A C Kraan1, G Battistoni2, N Belcari3, N Camarlinghi3, G A P Cirrone4, G Cuttone4, S Ferretti3, A Ferrari5, G Pirrone3, F Romano4, P Sala2, G Sportelli3, K Straub3, A Tramontana6, A Del Guerra3, V Rosso3. 1. Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; INFN, Pisa, Italy. Electronic address: aafke.kraan@pi.infn.it. 2. INFN Sezione di Milano, Milano, Italy. 3. Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; INFN, Pisa, Italy. 4. INFN-Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, Catania, Italy. 5. CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. 6. INFN-Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, Catania, Italy; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Abstract
GOAL: Proton treatment monitoring with Positron-Emission-Tomography (PET) is based on comparing measured and Monte Carlo (MC) predicted β(+) activity distributions. Here we present PET β(+) activity data and MC predictions both during and after proton irradiation of homogeneous PMMA targets, where protons were extracted from a cyclotron. METHODS AND MATERIALS: PMMA phantoms were irradiated with 62 MeV protons extracted from the CATANA cyclotron. PET activity data were acquired with a 10 × 10 cm(2) planar PET system and compared with predictions from the FLUKA MC generator. We investigated which isotopes are produced and decay during irradiation, and compared them to the situation after irradiation. For various irradiation conditions we compared one-dimensional activity distributions of MC and data, focussing on Δw50%, i.e., the distance between the 50% rise and 50% fall-off position. RESULTS: The PET system is able to acquire data during and after cyclotron irradiation. For PMMA phantoms the difference between the FLUKA MC prediction and our data in Δw50% is less than 1 mm. The ratio of PET activity events during and after irradiation is about 1 in both data and FLUKA, when equal time-frames are considered. Some differences are observed in profile shape. CONCLUSION: We found a good agreement in Δw50% and in the ratio between beam-on and beam-off activity between the PET data and the FLUKA MC predictions in all irradiation conditions.
GOAL: Proton treatment monitoring with Positron-Emission-Tomography (PET) is based on comparing measured and Monte Carlo (MC) predicted β(+) activity distributions. Here we present PET β(+) activity data and MC predictions both during and after proton irradiation of homogeneous PMMA targets, where protons were extracted from a cyclotron. METHODS AND MATERIALS: PMMA phantoms were irradiated with 62 MeV protons extracted from the CATANA cyclotron. PET activity data were acquired with a 10 × 10 cm(2) planar PET system and compared with predictions from the FLUKA MC generator. We investigated which isotopes are produced and decay during irradiation, and compared them to the situation after irradiation. For various irradiation conditions we compared one-dimensional activity distributions of MC and data, focussing on Δw50%, i.e., the distance between the 50% rise and 50% fall-off position. RESULTS: The PET system is able to acquire data during and after cyclotron irradiation. For PMMA phantoms the difference between the FLUKA MC prediction and our data in Δw50% is less than 1 mm. The ratio of PET activity events during and after irradiation is about 1 in both data and FLUKA, when equal time-frames are considered. Some differences are observed in profile shape. CONCLUSION: We found a good agreement in Δw50% and in the ratio between beam-on and beam-off activity between the PET data and the FLUKA MC predictions in all irradiation conditions.
Authors: Maria Giuseppina Bisogni; Andrea Attili; Giuseppe Battistoni; Nicola Belcari; Niccolo' Camarlinghi; Piergiorgio Cerello; Silvia Coli; Alberto Del Guerra; Alfredo Ferrari; Veronica Ferrero; Elisa Fiorina; Giuseppe Giraudo; Eleftheria Kostara; Matteo Morrocchi; Francesco Pennazio; Cristiana Peroni; Maria Antonietta Piliero; Giovanni Pirrone; Angelo Rivetti; Manuel D Rolo; Valeria Rosso; Paola Sala; Giancarlo Sportelli; Richard Wheadon Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2016-12-02
Authors: Daria Boscolo; Daria Kostyleva; Mohammad Javad Safari; Vasiliki Anagnostatou; Juha Äystö; Soumya Bagchi; Tim Binder; Georgios Dedes; Peter Dendooven; Timo Dickel; Vasyl Drozd; Bernhard Franczack; Hans Geissel; Chiara Gianoli; Christian Graeff; Tuomas Grahn; Florian Greiner; Emma Haettner; Roghieh Haghani; Muhsin N Harakeh; Felix Horst; Christine Hornung; Jan-Paul Hucka; Nasser Kalantar-Nayestanaki; Erika Kazantseva; Birgit Kindler; Ronja Knöbel; Natalia Kuzminchuk-Feuerstein; Bettina Lommel; Ivan Mukha; Chiara Nociforo; Shunki Ishikawa; Giulio Lovatti; Munetaka Nitta; Ikechi Ozoemelam; Stephane Pietri; Wolfgang R Plaß; Andrej Prochazka; Sivaji Purushothaman; Claire-Anne Reidel; Heidi Roesch; Fabio Schirru; Christoph Schuy; Olga Sokol; Timo Steinsberger; Yoshiki K Tanaka; Isao Tanihata; Peter Thirolf; Walter Tinganelli; Bernd Voss; Uli Weber; Helmut Weick; John S Winfield; Martin Winkler; Jianwei Zhao; Christoph Scheidenberger; Katia Parodi; Marco Durante Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 5.738