Pierluigi Piersimoni1, Bruce A Faddegon2, José Ramos Méndez2, Reinhard W Schulte3, Lennart Volz1,4, Joao Seco1,4. 1. Department of Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center - DKFZ, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. 3. Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, 92350, USA. 4. Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of relative stopping power and spatial resolution of images reconstructed with simulated helium CT (HeCT) in comparison to proton CT (pCT). METHODS: A Monte Carlo (MC) study with the TOPAS tool was performed to compare the accuracy of relative stopping power (RSP) reconstruction and spatial resolution of low-fluence HeCT to pCT, both using 200 MeV/u particles. An ideal setup consisting of a flat beam source and a totally absorbing energy-range detector was implemented to estimate the theoretically best achievable RSP accuracy for the calibration and reconstruction methods currently used for pCT. The phantoms imaged included a cylindrical water phantom with inserts of different materials, sizes, and positions, a Catphan phantom with a module containing high-contrast line pairs (CTP528) and a module with cylindrical inserts of different RSP (CTP404), as well as a voxelized 10-year-old female phantom. Dose to the cylindrical water phantom was also calculated. The RSP accuracy was studied for all phantoms except the CTP528 module. The latter was used for the estimation of the spatial resolution, evaluated as the modulation transfer function (MTF) at 10%. RESULTS: An overall error under 0.5% was achieved for HeCT for the water phantoms with the different inserts, in all cases better than that for pCT, in some cases by a factor 3. The inserts in the CTP404 module were reconstructed with an average RSP accuracy of 0.3% for HeCT and 0.2% for pCT. Anatomic structures (brain, bones, air cavities, etc.) in the digitized head phantom were well recognizable and no artifacts were visible with both HeCT and pCT. The three main tissue materials (soft tissue, brain, and cranium) were well identifiable in the reconstructed RSP-volume distribution with both imaging modalities. Using 360 projection angles, the spatial resolution was 4 lp/cm for HeCT and 3 lp/cm for pCT. Generally, spatial resolution increased with the number of projection angles and was always higher for HeCT than for pCT for the same number of projections. When HeCT and pCT scan were performed to deliver the same dose in the phantom, the resolution for HeCT was higher than pCT. CONCLUSION: MC simulations were used to compare HeCT and pCT image reconstruction. HeCT images had similar or better RSP accuracy and higher spatial resolution compared to pCT. Further investigation of the potential of helium ion imaging is warranted.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of relative stopping power and spatial resolution of images reconstructed with simulated helium CT (HeCT) in comparison to proton CT (pCT). METHODS: A Monte Carlo (MC) study with the TOPAS tool was performed to compare the accuracy of relative stopping power (RSP) reconstruction and spatial resolution of low-fluence HeCT to pCT, both using 200 MeV/u particles. An ideal setup consisting of a flat beam source and a totally absorbing energy-range detector was implemented to estimate the theoretically best achievable RSP accuracy for the calibration and reconstruction methods currently used for pCT. The phantoms imaged included a cylindrical water phantom with inserts of different materials, sizes, and positions, a Catphan phantom with a module containing high-contrast line pairs (CTP528) and a module with cylindrical inserts of different RSP (CTP404), as well as a voxelized 10-year-old female phantom. Dose to the cylindrical water phantom was also calculated. The RSP accuracy was studied for all phantoms except the CTP528 module. The latter was used for the estimation of the spatial resolution, evaluated as the modulation transfer function (MTF) at 10%. RESULTS: An overall error under 0.5% was achieved for HeCT for the water phantoms with the different inserts, in all cases better than that for pCT, in some cases by a factor 3. The inserts in the CTP404 module were reconstructed with an average RSP accuracy of 0.3% for HeCT and 0.2% for pCT. Anatomic structures (brain, bones, air cavities, etc.) in the digitized head phantom were well recognizable and no artifacts were visible with both HeCT and pCT. The three main tissue materials (soft tissue, brain, and cranium) were well identifiable in the reconstructed RSP-volume distribution with both imaging modalities. Using 360 projection angles, the spatial resolution was 4 lp/cm for HeCT and 3 lp/cm for pCT. Generally, spatial resolution increased with the number of projection angles and was always higher for HeCT than for pCT for the same number of projections. When HeCT and pCT scan were performed to deliver the same dose in the phantom, the resolution for HeCT was higher than pCT. CONCLUSION: MC simulations were used to compare HeCT and pCT image reconstruction. HeCT images had similar or better RSP accuracy and higher spatial resolution compared to pCT. Further investigation of the potential of helium ion imaging is warranted.
Authors: David C Hansen; Joao Seco; Thomas Sangild Sørensen; Jørgen Breede Baltzer Petersen; Joachim E Wildberger; Frank Verhaegen; Guillaume Landry Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Charles-Antoine Collins-Fekete; Lennart Volz; Stephen K N Portillo; Luc Beaulieu; Joao Seco Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ming Yang; X Ronald Zhu; Peter C Park; Uwe Titt; Radhe Mohan; Gary Virshup; James E Clayton; Lei Dong Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Choonsik Lee; Daniel Lodwick; Jorge Hurtado; Deanna Pafundi; Jonathan L Williams; Wesley E Bolch Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.609
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: Valentina Giacometti; Vladimir A Bashkirov; Pierluigi Piersimoni; Susanna Guatelli; Tia E Plautz; Hartmut F-W Sadrozinski; Robert P Johnson; Andriy Zatserklyaniy; Thomas Tessonnier; Katia Parodi; Anatoly B Rosenfeld; Reinhard W Schulte Journal: Med Phys Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.506
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: Bruce Faddegon; José Ramos-Méndez; Jan Schuemann; Aimee McNamara; Jungwook Shin; Joseph Perl; Harald Paganetti Journal: Phys Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 2.685
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: Ingrid Valencia Lozano; Mengying Shi; Marios Myronakis; Paul Baturin; Rony Fueglistaller; Pascal Huber; Mathias Lehmann; Daniel Morf; Dianne Ferguson; Matthew W Jacobson; Thomas Harris; Ross I Berbeco; Christopher L Williams Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-04-16 Impact factor: 4.174