ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
A Python package for fast GPU-based proton pencil beam dose calculation.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Python package for fast GPU-based proton pencil beam dose calculation.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOpen-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.
methodsBeam 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionWe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.