Density overwrites of internal tumor volumes in intensity modulated proton therapy plans for mobile lung tumors.

The purpose of this study was to investigate internal tumor volume density overwrite strategies to minimize intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) plan degradation of mobile lung tumors. Four planning paradigms were compared for nine lung cancer patients. Internal gross tumor volume (IGTV) and internal clinical target volume (ICTV) structures were defined encompassing their respective volumes in every 4DCT phase. The paradigms use different planning CT (pCT) created from the average intensity projection (AIP) of the 4DCT, overwriting the density within the IGTV to account for movement. The density overwrites were: (a) constant filling with 100 HU (C100) or (b) 50 HU (C50), (c) maximum intensity projection (MIP) across phases, and (d) water equivalent path length (WEPL) consideration from beam's-eye-view. Plans were created optimizing dose-influence matrices calculated with fast GPU Monte Carlo (MC) simulations in each pCT. Plans were evaluated with MC on the 4DCTs using a model of the beam delivery time structure. Dose accumulation was performed using deformable image registration. Interplay effect was addressed applying 10 times rescanning. Significantly less DVH metrics degradation occurred when using MIP and WEPL approaches. Target coverage ([Formula: see text] Gy(RBE)) was fulfilled in most cases with MIP and WEPL ([Formula: see text] Gy (RBE)), keeping dose heterogeneity low ([Formula: see text] Gy(RBE)). The mean lung dose was kept lowest by the WEPL strategy, as well as the maximum dose to organs at risk (OARs). The impact on dose levels in the heart, spinal cord and esophagus were patient specific. Overall, the WEPL strategy gives the best performance and should be preferred when using a 3D static geometry for lung cancer IMPT treatment planning. Newly available fast MC methods make it possible to handle long simulations based on 4D data sets to perform studies with high accuracy and efficiency, even prior to individual treatment planning.

Reoptimization of Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy Plans Based on Linear Energy Transfer.

PURPOSE: We describe a treatment plan optimization method for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) that avoids high values of linear energy transfer (LET) in critical structures located within or near the target volume while limiting degradation of the best possible physical dose distribution. METHODS AND MATERIALS: To allow fast optimization based on dose and LET, a GPU-based Monte Carlo code was extended to provide dose-averaged LET in addition to dose for all pencil beams. After optimizing an initial IMPT plan based on physical dose, a prioritized optimization scheme is used to modify the LET distribution while constraining the physical dose objectives to values close to the initial plan. The LET optimization step is performed based on objective functions evaluated for the product of LET and physical dose (LET×D). To first approximation, LET×D represents a measure of the additional biological dose that is caused by high LET. RESULTS: The method is effective for treatments where serial critical structures with maximum dose constraints are located within or near the target. We report on 5 patients with intracranial tumors (high-grade meningiomas, base-of-skull chordomas, ependymomas) in whom the target volume overlaps with the brainstem and optic structures. In all cases, high LET×D in critical structures could be avoided while minimally compromising physical dose planning objectives. CONCLUSION: LET-based reoptimization of IMPT plans represents a pragmatic approach to bridge the gap between purely physical dose-based and relative biological effectiveness (RBE)-based planning. The method makes IMPT treatments safer by mitigating a potentially increased risk of side effects resulting from elevated RBE of proton beams near the end of range.

Recent developments and comprehensive evaluations of a GPU-based Monte Carlo package for proton therapy.

Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is commonly considered as the most accurate dose calculation method for proton therapy. Aiming at achieving fast MC dose calculations for clinical applications, we have previously developed a graphics-processing unit (GPU)-based MC tool, gPMC. In this paper, we report our recent updates on gPMC in terms of its accuracy, portability, and functionality, as well as comprehensive tests on this tool. The new version, gPMC v2.0, was developed under the OpenCL environment to enable portability across different computational platforms. Physics models of nuclear interactions were refined to improve calculation accuracy. Scoring functions of gPMC were expanded to enable tallying particle fluence, dose deposited by different particle types, and dose-averaged linear energy transfer (LETd). A multiple counter approach was employed to improve efficiency by reducing the frequency of memory writing conflict at scoring. For dose calculation, accuracy improvements over gPMC v1.0 were observed in both water phantom cases and a patient case. For a prostate cancer case planned using high-energy proton beams, dose discrepancies in beam entrance and target region seen in gPMC v1.0 with respect to the gold standard tool for proton Monte Carlo simulations (TOPAS) results were substantially reduced and gamma test passing rate (1%/1 mm) was improved from 82.7%-93.1%. The average relative difference in LETd between gPMC and TOPAS was 1.7%. The average relative differences in the dose deposited by primary, secondary, and other heavier particles were within 2.3%, 0.4%, and 0.2%. Depending on source proton energy and phantom complexity, it took 8-17 s on an AMD Radeon R9 290x GPU to simulate [Formula: see text] source protons, achieving less than [Formula: see text] average statistical uncertainty. As the beam size was reduced from 10 × 10 cm2 to 1 × 1 cm2, the time on scoring was only increased by 4.8% with eight counters, in contrast to a 40% increase using only one counter. With the OpenCL environment, the portability of gPMC v2.0 was enhanced. It was successfully executed on different CPUs and GPUs and its performance on different devices varied depending on processing power and hardware structure.