Proton Therapy Verification with PET Imaging

Zhu, Xiaoying; Fakhri, Georges El

doi:10.7150/thno.5162

Cited by 95 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…So far, Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is the most studied monitoring technique [4][5][6][7][8][9]. It is based on the detection of back-to-back photons (511 keV) originating from e-e+ annihilation: in protontherapy the positron arises from β+ emitters (mainly 11 C and 15 O) generated by nuclear interaction between protons and the patient tissues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proton therapy treatment monitoring with in-beam PET: Investigating space and time activity distributions

Brombal

Barbosa

Belcari

et al. 2017

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proton therapy treatment monitoring with in-beam PET: Investigating space and time activity distributions

Brombal

Barbosa

Belcari

et al. 2017

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although we used PHITS for the simulation, other Monte Carlo simulation codes can also be used for this purpose. [30][31][32] Some differences of proton induced position distributions are reported among Monte Carlo simulation codes. 31,32 The resolution of our developed Cerenkov light imaging system (0.76 ± 0.6 mm) was almost equivalent to the PET system's highest resolution (0.75 mm).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High resolution Cerenkov light imaging of induced positron distribution in proton therapy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We can't get delivered dose distribution during treatment with such solutions. The potential online verification methods are the positron emission tomography (PET) verification and prompt gamma ray verification [14][15][16][17] , which can only do range verification with not very good precision and far from fully clinical application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility study of a verification method for proton and carbon ion radiotherapy plan delivery accuracy check

Jun

Chen

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background All plan verification systems available for particle therapy are designed for pre-treatment verification. The plan delivery accuracy during treatment are unknown. The purpose of this study is to introduce a verification method and develop a software for proton and carbon ion plan delivery accuracy check. Methods A program was developed using Matlab to reconstruct dose from beam parameters recorded in log files and compare the dose reconstructed with the dose calculated by treatment planning system (TPS). Ten carbon ion plans and ten proton plans were enrolled in this study for algorithm validation, sensitivity analysis and plan delivery verification. The dose reconstruction algorithm was validated by comparing the dose calculated by TPS with reconstructed dose using the same beam parameters. The sensitivity of gamma pass rate to spot size deviation, position deviation and particle number deviation were analyzed by comparing dose reconstructed from pseudo plans which have manually added errors with original plan dose. Then plan delivery verification using homemade software were done for the 20 actual treated plans. Results A program for plan delivery verification was developed. For the validation of dose reconstruction algorithm, the mean dose difference between reconstructed dose and plan dose were 0.70% ± 0.24% and 0.51% ± 0.25% for carbon ion and proton plans, respectively. According to our simulation, the Gamma pass rate of carbon ion beam is more sensitive to spot position deviation and particle number deviation, and the Gamma pass rate of proton beam is more sensitive to spot size deviation. For the actual plan delivery verification using homemade software, the mean gamma pass rate were 99.47% ± 0.48%, 99.36% ± 0.50% and 99.48% ± 0.50% for carbon ion beams and 99.92% ± 0.13%, 99.96% ±0.06% and 99.89% ±0.13% for proton beams at three different depth of high dose region using 3mm/3% criteria. Conclusions A software was programed and the algorithm was verified. The method we introduced and the software we made for plan delivery verification is feasible and reliable. The verification method presented in this study can be easily repeated in other hospital.

show abstract

Proton Therapy Verification with PET Imaging

Cited by 95 publications

References 51 publications

Proton therapy treatment monitoring with in-beam PET: Investigating space and time activity distributions

Proton therapy treatment monitoring with in-beam PET: Investigating space and time activity distributions

High resolution Cerenkov light imaging of induced positron distribution in proton therapy

Feasibility study of a verification method for proton and carbon ion radiotherapy plan delivery accuracy check

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About