Valentina Giacometti1,2, Vladimir A Bashkirov2, Pierluigi Piersimoni3, Susanna Guatelli1, Tia E Plautz4, Hartmut F-W Sadrozinski4, Robert P Johnson4, Andriy Zatserklyaniy4, Thomas Tessonnier5,6, Katia Parodi6,7, Anatoly B Rosenfeld1, Reinhard W Schulte2,3. 1. Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia. 2. Division of Radiation Research, Department of Basic Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA, USA. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Clinic, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Medical Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, Munich, Germany. 7. Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Proton computed tomography (pCT) is a promising imaging technique to substitute or at least complement x-ray CT for more accurate proton therapy treatment planning as it allows calculating directly proton relative stopping power from proton energy loss measurements. A proton CT scanner with a silicon-based particle tracking system and a five-stage scintillating energy detector has been completed. In parallel a modular software platform was developed to characterize the performance of the proposed pCT. METHOD: The modular pCT software platform consists of (1) a Geant4-based simulation modeling the Loma Linda proton therapy beam line and the prototype proton CT scanner, (2) water equivalent path length (WEPL) calibration of the scintillating energy detector, and (3) image reconstruction algorithm for the reconstruction of the relative stopping power (RSP) of the scanned object. In this work, each component of the modular pCT software platform is described and validated with respect to experimental data and benchmarked against theoretical predictions. In particular, the RSP reconstruction was validated with both experimental scans, water column measurements, and theoretical calculations. RESULTS: The results show that the pCT software platform accurately reproduces the performance of the existing prototype pCT scanner with a RSP agreement between experimental and simulated values to better than 1.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The validated platform is a versatile tool for clinical proton CT performance and application studies in a virtual setting. The platform is flexible and can be modified to simulate not yet existing versions of pCT scanners and higher proton energies than those currently clinically available.
PURPOSE: Proton computed tomography (pCT) is a promising imaging technique to substitute or at least complement x-ray CT for more accurate proton therapy treatment planning as it allows calculating directly proton relative stopping power from proton energy loss measurements. A proton CT scanner with a silicon-based particle tracking system and a five-stage scintillating energy detector has been completed. In parallel a modular software platform was developed to characterize the performance of the proposed pCT. METHOD: The modular pCT software platform consists of (1) a Geant4-based simulation modeling the Loma Linda proton therapy beam line and the prototype proton CT scanner, (2) water equivalent path length (WEPL) calibration of the scintillating energy detector, and (3) image reconstruction algorithm for the reconstruction of the relative stopping power (RSP) of the scanned object. In this work, each component of the modular pCT software platform is described and validated with respect to experimental data and benchmarked against theoretical predictions. In particular, the RSP reconstruction was validated with both experimental scans, water column measurements, and theoretical calculations. RESULTS: The results show that the pCT software platform accurately reproduces the performance of the existing prototype pCT scanner with a RSP agreement between experimental and simulated values to better than 1.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The validated platform is a versatile tool for clinical proton CT performance and application studies in a virtual setting. The platform is flexible and can be modified to simulate not yet existing versions of pCT scanners and higher proton energies than those currently clinically available.
Authors: J M Slater; J O Archambeau; D W Miller; M I Notarus; W Preston; J D Slater Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1992 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: K M Hanson; J N Bradbury; T M Cannon; R L Hutson; D B Laubacher; R J Macek; M A Paciotti; C A Taylor Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 1981-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: R F Hurley; R W Schulte; V A Bashkirov; A J Wroe; A Ghebremedhin; H F-W Sadrozinski; V Rykalin; G Coutrakon; P Koss; B Patyal Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Robert P Johnson; Vladimir Bashkirov; Langley DeWitt; Valentina Giacometti; Robert F Hurley; Pierluigi Piersimoni; Tia E Plautz; Hartmut F-W Sadrozinski; Keith Schubert; Reinhard Schulte; Blake Schultze; Andriy Zatserklyaniy Journal: IEEE Trans Nucl Sci Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 1.679
Authors: H F-W Sadrozinski; R P Johnson; S Macafee; A Plumb; D Steinberg; A Zatserklyaniy; V Bashkirov F Hurley; R Schulte Journal: Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A Date: 2012-04-13 Impact factor: 1.455
Authors: Blake Schultze; Yair Censor; Paniz Karbasi; Keith E Schubert; Reinhard W Schulte Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Caesar E Ordoñez; Nicholas T Karonis; Kirk L Duffin; John R Winans; Ethan A DeJongh; Don F DeJongh; George Coutrakon; Nicole F Myers; Mark Pankuch; James S Welsh Journal: J Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-05-25
Authors: L Volz; C-A Collins-Fekete; E Bär; S Brons; C Graeff; R P Johnson; A Runz; C Sarosiek; R W Schulte; J Seco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Pierluigi Piersimoni; Bruce A Faddegon; José Ramos Méndez; Reinhard W Schulte; Lennart Volz; Joao Seco Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-05-20 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Lennart Volz; Pierluigi Piersimoni; Vladimir A Bashkirov; Stephan Brons; Charles-Antoine Collins-Fekete; Robert P Johnson; Reinhard W Schulte; Joao Seco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2018-10-02 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Christina Sarosiek; Ethan A DeJongh; George Coutrakon; Don F DeJongh; Kirk L Duffin; Nicholas T Karonis; Caesar E Ordoñez; Mark Pankuch; Victor Rykalin; John R Winans; James S Welsh Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 4.071