Literature DB >> 23681070

Determination of elemental tissue composition following proton treatment using positron emission tomography.

Jongmin Cho1, Geoffrey Ibbott, Michael Gillin, Carlos Gonzalez-Lepera, Chul Hee Min, Xuping Zhu, Georges El Fakhri, Harald Paganetti, Osama Mawlawi.   

Abstract

Positron emission tomography (PET) has been suggested as an imaging technique for in vivo proton dose and range verification after proton induced-tissue activation. During proton treatment, irradiated tissue is activated and decays while emitting positrons. In this paper, we assessed the feasibility of using PET imaging after proton treatment to determine tissue elemental composition by evaluating the resultant composite decay curve of activated tissue. A phantom consisting of sections composed of different combinations of (1)H, (12)C, (14)N, and (16)O was irradiated using a pristine Bragg peak and a 6 cm spread-out Bragg-peak (SOBP) proton beam. The beam ranges defined at 90% distal dose were 10 cm; the delivered dose was 1.6 Gy for the near monoenergetic beam and 2 Gy for the n>an class="Gene">SOBP beam. After irradiation, activated phantom decay was measured using an in-room PET scanner for 30 min in list mode. Decay curves from the activated (12)C and (16)O sections were first decomposed into multiple simple exponential decay curves, each curve corresponding to a constituent radioisotope, using a least-squares method. The relative radioisotope fractions from each section were determined. These fractions were used to guide the decay curve decomposition from the section consisting mainly of (12)C + (16)O and calculate the relative elemental composition of (12)C and (16)O. A Monte Carlo simulation was also used to determine the elemental composition of the (12)C + (16)O section. The calculated compositions of the (12)C + (16)O section using both approaches (PET and Monte Carlo) were compared with the true known phantom composition. Finally, two patients were imaged using an in-room PET scanner after proton therapy of the head. Their PET data and the technique described above were used to construct elemental composition ((12)C and (16)O) maps that corresponded to the proton-activated regions. We compared the (12)C and (16)O compositions of seven ROIs that corresponded to the vitreous humor, adipose/face mask, adipose tissue, and brain tissue with ICRU 46 elemental composition data. The (12)C and (16)O compositions of the (12)C + (16)O phantom section were estimated to within a maximum difference of 3.6% for the near monoenergetic and SOBP beams over an 8 cm depth range. On the other hand, the Monte Carlo simulation estimated the corresponding (12)C and (16)O compositions in the (12)C + (16)O section to within a maximum difference of 3.4%. For the patients, the (12)C and (16)O compositions in the seven ROIs agreed with the ICRU elemental composition data, with a mean (maximum) difference of 9.4% (15.2%). The (12)C and (16)O compositions of the phantom and patients were estimated with relatively small differences. PET imaging may be useful for determining the tissue elemental composition and thereby improving proton treatment planning and verification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23681070      PMCID: PMC3763743          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/11/3815

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


  27 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.  On the detector arrangement for in-beam PET for hadron therapy monitoring.

Authors:  Paulo Crespo; Georgy Shakirin; Wolfgang Enghardt
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-04-10       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  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

4.  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

5.  A comparison of water equivalent thickness measurements: CT method vs. heavy ion beam technique.

Authors:  E L Alpen; W Saunders; A Chatterjee; J Llacer; G T Chen; J Scherer
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  PET/CT imaging for treatment verification after proton therapy: a study with plastic phantoms and metallic implants.

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

7.  Distributions of beta+ decayed nuclei generated in the CH2 and H2O targets by the target nuclear fragment reaction using therapeutic MONO and SOBP proton beam.

Authors:  Teiji Nishio; Takashi Sato; Hideaki Kitamura; Koji Murakami; Takashi Ogino
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  The composition of body tissues.

Authors:  H Q Woodard; D R White
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Effects of Hounsfield number conversion on CT based proton Monte Carlo dose calculations.

Authors:  Hongyu Jiang; Joao Seco; Harald Paganetti
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.071

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
  7 in total

1.  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 2.  The physics of proton therapy.

Authors:  Wayne D Newhauser; Rui Zhang
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Feasibility of proton-activated implantable markers for proton range verification using PET.

Authors:  Jongmin Cho; Geoffrey Ibbott; Michael Gillin; Carlos Gonzalez-Lepera; Uwe Titt; Harald Paganetti; Matthew Kerr; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  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

5.  Localization of anatomical changes in patients during proton therapy with in-beam PET monitoring: A voxel-based morphometry approach exploiting Monte Carlo simulations.

Authors:  Aafke Christine Kraan; Andrea Berti; Alessandra Retico; Guido Baroni; Giuseppe Battistoni; Nicola Belcari; Piergiorgio Cerello; Mario Ciocca; Micol De Simoni; Damiano Del Sarto; Marco Donetti; Yunsheng Dong; Alessia Embriaco; Veronica Ferrero; Elisa Fiorina; Marta Fischetti; Gaia Franciosini; Giuseppe Giraudo; Francesco Laruina; Davide Maestri; Marco Magi; Giuseppe Magro; Carlo Mancini Terracciano; Michela Marafini; Ilaria Mattei; Enrico Mazzoni; Paolo Mereu; Riccardo Mirabelli; Alfredo Mirandola; Matteo Morrocchi; Silvia Muraro; Alessandra Patera; Vincenzo Patera; Francesco Pennazio; Angelo Rivetti; Manuel Dionisio Da Rocha Rolo; Valeria Rosso; Alessio Sarti; Angelo Schiavi; Adalberto Sciubba; Elena Solfaroli Camillocci; Giancarlo Sportelli; Sara Tampellini; Marco Toppi; Giacomo Traini; Serena Marta Valle; Francesca Valvo; Barbara Vischioni; Viviana Vitolo; Richard Wheadon; Maria Giuseppina Bisogni
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 4.506

Review 6.  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

7.  Secondary particle production and physical properties during dose enhancement for spread-out Bragg peaks.

Authors:  Chulhwan Hwang; Jung Hoon Kim
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.241

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.