Literature DB >> 24099853

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

Jongmin Cho1, Geoffrey Ibbott, Michael Gillin, Carlos Gonzalez-Lepera, Uwe Titt, Harald Paganetti, Matthew Kerr, Osama Mawlawi.   

Abstract

Proton beam range verification using positron emission tomography (PET) currently relies on proton activation of tissue, the products of which decay with a short half-life and necessitate an on-site PET scanner. Tissue activation is, however, negligible near the distal dose fall-off region of the proton beam range due to their high interaction energy thresholds. Therefore Monte Carlo simulation is often supplemented for comparison with measurement; however, this also may be associated with systematic and statistical uncertainties. Therefore, we sought to test the feasibility of using long-lived proton-activated external materials that are inserted or infused into the target volume for more accurate proton beam range verification that could be performed at an off-site PET scanner. We irradiated samples of ≥98% (18)O-enriched water, natural Cu foils, and >97% (68)Zn-enriched foils as candidate materials, along with samples of tissue-equivalent materials including (16)O water, heptane (C7H16), and polycarbonate (C16H14O3)n, at four depths (ranging from 100% to 3% of center of modulation (COM) dose) along the distal fall-off of a modulated 160 MeV proton beam. Samples were irradiated either directly or after being embedded in Plastic Water® or balsa wood. We then measured the activity of the samples using PET imaging for 20 or 30 min after various delay times. Measured activities of candidate materials were up to 100 times greater than those of the tissue-equivalent materials at the four distal dose fall-off depths. The differences between candidate materials and tissue-equivalent materials became more apparent after longer delays between irradiation and PET imaging, due to the longer half-lives of the candidate materials. Furthermore, the activation of the candidate materials closely mimicked the distal dose fall-off with offsets of 1 to 2 mm. Also, signals from the foils were clearly visible compared to the background from the activated Plastic Water® and balsa wood phantoms. These results indicate that markers made from these candidate materials could be used for in vivo proton range verification using an off-site PET scanner.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24099853      PMCID: PMC3998106          DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/21/7497

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


  29 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.  Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions.

Authors:  W Schneider; T Bortfeld; W Schlegel
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

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

Authors:  Jongmin Cho; Geoffrey Ibbott; Michael Gillin; Carlos Gonzalez-Lepera; Chul Hee Min; Xuping Zhu; Georges El Fakhri; Harald Paganetti; Osama Mawlawi
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  The composition of body tissues.

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

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  In vivo range verification in particle therapy.

Authors:  Katia Parodi; Jerimy C Polf
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  A novel range-verification method using ionoacoustic wave generated from spherical gold markers for particle-beam therapy: a simulation study.

Authors:  Taisuke Takayanagi; Tomoki Uesaka; Masanori Kitaoka; Mehmet Burcin Unlu; Kikuo Umegaki; Hiroki Shirato; Lei Xing; Taeko Matsuura
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  On-line range verification for proton beam therapy using spherical ionoacoustic waves with resonant frequency.

Authors:  Taisuke Takayanagi; Tomoki Uesaka; Yuta Nakamura; Mehmet Burcin Unlu; Yasutoshi Kuriyama; Tomonori Uesugi; Yoshihiro Ishi; Nobuki Kudo; Masanori Kobayashi; Kikuo Umegaki; Satoshi Tomioka; Taeko Matsuura
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  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

5.  In vivo production of fluorine-18 in a chicken egg tumor model of breast cancer for proton therapy range verification.

Authors:  Samuel España; Daniel Sánchez-Parcerisa; Paloma Bragado; Álvaro Gutiérrez-Uzquiza; Almudena Porras; Carolina Gutiérrez-Neira; Andrea Espinosa; Víctor V Onecha; Paula Ibáñez; Víctor Sánchez-Tembleque; José M Udías; Luis M Fraile
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 4.996

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.