各向异性解析算法与先进外照射光子剂量算法在肺癌VMAT计划中的剂量学差异

目的:比较先进外照射光子剂量算法（AXB）和各向异性解析算法（AAA）在肺癌VMAT计划中的剂量学差异。方法:随机选取20例肺癌患者,CT扫描传输图像后勾画靶区及危及器官,采用两弧设计VMAT放疗计划,比较两种算法靶区的剂量分布,肺、心脏和脊髓的受照量。结果:PGTV:最大剂量AXB算法低于AAA算法（P<0.05）,最小剂量无统计学意义（P>0.05）,平均剂量AXB算法低于AAA算法（P<0.05）;PTV:最大剂量和最小剂量无统计学意义（P>0.05）,平均剂量AXB算法低于AAA算法（P<0.05）;CI:AXB算法优于AAA算法（P<0.05）;HI:AXB算法优于AAA算法（P<0.05）;脊髓:最大剂量AXB算法低于AAA算法（P<0.05）;心脏:V30、V40、Dmean AXB算法均低于AAA算法（P<0.05）;肺:V5、V20、Dmean AXB算法均低于AAA算法（P<0.05）。结论:两种算法均满足临床要求,但与AAA算法相比,AXB算法更精确,特别是针对肺组织这种低密度区域。     

两套商用治疗计划系统中VMAT计划质量及其验证的对比研究

目的:探讨两套商用治疗计划系统（TPS）用于喉癌与直肠癌患者容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）的剂量学特性与验证结果差异,为其临床应用提供一定的依据。 方法:选取喉癌患者10例、直肠癌患者12例,分别利用Eclipse和Pinnacle商用TPS进行VMAT及其验证计划设计,利用ArcCheck实施剂量数据的采集,分析标准为3%/3 mm和2%/2 mm条件下Gamma通过率。从计划质量、实施效率、验证结果等方面评价两套系统执行VMAT技术的差异性。 结果:计划质量方面:喉癌VMAT计划中,Eclipse在危及器官保护以及计划靶区（PTV）的适形度指数（CI）、均匀性指数（HI）上与 Pinnacle相近（P>0.05）,Eclipse的MU要少于Pinnacle,但无统计学差异（P>0.05）;直肠癌VMAT计划中,Eclipse在MU、PTV的CI和HI以及对膀胱、小肠的保护上与Pinnacle相近,在左右股骨头的V40上,Eclipse略优于Pinnacle,但无统计学差异（P>0.05）。剂量验证方面:无论是喉癌还是直肠癌VMAT计划,在分析评价标准3%/3 mm和2%/2 mm条件下,Eclipse的Gamma通过率均高于Pinnacle,且均具有统计学差异（P<0.05）。 结论:尽管两套TPS的喉癌和直肠癌VMAT计划质量相近,且剂量验证均能满足临床治疗的要求,但两套计划系统在MU以及剂量验证通过率上存在一定的差异性,仍需选择更多的病例进一步探讨以确定其差异的原因。     

算法差异在Compass调强计划验证中的作用

目的:用IBA Compass系统对Varian Eclipse计划系统各向异性解析算法(AAA)计算的肺癌和直肠癌计划进行验证,研究差异原因并进行分类分析。方法:分别选取肺癌和直肠癌术前放疗患者各10例,用Compass系统在加速器实测验证,将Eclipse AAA计算的TPS Dose、Compass卷积/超分割算法(CCC)再计算的Compute Dose以及Compass通过实测并基于CCC算法重建的Reconstructed Dose进行两两对比(AAA/CR、CC/CR、AAA/CC),比较分析计划最大点剂量的10%生成的区域的Gamma结果和剂量体积直方图(DVH)结果。结果:在3 mm/3%/Global标准下,直肠癌术前计划:AAA/CRγ通过率为(97.37±2.41)%,CC/CRγ通过率为(97.88±2.21)%,AAA/CCγ通过率为(99.69±0.15)%,AAA/CRγ通过率与CC/CRγ通过率的差异无统计学意义(P=0.598)。肺癌计划:AAA/CRγ通过率为(92.09±2.79)%,CC/CRγ通过率为(96.17±2.78)%,AAA/CCγ通过率为(98.96±1.06)%,AAA/CRγ通过率与CC/CRγ通过率的差异具有显著统计学意义(P=0.005)。结论:用Compass验证AAA算法计划,在肺癌病例中AAA与CCC算法的差异是影响计划通过率的主要原因,在直肠癌计划中AAA与CCC算法的差异影响相对较低,通过率更多受到MLC到位精度、机架旋转精度、剂量准确度等执行不确定性影响。     

自动计划与人工计划在宫颈癌术后VMAT放疗中的剂量学比较

目的:观察并比较自动计划与人工计划在宫颈癌术后患者容积弧形调强（VMAT）中的剂量学参数，对自动计划应用于临床宫颈癌术后放疗中的可行性进行研究。方法:选取2018年11月~2019年11月郴州市第一人民医院接受放射治疗的宫颈癌患者30例，将其作为对象展开临床分析与探究。采用Pinnacle放射治疗计划系统，分别进行VMAT人工计划与自动计划，比较两种计划靶区的D95、Dmean、均匀性指数（HI）、适形度指数（CI）、危及器官的剂量参数。结果:人工计划与自动计划在D95的比较差异无统计意义（P>0.05）；人工计划与自动计划在靶区Dmean、HI、CI的比较差异显著（P<0.05）。人工计划与自动计划在膀胱、骨、小肠、直肠、右侧股骨头及左侧股骨头的危及器官剂量体积比较，差异有显著意义（P<0.05）。结论:VMAT自动计划与VMAT人工计划比较，自动计划的计划质量较高，可提高剂量参数合理性，应用Pinnacle放射治疗计划系统自动计划的宫颈癌术后VMAT计划，临床可行性较高，可将VMAT自动计划应用于临床宫颈癌术后放疗中。     

两种不同调强技术配合主动呼吸控制系统在乳腺癌放疗中的比较

目的：应用旋转容积调强技术和适形调强技术,配合主动呼吸控制技术于乳腺癌改良根治术后的辅助放疗,探索旋转容积调强技术配合主动呼吸控制技术在乳腺癌放射治疗中的可行性及潜在优势。方法：选择10例右乳腺癌改良根治术后拟放射治疗的患者．心肺功能较好的患者进行主动呼吸控制系统下扫描。将得到的CT图像分别制定旋转容积调强（VMAT）计划与适形调强计划（IMRT）,由计算机系统列出两套计划结果进行计量学比较。比较参数有：PTV的最大剂量（Dmax）、平均剂量（Dmcan）、最小剂量（Dmin）、适形度指数（CI）、均匀性指数（HI）。患侧肺500cGy、1000cGy、2000cGy、3000cGy剂量体积（V5,V10,V20,V30）,心脏的500cGy剂量体积（V5）,以及左侧乳腺的300cGy剂量体积（V3）。结果：在靶区剂量方面：VMAT计划组与IMRT计划组的PTV的Dmax、Dmin CI、HI差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;对于危机器官：患侧肺的V5、V1- V30 心脏V5以及左侧乳腺的V3差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：乳腺癌改良根治术后的患者在使用主动呼吸控制系统下,采用VMAT计划组的调强计划在提高靶区适形度、均匀性的同时危机器官也得到了更好的保护。     

各向异性分析算法和光子笔形束卷积算法在食管癌放射治疗中的剂量学比较

目的比较食管癌调强放射治疗各向异性分析算法（AAA）与光子笔形束卷积（PBC）算法的剂量学差异。方法选取9例食管癌患者,其中男性6例,女性3例;年龄54-68岁,平均年龄61岁。用瓦里安Eclipse 8.6治疗计划系统设计5野均分逆向调强计划,分别用AAA和PBC算法模型计算并利用COMPASS进行剂量验证。利用剂量体积直方图比较靶区、肺、心脏和脊髓照射剂量和体积。数据应用SPSS15.0进行配对t检验分析。结果大体肿瘤区（GTV）的均匀性指数（HI）、适合度指数（CI）、Dmean及计划靶区（PTV）的HI,AAA结果均优于PBC算法,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。AAA双肺各指标差值为-0.02%～-1.87%,即低估了肺2%以内的受量。PBC算法双肺各指标差值为-3.95%～1.05%,低剂量区（V5～15）低估了肺4%以内的受量,高剂量区（V20～30）则稍高估。对于脊髓,AAA和PBC算法分别高估了1.57%、4.49%。两种算法都低估了心脏的受量,但AAA相对准确。结论食管癌放射治疗中采用AAA优于PBC算法。     

肺癌固定剂量率旋转调强和容积旋转调强的剂量学分析

目的:通过对肺癌固定剂量率旋转调强放疗（IMAT）计划和容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）计划的剂量学分析,为临床应用中肺癌VMAT放疗剂量率方式的选取提供参考。 方法:取11例肺癌患者,用RayStation计划系统设计IMAT和VMAT计划,比较其剂量学、机器跳数（MU）和治疗时间的差异。 结果:（1）11例肺癌患者的双弧IMAT和VMAT计划均能满足临床要求,IMAT和VMAT计划的靶区最小剂量D98%、最大剂量D2%、平均剂量（Dmean）、靶区均匀性指数、靶区适形度指数相近,无明显差异。靶区覆盖率VMAT计划好于IMAT计划。（2）危及器官受量:全肺的V5、V10、V20、Dmean和心脏的V20,VMAT计划比IMAT计划低。全肺的V30、心脏的V30、脊髓的最大剂量D1%,两种计划之间无明显差异。（3）正常组织在低剂量部分V5、V10、V15和Dmean,VMAT计划低于IMAT计划;V20、V25两种计划无明显差异;接近处方剂量部分V30、V35、V40,VMAT计划高于IMAT计划。（4）出束时间和MU:VMAT计划相比于IMAT计划,治疗出束时间大大减少,VMAT计划出束时间仅为IMAT计划出束时间的62%。两者的MU无明显差异。（5）两种计划的剂量验证通过率均大于95%,达到98.72%以上,能满足治疗要求。VMAT计划的剂量验证通过率略低于IMAT计划,相差约0.44%。 结论:VMAT技术相较于IMAT技术,其计划调制能力更强,可得到更优的靶区剂量分布,提高治疗效率,可以更好地保护危及器官,尤其是减少肺的低剂量照射体积。因此,在肺癌的旋转调强放射治疗中,VMAT技术相较于IMAT技术存在较大的优势。     

基于ArcCHECK-3DVH系统的鼻咽癌容积旋转调强放疗三维剂量验证研究

目的:探讨ArcCHECK-3DVH系统在鼻咽癌容积旋转调强放疗（VMAT）三维剂量验证中的应用。方法:选取基于Monaco治疗计划系统（TPS）制定的20例鼻咽癌患者VMAT计划，利用ArcCHECK-3DVH系统进行患者计划的验证。比较TPS计算剂量与ArcCHECK-3DVH系统基于测量重建剂量的三维γ通过率（3%/3 mm, TH=10%），以及靶区剂量参数[D98%]、[D2%]和[Dmean]与危及器官剂量参数[Dmax]和[Dmean]等。结果:患者计划验证的三维γ通过率为98.20%（97.75%, 99.20%），TPS计算靶区内剂量和ArcCHECK-3DVH重建的剂量在[D98%]、[D2%]和[Dmean]参数上的差异值大部分小于3%，极个别情况的最大差异值在5%以内，绝大部分患者除PGTVnd外的各个靶区γ通过率为90%以上；各个危及器官对应的[Dmax]和[Dmean]剂量参数差异值均小于6%，γ通过率均在93%以上。结论:ArcCHECK-3DVH系统重建的剂量结果与TPS计算结果符合较好，为鼻咽癌VMAT计划剂量验证提供了丰富的剂量参数信息，有助于患者治疗计划的质量验证。     

术前宫颈癌容积旋转调强与固定野动态调强技术剂量对比

目的:比较容积旋转调强（VMAT）和固定野动态调强放疗（DIMRT）技术在术前宫颈癌放疗中的剂量学差别。 方法:选取10例接受放疗的术前宫颈癌患者,勾画靶区,用Eclipse 11.0计划系统设计双弧VMAT计划和5野DIMRT计划,比较两者靶区的适形度指数（CI）和均匀性指数（HI）、危及器官的剂量学差别、加速器跳数和照射时间。 结果:双弧VMAT计划与5野DIMRT计划的CI（0.78±0.05,0.84±0.03; P>0.05）和HI（0.05±0.00, 0.05±0.00; P>0.05）统计学无显著性差异,膀胱的V40、V45、V50和小肠的V20、股骨头、骨盆剂量有显著性差异之外,其它指标未有显著性差异。 结论:VMAT和DIMRT技术两者均能很好达到临床剂量学的要求,但在保护正常器官方面,VMAT比DIMRT技术更优或相当,VMAT技术在减少加速器跳数和照射时间方面优势明显。     

食管癌调强放疗计划中AAA算法与PBC算法的对比研究

目的：比较Varian治疗计划系统Eclipse中AAA算法和PBC算法在食管癌调强放疗中的剂量学差异。方法：选择22例中段食管癌患者,分别采用AAA算法与PBC算法设计两种调强计划,比较靶区的剂量分布,肺、脊髓和心脏等危及器官受照剂量的差异。结果：PGTV最大剂量、PTV平均剂量和左肺的平均剂量两种算法无显著性差异（P〉0．05）,PGTV和PTV最小剂量、PTV最大剂量、参考剂量所包靶区的体积（V95）和其他危及器官的受量,两种算法均有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。结论：与PBC算法相比,AAA算法对不均匀组织的修正更加精确,对于食管癌这种与肺相关的剂量计算采用AAA算法更准确一些。     

准直器角度对颅内两个脑转移瘤容积旋转调强计划的影响

【摘 要】 目的:探讨多叶准直器角度对两个脑转移瘤容积旋转调强（VMAT）计划剂量学参数和机器跳数的影响。 方法:选择10例已放疗的颅内两个脑转移瘤患者CT图像作为研究对象,在准直器角度为0°,调整每条弧的准直器至合适角度,尽量使叶片能够最大遮挡病灶之间的正常脑组织,以VMAT方式分别设计计划,比较两组计划的靶区适形度指数、剂量梯度跌落指数（GI）、剂量均匀性指数（HI）、危及器官剂量分布、靶区周边正常组织受量体积以及机器跳数。 结果:与准直器角度为0°的计划比较,调整每条弧的准直器至合适角度,靶区适形度指数差异无统计学意义（t=1.084, P=0.32）,GI和HI差异具有统计学意义（GI:t=3.415, P=0.014;HI:t=3.455, P=0.014）;周边正常组织2和4 Gy剂量体积差异有统计学意义（P=0.018, P=0.045）,6、12和16 Gy剂量体积差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;危及器官最大受照剂量相似,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）;机器跳数平均减少282 MU。 结论:在两个多发脑转移瘤VMAT计划优化选择准直器运行方向,剂量梯度跌落更陡,剂量分布更均匀,且可降低正常组织低剂量区受量,以及明显减少机器跳数。     

Dose calculation validation of Vmc++ for photon beams

The radiation therapy specific Voxel Monte Carlo (VMC+ +) dose calculation algorithm achieves a dramatic improvement in MC dose calculation efficiency for radiation therapy treatment planning dose evaluation compared with other MC algorithms. This work aims to validate VMC+ + for radiation therapy photon beam planning. VMC++ was validated with respect to the well-benchmarked EGS-based DOSXYZnrc by comparing depth dose and lateral profiles for field sizes ranging from 1 X 1 to 40 x 40 cm(2) for 6 and 18 MV beams in a homogeneous water phantom and in a simulated bone-lung-bone phantom. Patient treatment plan dose distributions were compared for five prostate plans and five head-and-neck (H/N) plans, all using intensity-modulated radiotherapy beams. For all tests, the same incident particles were used in both codes to isolate differences due to modeling of the radiation source. Voxel-by-voxel observed differences were analyzed to distinguish between systematic and purely statistical differences. Dose-volume-histogram-derived dose indices were compared for the patient plans. For the homogeneous water phantom and the bone-lung-bone phantom, the depth dose curve predicted by VMC+ + agreed with that predicted by DOSXYZnrc within expected statistical uncertainty in all voxels except the surface voxel of the water phantom, where VMC+ + predicted a lower dose. When the electron cutoff parameter was decreased for both codes, the surface voxel agreed within expected statistical uncertainty. For prostate plans, the most severe difference between the codes resulted in 55% of the voxels showing a systematic difference of 0.32% of maximum dose. For H/N plans, the largest difference observed resulted in 2% of the voxels showing a systematic difference of 0.98% of maximum dose. For the prostate plans, the most severe difference in the planning target volume D95 was 0.4%, the rectum D35 was 0.2%, the rectum DI7 was 0.2%, the bladder D50 was 0.3% and the bladder D25 was 0.3%. For the H/N plans, the most severe difference in the gross tumor volume D98 was 0.4%, the clinical target volume D90 was 0.2%, the nodes D90 was 0.2%, the parotids D95 was 0.8%, and the cord D2 was 0.8%. All of these differences are clinically insignificant. VMC++ showed an average efficiency gain over DOSXYZnrc of at least an order of magnitude without introducing significant systematic bias. VMC + + can be used for photon beam MC patient dose computations without a clinically significant loss in accuracy.     

螺旋断层动态钨门技术在宫颈癌术后放疗中的应用

目的:通过评估动态钨门技术的计划质量和执行效率,探讨能否在螺旋断层调强放疗中使用射野宽度5.0 cm的动态钨门代替2.5 cm的固定钨门应用于宫颈癌术后放疗。方法:选取25例宫颈癌术后患者,相同优化条件下分别使用射野宽度2.5 cm的固定钨门（2.5F）、2.5 cm的动态钨门（2.5D）和5.0 cm的动态钨门（5.0D）进行计划设计和评估。比较3组计划靶区的D95、Dmean、均匀性指数（HI）、适形度指数（CI）、危及器官的受照剂量、机器跳数和照射时间。结果:2.5D组得到的靶区CI和HI优于其他两组（P<0.05）,其他剂量学参数的差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。2.5F组与2.5D和5.0D组相比,直肠和膀胱的V20、V40、Dmean,以及小肠的V20均增加（P<0.05）;2.5F组与5.0D组相比,骨、股骨头和小肠的Dmean均降低（P<0.05）。与2.5D组相比,5.0D组的直肠、膀胱和小肠的V20、骨和小肠的Dmean均增加（P<0.05）。5.0D组的机器跳数和照射时间与2.5D和2.5F组相比分别减少了46.1%、45.1%、45.0%、44.1%（t=17.703、-40.698、17.654、-40.414, P<0.05）。结论:综合考虑计划质量和照射效率,建议采用5.0D组应用于宫颈癌术后螺旋断层调强放疗,在满足临床要求的同时可以显著缩短照射时间。若只考虑计划质量则选择2.5D组。     

无商业证书环境下的跨中心食管癌自动计划实现

目的:RapidPlan自动计划可以带来效率、质量和一致性的提升,但对Eclipse计划系统版本和商业证书（license）的较高要求限制了其在资源相对匮乏的基层医院应用。本工作以食管癌为例,探究在没有商业证书和较低版本计划系统环境下,跨中心、跨技术远程应用RapidPlan模型进行自动优化的可行性和剂量学表现,在不增加医院成本的情况下使更多患者受益。方法:（1）选取绵阳市第三人民医院的26例不同分段食管癌固定野调强临床计划（计划A）,该组计划的设计条件为:无RapidPlan商业证书且不支持光子优化算法的Eclipse10.0计划系统、6 MV能量光子、Millennium 120多叶准直器、Dose Volume Optimizer优化算法和各向异性分析算法;（2）将上述病例的勾画结构传输至北大肿瘤医院的Eclipse 15.6版计划系统,保持A组计划布野、能量、多叶准直器等不变,利用RapidPlan模型在光子优化算法和光子剂量算法条件下,生成正常优化环境下的自动计划评估参考基准（计划C）;（3）作为无商业证书环境下的RapidPlan远程应用尝试,将北大肿瘤医院RapidPlan模型预测的优化条件（不包含计划结果）传回至绵阳三院计划系统,利用低版本Dose Volume Optimizer优化算法和各向异性分析算法,在不进行人工干预的情况下获得（计划B）;（4）比较A、B、C计划之间的剂量学差异。结果:无商业证书环境下跨中心应用自动计划模型具有可行性,3组计划均符合临床要求,自动计划在设计效率和一致性方面具备优势。结论:RapidPlan可以在无商业证书的低版本环境下实现跨治疗技术远程自动计划设计,提高基层医院的临床工作效率,缩小地域间医疗服务水平的差异。     

Dosimetric verification of IMRT treatment planning using Monte Carlo simulations for prostate cancer

The purpose of this work is to investigate the accuracy of dose calculation of a commercial treatment planning system (Corvus, Normos Corp., Sewickley, PA). In this study, 30 prostate intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment plans from the commercial treatment planning system were recalculated using the Monte Carlo method. Dose-volume histograms and isodose distributions were compared. Other quantities such as minimum dose to the target (D(min)), the dose received by 98% of the target volume (D98), dose at the isocentre (D(iso)), mean target dose (D(mean)) and the maximum critical structure dose (D(max)) were also evaluated based on our clinical criteria. For coplanar plans, the dose differences between Monte Carlo and the commercial treatment planning system with and without heterogeneity correction were not significant. The differences in the isocentre dose between the commercial treatment planning system and Monte Carlo simulations were less than 3% for all coplanar cases. The differences on D98 were less than 2% on average. The differences in the mean dose to the target between the commercial system and Monte Carlo results were within 3%. The differences in the maximum bladder dose were within 3% for most cases. The maximum dose differences for the rectum were less than 4% for all the cases. For non-coplanar plans, the difference in the minimum target dose between the treatment planning system and Monte Carlo calculations was up to 9% if the heterogeneity correction was not applied in Corvus. This was caused by the excessive attenuation of the non-coplanar beams by the femurs. When the heterogeneity correction was applied in Corvus, the differences were reduced significantly. These results suggest that heterogeneity correction should be used in dose calculation for prostate cancer with non-coplanar beam arrangements.     

Analytic IMRT dose calculations utilizing Monte Carlo to predict MLC fluence modulation

A hybrid dose-computation method is designed which accurately accounts for multileaf collimator (MLC)-induced intensity modulation in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) dose calculations. The method employs Monte Carlo (MC) modeling to determine the fluence modulation caused by the delivery of dynamic or multisegmental (step-and-shoot) MLC fields, and a conventional dose-computation algorithm to estimate the delivered dose to a phantom or a patient. Thus, it determines the IMRT fluence prediction accuracy achievable by analytic methods in the limit that the analytic method includes all details of the MLC leaf transport and scatter. The hybrid method is validated and benchmarked by comparison with in-phantom film dose measurements, as well as dose calculations from two in-house, and two commercial treatment planning system analytic fluence estimation methods. All computation methods utilize the same dose algorithm to calculate dose to a phantom, varying only in the estimation of the MLC modulation of the incident photon energy fluence. Gamma analysis, with respect to measured two-dimensional (2D) dose planes, is used to benchmark each algorithm's performance. The analyzed fields include static and dynamic test patterns, as well as fields from ten DMLC IMRT treatment plans (79 fields) and five SMLC treatment plans (29 fields). The test fields (fully closed MLC, picket fence, sliding windows of different size, and leaf-tip profiles) cover the extremes of MLC usage during IMRT, while the patient fields represent realistic clinical conditions. Of the methods tested, the hybrid method most accurately reproduces measurements. For the hybrid method, 79 of 79 DMLC field calculations have gamma < 1 (3%/3 mm) for more than 95% of the points (per field) while for SMLC fields, 27 of 29 pass the same criteria. The analytic energy fluence estimation methods show inferior pass rates, with 76 of 79 DMLC and 24 of 29 SMLC fields having more than 95% of the test points with gamma < or = 1 (3%/3 mm). Paired one-way ANOVA tests of the gamma analysis results found that the hybrid method better predicts measurements in terms of both the fraction of points with gamma < or = 1 and the average gamma for both 2%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm criteria. These results quantify the enhancement in accuracy in IMRT dose calculations when MC is used to model the MLC field modulation.     

GPU-based fast Monte Carlo simulation for radiotherapy dose calculation

Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is commonly considered to be the most accurate dose calculation method in radiotherapy. However, its efficiency still requires improvement for many routine clinical applications. In this paper, we present our recent progress toward the development of a graphics processing unit (GPU)-based MC dose calculation package, gDPM v2.0. It utilizes the parallel computation ability of a GPU to achieve high efficiency, while maintaining the same particle transport physics as in the original dose planning method (DPM) code and hence the same level of simulation accuracy. In GPU computing, divergence of execution paths between threads can considerably reduce the efficiency. Since photons and electrons undergo different physics and hence attain different execution paths, we use a simulation scheme where photon transport and electron transport are separated to partially relieve the thread divergence issue. A high-performance random number generator and a hardware linear interpolation are also utilized. We have also developed various components to handle the fluence map and linac geometry, so that gDPM can be used to compute dose distributions for realistic IMRT or VMAT treatment plans. Our gDPM package is tested for its accuracy and efficiency in both phantoms and realistic patient cases. In all cases, the average relative uncertainties are less than 1%. A statistical t-test is performed and the dose difference between the CPU and the GPU results is not found to be statistically significant in over 96% of the high dose region and over 97% of the entire region. Speed-up factors of 69.1 ～ 87.2 have been observed using an NVIDIA Tesla C2050 GPU card against a 2.27 GHz Intel Xeon CPU processor. For realistic IMRT and VMAT plans, MC dose calculation can be completed with less than 1% standard deviation in 36.1 ～ 39.6 s using gDPM.     

脑胶质瘤术后VMAT与IMRT放疗技术间比较

目的:比较脑胶质瘤术后容积旋转调强(Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy,VMAT)计划与静态调强(IntensityModulated Radiation Therapy,IMRT)计划,讨论VMAT的剂量学特性,分析VMAT在脑胶质瘤术后放射治疗中的应用。材料与方法:选取10例颅内肿瘤患者,采用Monaco治疗计划系统,分别制作VMAT计划与IMRT计划,处方剂量全部为PTV:60 Gy/30f。比较两组计划的剂量分布图、DVH图、适形度指数(CI)、均匀指数(HI)、治疗时间、治疗跳数(MU)、危及器官受量。结果:两组计划靶区剂量分布及适形度均较好,CI、HI数相近(P>0.05),但VMAT组的治疗时间和MU均优于IMRT组(P<0.05)。在危及器官受量方面,两组计划的脑干与视交叉的平均剂量相近(P>0.05),而视神经、视网膜、晶体和周围正常脑组织的平均剂量,VMAT组明显低于IMRT组(P<0.05)。结论:在脑胶质瘤术后的放射治疗中,VMAT与IMRT的靶区剂量分布相近。VMAT的优势在于大大缩小缩短治疗时间、减少MU,同时减少了部分危及器官受量。