Esther Bär1,2, Arthur Lalonde3, Rongxiao Zhang4, Kyung-Wook Jee4, Kai Yang4, Gregory Sharp4, Bob Liu4, Gary Royle2, Hugo Bouchard3, Hsiao-Ming Lu4. 1. Acoustics and Ionising Radiation Team, National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, TW11 0LW, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Physics, Université de Montréal, 2900 boul. Édouard-Montpetit, Montréal, QC, H3T 1J4, Canada. 4. Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of dual-energy CT (DECT) for determining proton stopping power ratios (SPRs) in an experimental environment and to demonstrate its potential advantages over conventional single-energy CT (SECT) in clinical conditions. METHODS: Water equivalent range (WER) measurements of 12 tissue-equivalent plastic materials and 12 fresh animal tissue samples are performed in a 195 MeV broad proton beam using the dose extinction method. SECT and DECT scans of the samples are performed with a dual-source CT scanner (Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash). The methods of Schneider et al. (1996), Bourque et al. (2014), and Lalonde et al. (2017) are used to predict proton SPR on SECT and DECT images. From predicted SPR values, the WER of the proton beam through the sample is predicted for SECT and DECT using Monte Carlo simulations and compared to the measured WER. RESULTS: For homogeneous tissue-equivalent plastic materials, results with DECT are consistent with experimental measurements and show a systematic reduction of SPR uncertainty compared to SECT, with root-mean-square errors of 1.59% versus 0.61% for SECT and DECT, respectively. Measurements with heterogeneous animal samples show a clear reduction of the bias on range predictions in the presence of bones, with -0.88% for SECT versus -0.58% and -0.14% for both DECT methods. An uncertainty budget allows isolating the effect of CT number conversion to SPR and predicts improvements by DECT over SECT consistently with theoretical predictions, with 0.34% and 0.31% for soft tissues and bones in the experimental setup compared to 0.34% and 1.14% with the theoretical method. CONCLUSIONS: The present work uses experimental measurements in a realistic clinical environment to show potential benefits of DECT for proton therapy treatment planning. Our results show clear improvements over SECT in tissue-equivalent plastic materials and animal tissues. Further work towards using Monte Carlo simulations for treatment planning with DECT data and a more detailed investigation of the uncertainties on I-value and limitations on the Bragg additivity rule could potentially further enhance the benefits of this imaging technology for proton therapy.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this work is to evaluate the performance of dual-energy CT (DECT) for determining proton stopping power ratios (SPRs) in an experimental environment and to demonstrate its potential advantages over conventional single-energy CT (SECT) in clinical conditions. METHODS:Water equivalent range (WER) measurements of 12 tissue-equivalent plastic materials and 12 fresh animal tissue samples are performed in a 195 MeV broad proton beam using the dose extinction method. SECT and DECT scans of the samples are performed with a dual-source CT scanner (Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash). The methods of Schneider et al. (1996), Bourque et al. (2014), and Lalonde et al. (2017) are used to predict proton SPR on SECT and DECT images. From predicted SPR values, the WER of the proton beam through the sample is predicted for SECT and DECT using Monte Carlo simulations and compared to the measured WER. RESULTS: For homogeneous tissue-equivalent plastic materials, results with DECT are consistent with experimental measurements and show a systematic reduction of SPR uncertainty compared to SECT, with root-mean-square errors of 1.59% versus 0.61% for SECT and DECT, respectively. Measurements with heterogeneous animal samples show a clear reduction of the bias on range predictions in the presence of bones, with -0.88% for SECT versus -0.58% and -0.14% for both DECT methods. An uncertainty budget allows isolating the effect of CT number conversion to SPR and predicts improvements by DECT over SECT consistently with theoretical predictions, with 0.34% and 0.31% for soft tissues and bones in the experimental setup compared to 0.34% and 1.14% with the theoretical method. CONCLUSIONS: The present work uses experimental measurements in a realistic clinical environment to show potential benefits of DECT for proton therapy treatment planning. Our results show clear improvements over SECT in tissue-equivalent plastic materials and animal tissues. Further work towards using Monte Carlo simulations for treatment planning with DECT data and a more detailed investigation of the uncertainties on I-value and limitations on the Bragg additivity rule could potentially further enhance the benefits of this imaging technology for proton therapy.
Authors: Vicki T Taasti; David C Hansen; Gregory J Michalak; Amanda J Deisher; Jon J Kruse; Ludvig P Muren; Jørgen B B Petersen; Cynthia H McCollough Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Jerimy C Polf; Matthew M Mille; Sina Mossahebi; Haijian Chen; Paul Maggi; Huaiyu Chen-Mayer Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Don F DeJongh; Ethan A DeJongh; Victor Rykalin; Greg DeFillippo; Mark Pankuch; Andrew W Best; George Coutrakon; Kirk L Duffin; Nicholas T Karonis; Caesar E Ordoñez; Christina Sarosiek; Reinhard W Schulte; John R Winans; Alec M Block; Courtney L Hentz; James S Welsh Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Serdar Charyyev; Tonghe Wang; Yang Lei; Beth Ghavidel; Jonathan J Beitler; Mark McDonald; Walter J Curran; Tian Liu; Jun Zhou; Xiaofeng Yang Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Anthony Kassaee; Chingyun Cheng; Lingshu Yin; Wei Zou; Taoran Li; Alexander Lin; Samuel Swisher-McClure; John N Lukens; Robert A Lustig; Shannon O'Reilly; Lei Dong; Roni Hytonen Ms; Boon-Keng Kevin Teo Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25