Purpose

While Monte Carlo particle transport has proven useful in many areas (treatment head design, dose calculation, shielding design, and imaging studies) and has been particularly important for proton therapy (due to the conformal dose distributions and a finite beam range in the patient), the available general purpose Monte Carlo codes in proton therapy have been overly complex for most clinical medical physicists. The learning process has large costs not only in time but also in reliability. To address this issue, we developed an innovative proton Monte Carlo platform and tested the tool in a variety of proton therapy applications.

Methods

Our approach was to take one of the already-established general purpose Monte Carlo codes and wrap and extend it to create a specialized user-friendly tool for proton therapy. The resulting tool, TOol for PArticle Simulation (TOPAS), should make Monte Carlo simulation more readily available for research and clinical physicists. TOPAS can model a passive scattering or scanning beam treatment head, model a patient geometry based on computed tomography (CT) images, score dose, fluence, etc., save and restart a phase space, provides advanced graphics, and is fully four-dimensional (4D) to handle variations in beam delivery and patient geometry during treatment. A custom-designed TOPAS parameter control system was placed at the heart of the code to meet requirements for ease of use, reliability, and repeatability without sacrificing flexibility.

Results

We built and tested the TOPAS code. We have shown that the TOPAS parameter system provides easy yet flexible control over all key simulation areas such as geometry setup, particle source setup, scoring setup, etc. Through design consistency, we have insured that user experience gained in configuring one component, scorer or filter applies equally well to configuring any other component, scorer or filter. We have incorporated key lessons from safety management, proactively removing possible sources of user error such as line-ordering mistakes. We have modeled proton therapy treatment examples including the UCSF eye treatment head, the MGH stereotactic alignment in radiosurgery treatment head and the MGH gantry treatment heads in passive scattering and scanning modes, and we have demonstrated dose calculation based on patient-specific CT data. Initial validation results show agreement with measured data and demonstrate the capabilities of TOPAS in simulating beam delivery in 3D and 4D.

Conclusions

We have demonstrated TOPAS accuracy and usability in a variety of proton therapy setups. As we are preparing to make this tool freely available for researchers in medical physics, we anticipate widespread use of this tool in the growing proton therapy community.

The aim of this work was to improve the computational efficiency of Monte Carlo simulations when tracking protons through a proton therapy treatment head. Two proton therapy facilities were considered, the Francis H Burr Proton Therapy Center (FHBPTC) at the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Crocker Lab eye treatment facility used by University of California at San Francisco (UCSFETF). The computational efficiency was evaluated for phase space files scored at the exit of the treatment head to determine optimal parameters to improve efficiency while maintaining accuracy in the dose calculation. For FHBPTC, particles were split by a factor of 8 upstream of the second scatterer and upstream of the aperture. The radius of the region for Russian roulette was set to 2.5 or 1.5 times the radius of the aperture and a secondary particle production cut (PC) of 50 mm was applied. For UCSFETF, particles were split a factor of 16 upstream of a water absorber column and upstream of the aperture. Here, the radius of the region for Russian roulette was set to 4 times the radius of the aperture and a PC of 0.05 mm was applied. In both setups, the cylindrical symmetry of the proton beam was exploited to position the split particles randomly spaced around the beam axis. When simulating a phase space for subsequent water phantom simulations, efficiency gains between a factor of 19.9  ±  0.1 and 52.21  ±  0.04 for the FHTPC setups and 57.3  ±  0.5 for the UCSFETF setups were obtained. For a phase space used as input for simulations in a patient geometry, the gain was a factor of 78.6  ±  7.5. Lateral-dose curves in water were within the accepted clinical tolerance of 2%, with statistical uncertainties of 0.5% for the two facilities. For the patient geometry and by considering the 2% and 2mm criteria, 98.4% of the voxels showed a gamma index lower than unity. An analysis of the dose distribution resulted in systematic deviations below of 0.88% for 20% of the voxels with dose of 20% of the maximum or more.

Purpose

TOPAS (TOol for PArticle Simulation) is a particle simulation code recently developed with the specific aim of making Monte Carlo simulations user-friendly for research and clinical physicists in the particle therapy community. The authors present a thorough and extensive experimental validation of Monte Carlo simulations performed with TOPAS in a variety of setups relevant for proton therapy applications. The set of validation measurements performed in this work represents an overall end-to-end testing strategy recommended for all clinical centers planning to rely on TOPAS for quality assurance or patient dose calculation and, more generally, for all the institutions using passive-scattering proton therapy systems.

Methods

The authors systematically compared TOPAS simulations with measurements that are performed routinely within the quality assurance (QA) program in our institution as well as experiments specifically designed for this validation study. First, the authors compared TOPAS simulations with measurements of depth-dose curves for spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) fields. Second, absolute dosimetry simulations were benchmarked against measured machine output factors (OFs). Third, the authors simulated and measured 2D dose profiles and analyzed the differences in terms of field flatness and symmetry and usable field size. Fourth, the authors designed a simple experiment using a half-beam shifter to assess the effects of multiple Coulomb scattering, beam divergence, and inverse square attenuation on lateral and longitudinal dose profiles measured and simulated in a water phantom. Fifth, TOPAS' capabilities to simulate time dependent beam delivery was benchmarked against dose rate functions (i.e., dose per unit time vs time) measured at different depths inside an SOBP field. Sixth, simulations of the charge deposited by protons fully stopping in two different types of multilayer Faraday cups (MLFCs) were compared with measurements to benchmark the nuclear interaction models used in the simulations.

Results

SOBPs' range and modulation width were reproduced, on average, with an accuracy of +1, -2 and ±3 mm, respectively. OF simulations reproduced measured data within ±3%. Simulated 2D dose-profiles show field flatness and average field radius within ±3% of measured profiles. The field symmetry resulted, on average in ±3% agreement with commissioned profiles. TOPAS accuracy in reproducing measured dose profiles downstream the half beam shifter is better than 2%. Dose rate function simulation reproduced the measurements within ∼2% showing that the four-dimensional modeling of the passively modulation system was implement correctly and millimeter accuracy can be achieved in reproducing measured data. For MLFCs simulations, 2% agreement was found between TOPAS and both sets of experimental measurements. The overall results show that TOPAS simulations are within the clinical accepted tolerances for all QA measurements performed at our institution.

Conclusions

Our Monte Carlo simulations reproduced accurately the experimental data acquired through all the measurements performed in this study. Thus, TOPAS can reliably be applied to quality assurance for proton therapy and also as an input for commissioning of commercial treatment planning systems. This work also provides the basis for routine clinical dose calculations in patients for all passive scattering proton therapy centers using TOPAS.

The aim of this work was to develop a framework for modeling organ effects within TOPAS (TOol for PArticle Simulation), a wrapper of the Geant4 Monte Carlo toolkit that facilitates particle therapy simulation. The DICOM interface for TOPAS was extended to permit contour input, used to assign voxels to organs. The following dose response models were implemented: The Lyman-Kutcher-Burman model, the critical element model, the population based critical volume model, the parallel-serial model, a sigmoid-based model of Niemierko for normal tissue complication probability and tumor control probability (TCP), and a Poisson-based model for TCP. The framework allows easy manipulation of the parameters of these models and the implementation of other models. As part of the verification, results for the parallel-serial and Poisson model for x-ray irradiation of a water phantom were compared to data from the AAPM Task Group 166. When using the task group dose-volume histograms (DVHs), results were found to be sensitive to the number of points in the DVH, with differences up to 2.4%, some of which are attributable to differences between the implemented models. New results are given with the point spacing specified. When using Monte Carlo calculations with TOPAS, despite the relatively good match to the published DVH's, differences up to 9% were found for the parallel-serial model (for a maximum DVH difference of 2%) and up to 0.5% for the Poisson model (for a maximum DVH difference of 0.5%). However, differences of 74.5% (in Rectangle1), 34.8% (in PTV) and 52.1% (in Triangle) for the critical element, critical volume and the sigmoid-based models were found respectively. We propose a new benchmark for verification of organ effect models in proton therapy. The benchmark consists of customized structures in the spread out Bragg peak plateau, normal tissue, tumor, penumbra and in the distal region. The DVH's, DVH point spacing, and results of the organ effect models are provided. The models were used to calculate dose response for a Head and Neck patient to demonstrate functionality of the new framework and indicate the degree of variability between the models in proton therapy.

For several decades, the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) has been an unsolved question of high-energy astrophysics. One approach for solving this puzzle is to correlate UHECRs with high-energy neutrinos, since neutrinos are a direct probe of hadronic interactions of cosmic rays and are not deflected by magnetic fields. In this paper, we present three different approaches for correlating the arrival directions of neutrinos with the arrival directions of UHECRs. The neutrino data are provided by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory and ANTARES, while the UHECR data with energies above ∼50 EeV are provided by the Pierre Auger Observatory and the Telescope Array. All experiments provide increased statistics and improved reconstructions with respect to our previous results reported in 2015. The first analysis uses a high-statistics neutrino sample optimized for point-source searches to search for excesses of neutrino clustering in the vicinity of UHECR directions. The second analysis searches for an excess of UHECRs in the direction of the highest-energy neutrinos. The third analysis searches for an excess of pairs of UHECRs and highest-energy neutrinos on different angular scales. None of the analyses have found a significant excess, and previously reported overfluctuations are reduced in significance. Based on these results, we further constrain the neutrino flux spatially correlated with UHECRs.