PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and value of positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) for treatment verification after proton radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 9 patients with tumors in the cranial base, spine, orbit, and eye. Total doses of 1.8-3 GyE and 10 GyE (for an ocular melanoma) per fraction were delivered in 1 or 2 fields. Imaging was performed with a commercial PET/CT scanner for 30 min, starting within 20 min after treatment. The same treatment immobilization device was used during imaging for all but 2 patients. Measured PET/CT images were coregistered to the planning CT and compared with the corresponding PET expectation, obtained from CT-based Monte Carlo calculations complemented by functional information. For the ocular case, treatment position was approximately replicated, and spatial correlation was deduced from reference clips visible in both the planning radiographs and imaging CT. Here, the expected PET image was obtained from an analytical model. RESULTS: Good spatial correlation and quantitative agreement within 30% were found between the measured and expected activity. For head-and-neck patients, the beam range could be verified with an accuracy of 1-2 mm in well-coregistered bony structures. Low spine and eye sites indicated the need for better fixation and coregistration methods. An analysis of activity decay revealed as tissue-effective half-lives of 800-1,150 s. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of postradiation PET/CT for in vivo treatment verification. It also indicates some technological and methodological improvements needed for optimal clinical application.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility and value of positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET/CT) for treatment verification after proton radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This study included 9 patients with tumors in the cranial base, spine, orbit, and eye. Total doses of 1.8-3 GyE and 10 GyE (for an ocular melanoma) per fraction were delivered in 1 or 2 fields. Imaging was performed with a commercial PET/CT scanner for 30 min, starting within 20 min after treatment. The same treatment immobilization device was used during imaging for all but 2 patients. Measured PET/CT images were coregistered to the planning CT and compared with the corresponding PET expectation, obtained from CT-based Monte Carlo calculations complemented by functional information. For the ocular case, treatment position was approximately replicated, and spatial correlation was deduced from reference clips visible in both the planning radiographs and imaging CT. Here, the expected PET image was obtained from an analytical model. RESULTS: Good spatial correlation and quantitative agreement within 30% were found between the measured and expected activity. For head-and-neck patients, the beam range could be verified with an accuracy of 1-2 mm in well-coregistered bony structures. Low spine and eye sites indicated the need for better fixation and coregistration methods. An analysis of activity decay revealed as tissue-effective half-lives of 800-1,150 s. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of postradiation PET/CT for in vivo treatment verification. It also indicates some technological and methodological improvements needed for optimal clinical application.
Authors: Maurizio Conti; Bernard Bendriem; Mike Casey; Mu Chen; Frank Kehren; Christian Michel; Vladimir Panin Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2005-09-13 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Martijn Engelsman; Stanley J Rosenthal; Susan L Michaud; Judith A Adams; Robert J Schneider; Stephen G Bradley; Jacob B Flanz; Hanne M Kooy Journal: Med Phys Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Katia Parodi; Harald Paganetti; Ethan Cascio; Jacob B Flanz; Ali A Bonab; Nathaniel M Alpert; Kevin Lohmann; Thomas Bortfeld Journal: Med Phys Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: H Mizuno; T Tomitani; M Kanazawa; A Kitagawa; J Pawelke; Y Iseki; E Urakabe; M Suda; A Kawano; R Iritani; S Matsushita; T Inaniwa; T Nishio; S Furukawa; K Ando; Y K Nakamura; T Kanai; K Ishii Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2003-08-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: El H Bentefour; Shikui Tang; Ethan W Cascio; Mauro Testa; Deepak Samuel; Damien Prieels; Bernard Gottschalk; Hsiao-Ming Lu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Xuping Zhu; Samuel España; Juliane Daartz; Norbert Liebsch; Jinsong Ouyang; Harald Paganetti; Thomas R Bortfeld; Georges El Fakhri Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Kira Grogg; Xuping Zhu; Chul Hee Min; Brian Winey; Thomas Bortfeld; Harald Paganetti; Helen A Shih; Georges El Fakhri Journal: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 1.679
Authors: Aaron M Cypess; Sanaz Lehman; Gethin Williams; Ilan Tal; Dean Rodman; Allison B Goldfine; Frank C Kuo; Edwin L Palmer; Yu-Hua Tseng; Alessandro Doria; Gerald M Kolodny; C Ronald Kahn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 91.245