Literature DB >> 31220814

Experimental comparison of proton CT and dual energy x-ray CT for relative stopping power estimation in proton therapy.

George Dedes1, Jannis Dickmann, Katharina Niepel, Philipp Wesp, Robert P Johnson, Mark Pankuch, Vladimir Bashkirov, Simon Rit, Lennart Volz, Reinhard W Schulte, Guillaume Landry, Katia Parodi.   

Abstract

Proton computed tomography (pCT) has been proposed as an alternative to x-ray computed tomography (CT) for acquiring relative to water stopping power (RSP) maps used for proton treatment planning dose calculations. In parallel, it has been shown that dual energy x-ray CT (DECT) improves RSP accuracy when compared to conventional single energy x-ray CT. This study aimed at directly comparing the RSP accuracy of both modalities using phantoms scanned at an advanced prototype pCT scanner and a state-of-the-art DECT scanner. Two phantoms containing 13 tissue-mimicking inserts of known RSP were scanned at the pCT phase II prototype and a latest generation dual-source DECT scanner (Siemens SOMATOM Definition FORCE). RSP accuracy was compared by mean absolute percent error (MAPE) over all inserts. A highly realistic Monte Carlo (MC) simulation was used to gain insight on pCT image artifacts which degraded MAPE. MAPE was 0.55% for pCT and 0.67% for DECT. The realistic MC simulation agreed well with pCT measurements ([Formula: see text]). Both simulation and experimental results showed ring artifacts in pCT images which degraded the MAPE compared to an ideal pCT simulation ([Formula: see text]). Using the realistic simulation, we could identify sources of artifacts, which are attributed to the interfaces in the five-stage plastic scintillator energy detector and calibration curve interpolation regions. Secondary artifacts stemming from the proton tracker geometry were also identified. The pCT prototype scanner outperformed a state-of-the-art DECT scanner in terms of RSP accuracy (MAPE) for plastic tissue mimicking inserts. Since artifacts tended to concentrate in the inserts, their mitigation may lead to further improvements in the reported pCT accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31220814     DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab2b72

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Status and innovations in pre-treatment CT imaging for proton therapy.

Authors:  Patrick Wohlfahrt; Christian Richter
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  A novel proton-integrating radiography system design using a monolithic scintillator detector: experimental studies.

Authors:  Chinmay D Darne; Daniel G Robertson; Fahed Alsanea; Charles-Antoine Collins-Fekete; Sam Beddar
Journal:  Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 1.455

Review 3.  Adaptive proton therapy.

Authors:  Harald Paganetti; Pablo Botas; Gregory C Sharp; Brian Winey
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  A comparison of proton stopping power measured with proton CT and x-ray CT in fresh postmortem porcine structures.

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

5.  The accuracy of helium ion CT based particle therapy range prediction: an experimental study comparing different particle and x-ray CT modalities.

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

Review 6.  Latest developments in in-vivo imaging for proton therapy.

Authors:  Katia Parodi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Potential of a Second-Generation Dual-Layer Spectral CT for Dose Calculation in Particle Therapy Treatment Planning.

Authors:  Friderike K Longarino; Antonia Kowalewski; Thomas Tessonnier; Stewart Mein; Benjamin Ackermann; Jürgen Debus; Andrea Mairani; Wolfram Stiller
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-20       Impact factor: 5.738

8.  Imaging science and development in modern high-precision radiotherapy.

Authors:  Daniela Thorwarth; Ludvig Muren
Journal:  Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-12-09

Review 9.  Considerations for Upright Particle Therapy Patient Positioning and Associated Image Guidance.

Authors:  Lennart Volz; Yinxiangzi Sheng; Marco Durante; Christian Graeff
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-29       Impact factor: 5.738

10.  Assessment of quantitative information for radiation therapy at a first-generation clinical photon-counting computed tomography scanner.

Authors:  Guyue Hu; Katharina Niepel; Franka Risch; Christopher Kurz; Matthias Würl; Thomas Kröncke; Florian Schwarz; Katia Parodi; Guillaume Landry
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 5.738

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.