ArticleArXiv2023
Modelling small block aperture in an in-house developed GPU-accelerated Monte Carlo-based dose engine for pencil beam scanning proton therapy.
Article in ArXiv, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To enhance an in-house graphic-processing-unit (GPU) accelerated virtual particle (VP)-based Monte Carlo (MC) proton dose engine (VPMC) to model aperture blocks in both dose calculation and optimization for pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT)-based stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Methods and Materials: A module to simulate VPs passing through patient-specific aperture blocks was developed and integrated in VPMC based on simulation results of realistic particles (primary protons and their secondaries). To validate the aperture block module, VPMC was first validated by an opensource MC code, MCsquare, in eight water phantom simulations with 3cm thick brass apertures: four were with aperture openings of 1, 2, 3, and 4cm without a range shifter, while the other four were with same aperture opening configurations with a range shifter of 45mm water equivalent thickness. Then, VPMC was benchmarked with MCsquare and RayStation MC for 10 patients with small targets (average volume 8.4 cc with range of 0.4 - 43.3 cc). Finally, 3 typical patients were selected for robust optimization with aperture blocks using VPMC. Results: In the water phantoms, 3D gamma passing rate (2%/2mm/10%) between VPMC and MCsquare was 99.71±0.23%. In the patient geometries, 3D gamma passing rates (3%/2mm/10%) between VPMC/MCsquare and RayStation MC were 97.79±2.21%/97.78±1.97%, respectively. Meanwhile, the calculation time was drastically decreased from 112.45±114.08 seconds (MCsquare) to 8.20±6.42 seconds (VPMC) with the same statistical uncertainties of ~0.5%. The robustly optimized plans met all the dose-volume-constraints (DVCs) for the targets and OARs per our institutional protocols. The mean calculation time for 13 influence matrices in robust optimization by VPMC was 41.6 seconds and the subsequent on-the-fly "trial-and-error" optimization procedure took only 71.4 seconds on average for the selected three patients. Conclusion: VPMC has been successfully enhanced to model aperture blocks in dose calculation and optimization for the PBSPT-based SRS.
Identifiers
37461414PMC10350098What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.