Premium
WE‐A‐17A‐04: Development of An Ultra‐Fast Monte Carlo Dose Engine for High Dose Rate Brachytherapy
Author(s) -
Tian Z,
Zhang M,
Hrycushko B,
Stojadinovic S,
Jiang S,
Jia X
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4889374
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , monte carlo method , brachytherapy , physics , photon , computational physics , dosimetry , scattering , nuclear medicine , optics , mathematics , medicine , statistics , radiation therapy
Purpose: Current clinical brachytherapy dose calculations are based on AAPM TG43 guidelines, which approximate the patient geometry as a large water phantom. This ignores heterogeneities and tends to overestimate skin dose. Although Monte Carlo (MC) dose calculations have been recognized as the most accurate method, its associated long computational time is a major bottleneck for routine clinical applications. This work aims to develop a GPU‐based ultra‐fast MC dose engine (gBMC) for HDR brachytherapy to provide clinical users with accurate sub‐minute dose calculations. Methods: Standard photon transport with discrete events including: Compton scattering, Rayleigh scattering and Photoelectric effect, was implemented. Secondary electrons were transported under the continuous slowing down approximation. To reduce the GPU thread divergence, photons and electrons were separately transported. Transport of photons was grouped according to energy. The source model in gBMC can be either a phase‐space file generated using Geant4 or a parameterized source model. This dose engine was validated against TG43 in a water phantom and against Geant4 calculations in heterogeneous patient geometries. Results: A phase space file was generated for the Varian VS2000 Ir‐192 source. In a water phantom, the calculated radial dose function was within 0.6% of the TG43 calculations for radial distances from 1 cm to 20 cm. The anisotropy functions were within 1% for radial distances from 1 cm to 20 cm except for polar angles larger than 173°. Local point‐dose differences were within 2%. In a Mammosite breast cancer case with 22 dwell locations, gBMC and Geant4 isodose lines compared well. The computation time was about 28 seconds using the phase‐space file source and 20 seconds using the parameterized source to simulate 1 billion particles, yielding less than 1% statistical uncertainty. Conclusion: The gBMC dose engine makes it possible to use fast and accurate MC dose calculations for clinical work.