clinical use in light ion beam therapy. RESULTS The Bragg-Gray water-to-air stopping power ratio (sw,air ) was calculated for monoenergetic proton and carbon ion beams with the default stopping power data in GATE-RTion v1.0 and the new ICRU90 recommendation. The sw,air differences between the use of the default and the ICRU90 configuration were 0.6% and 5.4% at the physical range (R80 - 80% dose level in the distal dose fall-off) for a 70 MeV proton beam and a 120 MeV/u carbon ion beam, respectively. For protons, the sw,det results for lithium fluoride, silicon, gadolinium oxysulfide, and the active layer material of EBT2 (radiochromic film) were compared with the literature and a reasonable agreement was found. For a real patient treatment plan, the 3D distributions of sw,det in proton beams were calculated. CONCLUSIONS Our method was validated by comparison with available literature data. Its equivalence with Bragg-Gray cavity theory was demonstrated mathematically. The capability of GATE-RTion v1.0 for the sw,det calculation at any point of a 3D dose distribution for simple and complex proton and carbon ion plans was presented.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Bolsa-Ferruz
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Hugo Palmans
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria.,Medical Radiation Science, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, TW11 0LW, UK
| | - David Boersma
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria.,ACMIT Gmbh, Viktor-Kaplan-Straße 2/1, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Markus Stock
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Loïc Grevillot
- MedAustron Ion Therapy Center, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Aitkenhead AH, Sitch P, Richardson JC, Winterhalter C, Patel I, Mackay RI. Automated Monte-Carlo re-calculation of proton therapy plans using Geant4/Gate: implementation and comparison to plan-specific quality assurance measurements. Br J Radiol 2020; 93:20200228. [PMID: 32726141 PMCID: PMC7548378 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20200228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2020] [Revised: 05/27/2020] [Accepted: 07/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Software re-calculation of proton pencil beam scanning plans provides a method of verifying treatment planning system (TPS) dose calculations prior to patient treatment. This study describes the implementation of AutoMC, a Geant4 v10.3.3/Gate v8.1 (Gate-RTion v1.0)-based Monte-Carlo (MC) system for automated plan re-calculation, and presents verification results for 153 patients (730 fields) planned within year one of the proton service at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. METHODS A MC beam model for a Varian ProBeam delivery system with four range-shifter options (none, 2 cm, 3 cm, 5 cm) was derived from beam commissioning data and implemented in AutoMC. MC and TPS (Varian Eclipse v13.7) calculations of 730 fields in solid-water were compared to physical plan-specific quality assurance (PSQA) measurements acquired using a PTW Octavius 1500XDR array and PTW 31021 Semiflex 3D ion chamber. RESULTS TPS and MC showed good agreement with array measurements, evaluated using γ analyses at 3%, 3 mm with a 10% lower dose threshold:>94% of fields calculated by the TPS and >99% of fields calculated by MC had γ ≤ 1 for>95% of measurement points within the plane. TPS and MC also showed good agreement with chamber measurements of absolute dose, with systematic differences of <1.5% for all range-shifter options. CONCLUSIONS Reliable independent verification of the TPS dose calculation is a valuable complement to physical PSQA and may facilitate reduction of the physical PSQA workload alongside a thorough delivery system quality assurance programme. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE A Gate/Geant4-based MC system is thoroughly validated against an extensive physical PSQA dataset for 730 clinical fields, showing that clinical implementation of MC for PSQA is feasible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Peter Sitch
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | - Imran Patel
- Christie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Winterhalter C, Taylor M, Boersma D, Elia A, Guatelli S, Mackay R, Kirkby K, Maigne L, Ivanchenko V, Resch AF, Sarrut D, Sitch P, Vidal M, Grevillot L, Aitkenhead A. Evaluation of GATE-RTion (GATE/Geant4) Monte Carlo simulation settings for proton pencil beam scanning quality assurance. Med Phys 2020; 47:5817-5828. [PMID: 32967037 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2020] [Revised: 08/28/2020] [Accepted: 08/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Geant4 is a multi-purpose Monte Carlo simulation tool for modeling particle transport in matter. It provides a wide range of settings, which the user may optimize for their specific application. This study investigates GATE/Geant4 parameter settings for proton pencil beam scanning therapy. METHODS GATE8.1/Geant4.10.3.p03 (matching the versions used in GATE-RTion1.0) simulations were performed with a set of prebuilt Geant4 physics lists (QGSP_BIC, QGSP_BIC_EMY, QGSP_BIC_EMZ, QGSP_BIC_HP_EMZ), using 0.1mm-10mm as production cuts on secondary particles (electrons, photons, positrons) and varying the maximum step size of protons (0.1mm, 1mm, none). The results of the simulations were compared to measurement data taken during clinical patient specific quality assurance at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust pencil beam scanning proton therapy facility. Additionally, the influence of simulation settings was quantified in a realistic patient anatomy based on computer tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS When comparing the different physics lists, only the results (ranges in water) obtained with QGSP_BIC (G4EMStandardPhysics_Option0) depend on the maximum step size. There is clinically negligible difference in the target region when using High Precision neutron models (HP) for dose calculations. The EMZ electromagnetic constructor provides a closer agreement (within 0.35 mm) to measured beam sizes in air, but yields up to 20% longer execution times compared to the EMY electromagnetic constructor (maximum beam size difference 0.79 mm). The impact of this on patient-specific quality assurance simulations is clinically negligible, with a 97% average 2%/2 mm gamma pass rate for both physics lists. However, when considering the CT-based patient model, dose deviations up to 2.4% are observed. Production cuts do not substantially influence dosimetric results in solid water, but lead to dose differences of up to 4.1% in the patient CT. Small (compared to voxel size) production cuts increase execution times by factors of 5 (solid water) and 2 (patient CT). CONCLUSIONS Taking both efficiency and dose accuracy into account and considering voxel sizes with 2 mm linear size, the authors recommend the following Geant4 settings to simulate patient specific quality assurance measurements: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (in the phantom and range-shifter) and 10 mm (world); best agreement to measurement data was found for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list at the cost of 20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY. For simulations considering the patient CT model, the following settings are recommended: No step limiter on proton tracks; production cuts of 1 mm for electrons, photons and positrons (phantom/range-shifter) and 10 mm (world) if the goal is to achieve sufficient dosimetric accuracy to ensure that a plan is clinically safe; or 0.1 mm (phantom/range-shifter) and 1 mm (world) if higher dosimetric accuracy is needed (increasing execution times by a factor of 2); most accurate results expected for QGSP_BIC_EMZ reference physics list, at the cost of 10-20% increased execution times compared to QGSP_BIC_EMY.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carla Winterhalter
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Michael Taylor
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - David Boersma
- ACMIT Gmbh, Viktor Kaplan-Straße 2, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria.,EBG MedAustron GmbH, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Alessio Elia
- EBG MedAustron GmbH, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Susanna Guatelli
- Centre For Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Ranald Mackay
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Karen Kirkby
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Lydia Maigne
- Laboratoire de Physique de Clermont, UMR 6533 CNRS - University Clermont Auvergne, Aubière, France
| | - Vladimir Ivanchenko
- CERN, Geneva 23, 1211, Switzerland.,Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia
| | - Andreas F Resch
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, 1090, Austria
| | - David Sarrut
- Université de Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220, Inserm U1044, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Peter Sitch
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Marie Vidal
- Institut Méditerranéen de Protonthérapie - Centre Antoine Lacassagne - Fédération Claude Lalanne, Nice, 06200, France
| | - Loïc Grevillot
- EBG MedAustron GmbH, Marie Curie-Straße 5, Wiener Neustadt, A-2700, Austria
| | - Adam Aitkenhead
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| |
Collapse
|