Results for “Computer Codes” — Page 47

DOE OSTI2019

Leveraging latest computer science tools to advance nuclear cardiology

Nuclear cardiology has unique advantages compared to other modalities, since the image analysis is already much more automated compared to what is currently clinically performed for CT, MR, or echocardiography imaging. The diverse image and clinical data available to assess coronary disease function, perfusion, flow, and associated CT data provide new opportunities, but logistically these additional assessments increase the overall complexity of SPECT/PET reporting, necessitating additional expertise and time. The advances in artificial intelligence software can be leveraged to obtain comprehensive risk predictions and diagnoses from all available data. They will allow nuclear cardiology to retain competitive edge compared to other modalities and improve its overall clinical utility. These tools will enhance diagnosis and risk prediction beyond what is possible by subjective visual analysis and mental integration of data by physicians.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2016

A technique for measuring the quality of an elliptically bent pentaerythritol [PET(002)] crystal

We present a technique for determining the X-ray spectral quality from each region of an elliptically curved PET(002) crystal. The investigative technique utilizes the shape of the crystal rocking curve which changes significantly as the radius of curvature changes. This unique quality information enables the spectroscopist to verify where in the spectral range that the spectrometer performance is satisfactory and where there are regions that would show spectral distortion. A collection of rocking curve measurements for elliptically curved PET(002) has been built up in our X-ray laboratory. The multi-lamellar model from the XOP software has been used as a guide and corrections were applied to the model based upon measurements. But, the measurement of R{sub I} at small radius of curvature shows an anomalous behavior; the multi-lamellar model fails to show this behavior. The effect of this anomalous R{sub I} behavior on an X-ray spectrometer calibration is calculated. It is compared to the multi-lamellar model calculation which is completely inadequate for predicting R{sub I} for this range of curvature and spectral energies.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-E-BRB-00: Deformable Image Registration: Is It Right for Your Clinic

Deformable image registration (DIR) is developing rapidly and is poised to substantially improve dose fusion accuracy for adaptive and retreatment planning and motion management and PET fusion to enhance contour delineation for treatment planning. However, DIR dose warping accuracy is difficult to quantify, in general, and particularly difficult to do so on a patient-specific basis. As clinical DIR options become more widely available, there is an increased need to understand the implications of incorporating DIR into clinical workflow. Several groups have assessed DIR accuracy in clinically relevant scenarios, but no comprehensive review material is yet available. This session will also discuss aspects of the AAPM Task Group 132 on the Use of Image Registration and Data Fusion Algorithms and Techniques in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning official report, which provides recommendations for DIR clinical use. We will summarize and compare various commercial DIR software options, outline successful clinical techniques, show specific examples with discussion of appropriate and inappropriate applications of DIR, discuss the clinical implications of DIR, provide an overview of current DIR error analysis research, review QA options and research phantom development and present TG-132 recommendations. Learning Objectives: Compare/contrast commercial DIR software and QA options Overview clinical DIR workflow for retreatment To understand uncertainties introduced by DIR Review TG-132 proposed recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-E-BRB-01: Overview of DIR Advantages/Challenges and Workflow

Deformable image registration (DIR) is developing rapidly and is poised to substantially improve dose fusion accuracy for adaptive and retreatment planning and motion management and PET fusion to enhance contour delineation for treatment planning. However, DIR dose warping accuracy is difficult to quantify, in general, and particularly difficult to do so on a patient-specific basis. As clinical DIR options become more widely available, there is an increased need to understand the implications of incorporating DIR into clinical workflow. Several groups have assessed DIR accuracy in clinically relevant scenarios, but no comprehensive review material is yet available. This session will also discuss aspects of the AAPM Task Group 132 on the Use of Image Registration and Data Fusion Algorithms and Techniques in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning official report, which provides recommendations for DIR clinical use. We will summarize and compare various commercial DIR software options, outline successful clinical techniques, show specific examples with discussion of appropriate and inappropriate applications of DIR, discuss the clinical implications of DIR, provide an overview of current DIR error analysis research, review QA options and research phantom development and present TG-132 recommendations. Learning Objectives: Compare/contrast commercial DIR software and QA options Overview clinical DIR workflow for retreatment To understand uncertainties introduced by DIR Review TG-132 proposed recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-E-BRB-02: DIR QA Options and Research Development

Deformable image registration (DIR) is developing rapidly and is poised to substantially improve dose fusion accuracy for adaptive and retreatment planning and motion management and PET fusion to enhance contour delineation for treatment planning. However, DIR dose warping accuracy is difficult to quantify, in general, and particularly difficult to do so on a patient-specific basis. As clinical DIR options become more widely available, there is an increased need to understand the implications of incorporating DIR into clinical workflow. Several groups have assessed DIR accuracy in clinically relevant scenarios, but no comprehensive review material is yet available. This session will also discuss aspects of the AAPM Task Group 132 on the Use of Image Registration and Data Fusion Algorithms and Techniques in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning official report, which provides recommendations for DIR clinical use. We will summarize and compare various commercial DIR software options, outline successful clinical techniques, show specific examples with discussion of appropriate and inappropriate applications of DIR, discuss the clinical implications of DIR, provide an overview of current DIR error analysis research, review QA options and research phantom development and present TG-132 recommendations. Learning Objectives: Compare/contrast commercial DIR software and QA options Overview clinical DIR workflow for retreatment To understand uncertainties introduced by DIR Review TG-132 proposed recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

TU-E-BRB-03: Overview of Proposed TG-132 Recommendations

Deformable image registration (DIR) is developing rapidly and is poised to substantially improve dose fusion accuracy for adaptive and retreatment planning and motion management and PET fusion to enhance contour delineation for treatment planning. However, DIR dose warping accuracy is difficult to quantify, in general, and particularly difficult to do so on a patient-specific basis. As clinical DIR options become more widely available, there is an increased need to understand the implications of incorporating DIR into clinical workflow. Several groups have assessed DIR accuracy in clinically relevant scenarios, but no comprehensive review material is yet available. This session will also discuss aspects of the AAPM Task Group 132 on the Use of Image Registration and Data Fusion Algorithms and Techniques in Radiotherapy Treatment Planning official report, which provides recommendations for DIR clinical use. We will summarize and compare various commercial DIR software options, outline successful clinical techniques, show specific examples with discussion of appropriate and inappropriate applications of DIR, discuss the clinical implications of DIR, provide an overview of current DIR error analysis research, review QA options and research phantom development and present TG-132 recommendations. Learning Objectives: Compare/contrast commercial DIR software and QA options Overview clinical DIR workflow for retreatment To understand uncertainties introduced by DIR Review TG-132 proposed recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies

Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-351: Establishing a Workflow for IMRT Pre-Treatment Reviews for NRG-GY006 Clinical Trial

Purpose: To establish a workflow for NRG-GY006 IMRT pre-treatment reviews, incorporating advanced radiotherapy technologies being evaluated as part of the clinical trial. Methods: Pre-Treatment reviews are required for every IMRT case as part of NRG-GY006 (a randomized phase II trial of radiation therapy and cisplatin alone or in combination with intravenous triapine in women with newly diagnosed bulky stage I B2, stage II, IIIB, or IVA cancer of the uterine cervix or stage II-IVA vaginal cancer. The pretreatment review process includes structures review and generating an active bone marrow(ABM)- to be used as an avoidance structure during IMRT optimization- and evaluating initial IMRT plan quality using knowledgeengineering based planning (KBP). Institutions will initially submit their simulation CT scan, structures file and PET/CT to IROC QA center for generating ABM. The ABM will be returned to the institution for use in planning. Institutions will then submit an initial IMRT plan for review and will receive information back following implementation of a KBP algorithm, for use in re-optimization, before submitting the final IMRT used for treatment. Results: ABM structure is generated using MIM vista software (Version 6.5, MIM corporation, Inc.). Here, the planning CT and the diagnostic PET/CT are fused and a sub threshold structure is auto segmented above the mean value of the SUV of the bone marrow. The generated ABM were compared with those generated with other software system (e.g. Velocity, Varian) and Dice coefficient (reflects the overlap of structures) ranged between 80 – 90% was achieved. A KBP model was built in Varian Eclipse TPS using the RapidPlan KBP software to perform plan quality assurance. Conclusion: The workflow for IMRT pretreatment reviews has been established. It represents a major improvement of NRG Oncology clinical trial quality assurance and incorporates the latest radiotherapy technologies as part of NCI clinical trials. This project was supported by grants U24CA180803 (IROC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology Operations), U10CA180822 (NRG Oncology SDMC) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and PA CURE grant.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-AB-206-00: Nuclear Medicine Physics and Testing

This education session will cover the physics and operation principles of gamma cameras and PET scanners. The first talk will focus on PET imaging. An overview of the principles of PET imaging will be provided, including positron decay physics, and the transition from 2D to 3D imaging. More recent advances in hardware and software will be discussed, such as time-of-flight imaging, and improvements in reconstruction algorithms that provide for options such as depth-of-interaction corrections. Quantitative applications of PET will be discussed, as well as the requirements for doing accurate quantitation. Relevant performance tests will also be described. Learning Objectives: Be able to describe basic physics principles of PET and operation of PET scanners. Learn about recent advances in PET scanner hardware technology. Be able to describe advances in reconstruction techniques and improvements Be able to list relevant performance tests. The second talk will focus on gamma cameras. The Nuclear Medicine subcommittee has charged a task group (TG177) to develop a report on the current state of physics testing of gamma cameras, SPECT, and SPECT/CT systems. The report makes recommendations for performance tests to be done for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests, and identifies those needed satisfy the ACR accreditation program and The Joint Commission imaging standards. The report is also intended to be used as a manual with detailed instructions on how to perform tests under widely varying conditions. Learning Objectives: At the end of the presentation members of the audience will: Be familiar with the tests recommended for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests of gamma cameras for planar imaging. Be familiar with the tests recommended for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests of SPECT systems. Be familiar with the tests of a SPECT/CT system that include the CT images for SPECT reconstructions. Become knowledgeable of items to be included in annual acceptance testing reports including CT dosimetry and PACS monitor measurements. T. Turkington, GE Healthcare.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-AB-206-01: PET Physics

This education session will cover the physics and operation principles of gamma cameras and PET scanners. The first talk will focus on PET imaging. An overview of the principles of PET imaging will be provided, including positron decay physics, and the transition from 2D to 3D imaging. More recent advances in hardware and software will be discussed, such as time-of-flight imaging, and improvements in reconstruction algorithms that provide for options such as depth-of-interaction corrections. Quantitative applications of PET will be discussed, as well as the requirements for doing accurate quantitation. Relevant performance tests will also be described. Learning Objectives: Be able to describe basic physics principles of PET and operation of PET scanners. Learn about recent advances in PET scanner hardware technology. Be able to describe advances in reconstruction techniques and improvements Be able to list relevant performance tests. The second talk will focus on gamma cameras. The Nuclear Medicine subcommittee has charged a task group (TG177) to develop a report on the current state of physics testing of gamma cameras, SPECT, and SPECT/CT systems. The report makes recommendations for performance tests to be done for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests, and identifies those needed satisfy the ACR accreditation program and The Joint Commission imaging standards. The report is also intended to be used as a manual with detailed instructions on how to perform tests under widely varying conditions. Learning Objectives: At the end of the presentation members of the audience will: Be familiar with the tests recommended for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests of gamma cameras for planar imaging. Be familiar with the tests recommended for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests of SPECT systems. Be familiar with the tests of a SPECT/CT system that include the CT images for SPECT reconstructions. Become knowledgeable of items to be included in annual acceptance testing reports including CT dosimetry and PACS monitor measurements. T. Turkington, GE Healthcare.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2016

MO-AB-206-02: Testing Gamma Cameras Based On TG177 WG Report

This education session will cover the physics and operation principles of gamma cameras and PET scanners. The first talk will focus on PET imaging. An overview of the principles of PET imaging will be provided, including positron decay physics, and the transition from 2D to 3D imaging. More recent advances in hardware and software will be discussed, such as time-of-flight imaging, and improvements in reconstruction algorithms that provide for options such as depth-of-interaction corrections. Quantitative applications of PET will be discussed, as well as the requirements for doing accurate quantitation. Relevant performance tests will also be described. Learning Objectives: Be able to describe basic physics principles of PET and operation of PET scanners. Learn about recent advances in PET scanner hardware technology. Be able to describe advances in reconstruction techniques and improvements Be able to list relevant performance tests. The second talk will focus on gamma cameras. The Nuclear Medicine subcommittee has charged a task group (TG177) to develop a report on the current state of physics testing of gamma cameras, SPECT, and SPECT/CT systems. The report makes recommendations for performance tests to be done for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests, and identifies those needed satisfy the ACR accreditation program and The Joint Commission imaging standards. The report is also intended to be used as a manual with detailed instructions on how to perform tests under widely varying conditions. Learning Objectives: At the end of the presentation members of the audience will: Be familiar with the tests recommended for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests of gamma cameras for planar imaging. Be familiar with the tests recommended for routine quality assurance, annual physics testing, and acceptance tests of SPECT systems. Be familiar with the tests of a SPECT/CT system that include the CT images for SPECT reconstructions. Become knowledgeable of items to be included in annual acceptance testing reports including CT dosimetry and PACS monitor measurements. T. Turkington, GE Healthcare.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2025

A Comparison of GPU-Accelerated Multiphase CFD Solvers on the Polaris Supercomputer: Part 1

This report is in support of the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). With INCITE-level resources, one project, titled BubblyFlow, was granted computational resources for the 2025 calendar year on the Polaris supercomputer at the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF). The project aims to conduct simulations to understand the fundamental characteristics of turbulent bubbly flow phenomena in nature. Staff at the ALCF and Argonne’s Computational Science division, along with collaborators at the City College of New York and University of Illinois at Chicago, helped a summer student to assess the accuracy and performance of two high performance computing (HPC) codes. Both codes, ImExLBM and FluTAS, are fundamentally different in their mathematical and numerical modeling. However, both may be used to solve the same physical problem. The collaboration sought to better understand the differences between both codes in terms of accuracy and efficiency. This would ultimately help the BubblyFlow project better utilize resources and establish a knowledge-base of code capabilities in future simulation campaigns. We compare ImExLBM and FluTAS, two high-performance multiphase computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solvers, in terms of physical fidelity, time-to-solution, and parallel efficiency. We validate ImExLBM (Implicit-Explicit Lattice Boltzmann Method) against a canonical benchmark and assess it’s performance relative to FluTAS (Fluid Transport Accelerated Solver), a well-established open-source CFD code.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2017

CRISTAL V2: New package for criticality calculations

A new release of the CRISTAL French criticality calculation package, named CRISTAL V2, has been developed and intensively validated by IRSN and CEA, in collaboration with AREVA. This package was designed to cover the needs of criticality practitioners in the fields of nuclear fuel cycle facilities and transportation of fissile materials. Based on an optimized modular architecture in an updated software development environment, the design of CRISTAL package V2 integrates new generation of cross-section libraries, new calculation schemes consistent with new applications, and up-to-date calculation codes capabilities. Four calculation routes are currently available allowing multi-group and continuous energy calculations. The validation database is composed of more than 3000 critical experiments, in order to cover a wide range of configurations. The CRISTAL V2 package also includes customer services covering a large scope of activities like documentations, hotline, maintenance and training courses. A significant promotion and an increased recognition referred both nationally and internationally are foreseen, including the provision of the CRISTAL V2 package to the OECD / NEA Data Bank. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Raytracing

The raytracing (spectrally specific radiative transfer that does not couple back to the hydrodynamic evolution) code was developed because it helps improve our understanding of the physics of explosive events, validates computational physics codes, and estimates optical signals that are cheaper and safer than experiments involving high explosives. The raytracing code can also produce simulations that are useful to analyze what we can understand with sensors, such as determining what we can discriminate with sensors, like the presence of certain metals or the amount of soot. In addition, simulations can provide extra validations to computational physics to help us better understand discrepancies.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2014

GPUPEGAS: A NEW GPU-ACCELERATED HYDRODYNAMIC CODE FOR NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF INTERACTING GALAXIES

In this paper, a new scalable hydrodynamic code, GPUPEGAS (GPU-accelerated Performance Gas Astrophysical Simulation), for the simulation of interacting galaxies is proposed. The details of a parallel numerical method co-design are described. A speed-up of 55 times was obtained within a single GPU accelerator. The use of 60 GPU accelerators resulted in 96% parallel efficiency. A collisionless hydrodynamic approach has been used for modeling of stars and dark matter. The scalability of the GPUPEGAS code is shown.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2017

HDTS 2017.1 Testing and Verification Document

This report is a continuation of the series of Hunter Dose Tracking System (HDTS) Quality Assurance documents including (Foley and Powell, 2010; Dixon, 2012; Whiteside, 2017b). In this report we have created a suite of automated test cases and a system to analyze the results of those tests as well as documented the methodology to ensure the field system performs within specifications. The software test cases cover all of the functions and interactions of functions that are practical to test. With the developed framework, if software defects are discovered, it will be easy to create one or more test cases to reproduce the defect and ensure that code changes correct the defect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗