Literature DB >> 21464528

Design study of an in situ PET scanner for use in proton beam therapy.

S Surti1, W Zou, M E Daube-Witherspoon, J McDonough, J S Karp.   

Abstract

Proton beam therapy can deliver a high radiation dose to a tumor without significant damage to surrounding healthy tissue or organs. One way of verifying the delivered dose distribution is to image the short-lived positron emitters produced by the proton beam as it travels through the patient. A potential solution to the limitations of PET imaging in proton beam therapy is the development of a high sensitivity, in situ PET scanner that starts PET imaging almost immediately after patient irradiation while the patient is still lying on the treatment bed. A partial ring PET design is needed for this application in order to avoid interference between the PET detectors and the proton beam, as well as restrictions on patient positioning on the couch. A partial ring also allows us to optimize the detector separation (and hence the sensitivity) for different patient sizes. Our goal in this investigation is to evaluate an in situ PET scanner design for use in proton therapy that provides tomographic imaging in a partial ring scanner design using time-of-flight (TOF) information and an iterative reconstruction algorithm. GEANT4 simulation of an incident proton beam was used to produce a positron emitter distribution, which was parameterized and then used as the source distribution inside a water-filled cylinder for EGS4 simulations of a PET system. Design optimization studies were performed as a function of crystal type and size, system timing resolution, scanner angular coverage and number of positron emitter decays. Data analysis was performed to measure the accuracy of the reconstructed positron emitter distribution as well as the range of the positron emitter distribution. We simulated scanners with varying crystal sizes (2-4 mm) and type (LYSO and LaBr(3)) and our results indicate that 4 mm wide LYSO or LaBr(3) crystals (resulting in 4-5 mm spatial resolution) are adequate; for a full-ring, non-TOF scanner we predict a low bias (<0.6 mm) and a good precision (<1 mm) in the estimated range relative to the simulated positron distribution. We then varied the angular acceptance of the scanner ranging from 1/2 to 2/3 of 2π; a partial ring TOF imaging with good timing resolution (≤600 ps) is necessary to produce accurate tomographic images. A two-third ring scanner with 300 ps timing resolution leads to a bias of 1.0 mm and a precision of 1.4 mm in the range estimate. With a timing resolution of 600 ps, the bias increases to 2.0 mm while the precision in the range estimate is similar. For a half-ring scanner design, more distortions are present in the image, which is characterized by the increased error in the profile difference estimate. We varied the number of positron decays imaged by the PET scanner by an order of magnitude and we observe some decrease in the precision of the range estimate for lower number of decays, but all partial ring scanner designs studied have a precision ≤1.5 mm. The largest number tested, 150 M total positron decays, is considered realistic for a clinical fraction of delivered dose, while the range of positron decays investigated in this work covers a variable number of situations corresponding to delays in scan start time and the total scan time. Thus, we conclude that for partial ring systems, an angular acceptance of at least 1/2 (of 2π) together with timing resolution of 300 ps is needed to achieve accurate and precise range estimates. With 600 ps timing resolution an angular acceptance of 2/3 (of 2π) is required to achieve satisfactory range estimates. These results indicate that it would be feasible to develop a partial-ring dedicated PET scanner based on either LaBr(3) or LYSO to accurately characterize the proton dose for therapy planning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21464528      PMCID: PMC3144472          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/9/002

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


  17 in total

1.  On-line monitoring of radiotherapy beams: experimental results with proton beams.

Authors:  D W Litzenberg; D A Roberts; M Y Lee; K Pham; A M Vander Molen; R Ronningen; F D Becchetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Image quality assessment of LaBr3-based whole-body 3D PET scanners: a Monte Carlo evaluation.

Authors:  S Surti; J S Karp; G Muehllehner
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2004-10-07       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Direct time-of-flight for quantitative, real-time in-beam PET: a concept and feasibility study.

Authors:  Paulo Crespo; Georgy Shakirin; Fine Fiedler; Wolfgang Enghardt; Andreas Wagner
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2007-11-06       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data.

Authors:  H M Hudson; R S Larkin
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 10.048

5.  Proton dose monitoring with PET: quantitative studies in Lucite.

Authors:  U Oelfke; G K Lam; M S Atkins
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.609

6.  The relation between X-ray CT numbers and charged particle stopping powers and its significance for radiotherapy treatment planning.

Authors:  A A Mustafa; D F Jackson
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  The development and clinical use of a beam ON-LINE PET system mounted on a rotating gantry port in proton therapy.

Authors:  Teiji Nishio; Aya Miyatake; Takashi Ogino; Keiichi Nakagawa; Nagahiro Saijo; Hiroyasu Esumi
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2010-01-01       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  The imaging performance of a LaBr3-based PET scanner.

Authors:  M E Daube-Witherspoon; S Surti; A Perkins; C C M Kyba; R Wiener; M E Werner; R Kulp; J S Karp
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 3.609

9.  A proposal of an open PET geometry.

Authors:  Taiga Yamaya; Taku Inaniwa; Shinichi Minohara; Eiji Yoshida; Naoko Inadama; Fumihiko Nishikido; Kengo Shibuya; Chih Fung Lam; Hideo Murayama
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2008-01-14       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Patient study of in vivo verification of beam delivery and range, using positron emission tomography and computed tomography imaging after proton therapy.

Authors:  Katia Parodi; Harald Paganetti; Helen A Shih; Susan Michaud; Jay S Loeffler; Thomas F DeLaney; Norbert J Liebsch; John E Munzenrider; Alan J Fischman; Antje Knopf; Thomas Bortfeld
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2007-07-01       Impact factor: 7.038

View more
  15 in total

1.  Monitoring proton therapy with PET.

Authors:  H Paganetti; G El Fakhri
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Update on novel trends in PET/CT technology and its clinical applications.

Authors:  Stephan Walrand; Michel Hesse; François Jamar
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  Image guidance in proton therapy for lung cancer.

Authors:  Miao Zhang; Wei Zou; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04

4.  The potential of positron emission tomography for intratreatment dynamic lung tumor tracking: a phantom study.

Authors:  Jaewon Yang; Tokihiro Yamamoto; Samuel R Mazin; Edward E Graves; Paul J Keall
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Feasibility study of using fall-off gradients of early and late PET scans for proton range verification.

Authors:  Jongmin Cho; Kira Grogg; Chul Hee Min; Xuping Zhu; Harald Paganetti; Hyun Cheol Lee; Georges El Fakhri
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 6.  Update on time-of-flight PET imaging.

Authors:  Suleman Surti
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2014-12-18       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge.

Authors:  Paul Lecoq; Christian Morel; John O Prior; Dimitris Visvikis; Stefan Gundacker; Etiennette Auffray; Peter Križan; Rosana Martinez Turtos; Dominique Thers; Edoardo Charbon; Joao Varela; Christophe de La Taille; Angelo Rivetti; Dominique Breton; Jean-François Pratte; Johan Nuyts; Suleman Surti; Stefaan Vandenberghe; Paul Marsden; Katia Parodi; Jose Maria Benlloch; Mathieu Benoit
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 8.  Advances in time-of-flight PET.

Authors:  Suleman Surti; Joel S Karp
Journal:  Phys Med       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 2.685

9.  Clinical application of in-room positron emission tomography for in vivo treatment monitoring in proton radiation therapy.

Authors:  Chul Hee Min; Xuping Zhu; Brian A Winey; Kira Grogg; Mauro Testa; Georges El Fakhri; Thomas R Bortfeld; Harald Paganetti; Helen A Shih
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 7.038

10.  A Recommendation on How to Analyze In-Room PET for In Vivo Proton Range Verification Using a Distal PET Surface Method.

Authors:  Chul Hee Min; Xuping Zhu; Kira Grogg; Georges El Fakhri; Brian Winey; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-09-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.