Skip to main content
Log in

Parallel radiation dose computations with GENOCOP III on GPUs

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In radiotherapy planning, which involves optimization, efforts to produce better (more effective and at the same time with lesser adverse effects) patient radiation plans must trade-off with higher computing times needed to achieve this goal. Computing times is the key (but not only) factor in radiotherapy planning, which is always performed in clinical workflows regimes. ‘Win–win’ is when better plans can be produced within a non-increasing time budget. This work reports on the authors’ attempt to put radiotherapy planning in a ‘win–win’ situation. We looked into unexploited till now reserves, which lie in the performance of optimization methods and algorithms, namely the reserves in performing linear algebra computations when such methods are applied to radiotherapy. A specific feature of such applications is the necessity of numerous sparse matrix \(\times\) vector computations, with matrices and vectors of large sizes. Our first step was to propose ways to include sparse matrix procedures from existing libraries into an optimization algorithm for testing experiments. Our second step in our quest for reserves was to resort to High Performance Computing. We chose graphical processing units because of their versatility, low cost, accessibility, and the existence of linear algebra libraries dedicated to these platforms. We report on the reserves identified in this way, i.e., on speedups of optimization computations achievable by such an optimization algorithm hybridization. We tested our hybrid algorithm numerically on a clinical case.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At this stage of research, no attempt was made to verify the clinical applicability of derived solutions.

  2. Usually 7 or more.

  3. http://faculty.cse.tamu.edu/davis/suitesparse.html.

  4. https://sites.google.com/site/mcfastsparse/.

  5. In preliminary tests, we compared the relevant procedures from cuSPARSE library by NVIDIA (https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cusparse/index.html) and from FastSparse library (based on ELLR-T sparse matrix format, developed at the University of Almería [18, 19]).

References

  1. Bokrantz R (2013) Distributed approximation of Pareto surfaces in multicriteria radiation therapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol 58:3501–3516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Breedveld S, Heijmen B (2017) Data for TROTS—the radiotherapy optimisation test set. Data Brief 12:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Breedveld S, Storchi P, Voet P, Heijmen B (2012) iCycle: integrated, multicriterial beam angle, and profile optimization for generation of coplanar and noncoplanar IMRT plans. Med Biol 39:951–963

    Google Scholar 

  4. Breedveld S, van Berg B, Heijmen B (2017) An interior-point implementation developed and tuned for radiation therapy treatment planning. Comput Optim Appl 68:209–242

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Breedveld S, Craft D, Voet P, van Haveren R, Heijmen B (2019) Multi-criteria optimization and decision-making in radiotherapy. Eur J Oper Res 277:1–19

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bush K, Popescu IA, Zavgorodni S (2008) A technique for generating phase-space-based monte carlo beamlets in radiotherapy applications. Phys Med Biol 53(18):N337–N347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Censor Y, Bortfeld T, Martin B, Trofimov A (2006) A unified approach for inversion problems in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 51:2353–2365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Craft D, Hong TS, Shih H, Bortfeld T (2012) Improved planning time and plan quality through multicriteria optimization for intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dongarra J (1998) Numerical linear algebra for high-performance computers. SIAM, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Ehrgott M, Güler Ç, Hamacher HW, Shao L (2008) Mathematical optimization in intensity modulated radiation therapy. 4OR 6:199–262

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Jia X, Ziegenhein P, Jiang SB (2014) GPU-based high-performance computing for radiation therapy. Phys Med Biol 59(4):R151–R182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaliszewski I, Miroforidis J (2015) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization for intensity modulated radiation therapy. Multi Criteria Decis Making 10:82–92

    Google Scholar 

  13. Küfer KH, Monz M, Scherrer A, Süss P, Alonso F, Sultan A, Bortfeld Th, Craft D, Thieke C (2005) Multicriteria optimization in intensity modulated radiotherapy planning. Berichte des Fraunhofer ITWM 77

  14. Michalewicz Z (2003) Genocop III, source code. http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~zbyszek/evol-systems.html. Accessed: 09 Sept 2019

  15. Michalewicz Z, Fogel DB (2005) How to solve it: modern heuristics. Springer, Berlin

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Michalewicz Z, Nazhiyath G (1995) Genocop III: a co-evolutionary algorithm for numerical optimization problems with nonlinear constraints. In: Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, vol 2, pp 647–651

  17. Neylon J, Sheng K, Yu VY, Chen Q, Low DA, Kupelian PA, Santhanam AP (2014) A nonvoxel-based dose convolution/superposition algorithm optimized for scalable GPU architectures. Med Phys 41(10):1017111–10171115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ortega G, Vazquez F, Garcia I, Garzon EM (2014) FastSpMM: an efficient library for sparse matrix matrix product on GPUs. Comput J 57(7):968–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vazquez F, Fernandez J, Garzon E (2012) Automatic tuning of the sparse matrix vector product on GPUs based on the ELLR-T approach. Parallel Comput 38(8):408–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their deep gratitude to following persons: Paweł Kukołowicz and Anna Zawadzka form Department of Medicine Physics, Memorial Skłodowska-Curie Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland, for data acquisition and methodological guidance; Jacek Starzyński, Robert Szmurło, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland, for access to their stand-alone dose deposition calculation software.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. J. Moreno.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work has been partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science throughout Project RTI2018-095993-B-I00, by J. Andalucía through Project UAL18-TIC-A020-B and by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). J. J. Moreno was supported by an FPU Fellowship (FPU16/05946) from the Spanish Ministry of Education. E. Filatovas was supported by a Grant (no. S-MIP-17-67) from the Research Council of Lithuania.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moreno, J.J., Miroforidis, J., Filatovas, E. et al. Parallel radiation dose computations with GENOCOP III on GPUs. J Supercomput 77, 66–76 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03254-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-020-03254-6

Keywords

Navigation