Literature DB >> 20224157

On the effectiveness of ion range determination from in-beam PET data.

Fine Fiedler1, Georgy Shakirin, Judith Skowron, Henning Braess, Paulo Crespo, Daniela Kunath, Jörg Pawelke, Falk Pönisch, Wolfgang Enghardt.   

Abstract

At present, in-beam positron emission tomography (PET) is the only method for in vivo and in situ range verification in ion therapy. At the GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH (GSI) Darmstadt, Germany, a unique in-beam PET installation has been operated from 1997 until the shut down of the carbon ion therapy facility in 2008. Therapeutic irradiation by means of (12)C ion beams of more than 400 patients have been monitored. In this paper a first quantitative study on the accuracy of the in-beam PET method to detect range deviations between planned and applied treatment in clinically relevant situations using simulations based on clinical data is presented. Patient treatment plans were used for performing simulations of positron emitter distributions. For each patient a range difference of + or - 6 mm in water was applied and compared to simulations without any changes. The comparisons were performed manually by six experienced evaluators for data of 81 patients. The number of patients required for the study was calculated using the outcome of a pilot study. The results indicate a sensitivity of (91 + or - 3)% and a specificity of (96 + or - 2)% for detecting an overrange, a reduced range is recognized with a sensitivity of (92 + or - 3)% and a specificity of (96 + or - 2)%. The positive and the negative predictive value of this method are 94% and 87%, respectively. The interobserver coefficient of variation is between 3 and 8%. The in-beam PET method demonstrated a high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of range deviations. As the range is a most indicative factor of deviations in the dose delivery, the promising results shown in this paper confirm the in-beam PET method as an appropriate tool for monitoring ion therapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20224157     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/7/013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  10 in total

1.  Restoration of lost frequency in OpenPET imaging: comparison between the method of convex projections and the maximum likelihood expectation maximization method.

Authors:  Hideaki Tashima; Takayuki Katsunuma; Hiroyuki Kudo; Hideo Murayama; Takashi Obi; Mikio Suga; Taiga Yamaya
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2014-05-31

2.  Mapping (15)O production rate for proton therapy verification.

Authors:  Kira Grogg; Nathaniel M Alpert; Xuping Zhu; Chul Hee Min; Mauro Testa; Brian Winey; Marc D Normandin; Helen A Shih; Harald Paganetti; Thomas Bortfeld; Georges El Fakhri
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 7.038

Review 3.  The promise and pitfalls of positron emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography molecular imaging-guided radiation therapy.

Authors:  Richard L Wahl; Joseph M Herman; Eric Ford
Journal:  Semin Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 5.934

4.  Technical Design Report for a Carbon-11 Treatment Facility.

Authors:  Liviu Penescu; Thierry Stora; Simon Stegemann; Johanna Pitters; Elisa Fiorina; Ricardo Dos Santos Augusto; Claus Schmitzer; Fredrik Wenander; Katia Parodi; Alfredo Ferrari; Thomas E Cocolios
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-04-25

5.  Feasibility of Using Distal Endpoints for In-room PET Range Verification of Proton Therapy.

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

6.  The use of multi-gap resistive plate chambers for in-beam PET in proton and carbon ion therapy.

Authors:  David Watts; Giacomo Borghi; Fabio Sauli; Ugo Amaldi
Journal:  J Radiat Res       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.724

7.  The FLUKA Code: An Accurate Simulation Tool for Particle Therapy.

Authors:  Giuseppe Battistoni; Julia Bauer; Till T Boehlen; Francesco Cerutti; Mary P W Chin; Ricardo Dos Santos Augusto; Alfredo Ferrari; Pablo G Ortega; Wioletta Kozłowska; Giuseppe Magro; Andrea Mairani; Katia Parodi; Paola R Sala; Philippe Schoofs; Thomas Tessonnier; Vasilis Vlachoudis
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 6.244

8.  Online proton therapy monitoring: clinical test of a Silicon-photodetector-based in-beam PET.

Authors:  Veronica Ferrero; Elisa Fiorina; Matteo Morrocchi; Francesco Pennazio; Guido Baroni; Giuseppe Battistoni; Nicola Belcari; Niccolo' Camarlinghi; Mario Ciocca; Alberto Del Guerra; Marco Donetti; Simona Giordanengo; Giuseppe Giraudo; Vincenzo Patera; Cristiana Peroni; Angelo Rivetti; Manuel Dionisio da Rocha Rolo; Sandro Rossi; Valeria Rosso; Giancarlo Sportelli; Sara Tampellini; Francesca Valvo; Richard Wheadon; Piergiorgio Cerello; Maria Giuseppina Bisogni
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Carbon range verification with 718 keV Compton imaging.

Authors:  Raj Kumar Parajuli; Makoto Sakai; Kazuo Arakawa; Yoshiki Kubota; Nobuteru Kubo; Mutsumi Tashiro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  Range Verification Methods in Particle Therapy: Underlying Physics and Monte Carlo Modeling.

Authors:  Aafke Christine Kraan
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 6.244

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.