» Articles » PMID: 24099853

Feasibility of Proton-activated Implantable Markers for Proton Range Verification Using PET

Overview
Journal Phys Med Biol
Publisher IOP Publishing
Date 2013 Oct 9
PMID 24099853
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Proton beam range verification using positron emission tomography (PET) currently relies on proton activation of tissue, the products of which decay with a short half-life and necessitate an on-site PET scanner. Tissue activation is, however, negligible near the distal dose fall-off region of the proton beam range due to their high interaction energy thresholds. Therefore Monte Carlo simulation is often supplemented for comparison with measurement; however, this also may be associated with systematic and statistical uncertainties. Therefore, we sought to test the feasibility of using long-lived proton-activated external materials that are inserted or infused into the target volume for more accurate proton beam range verification that could be performed at an off-site PET scanner. We irradiated samples of ≥98% (18)O-enriched water, natural Cu foils, and >97% (68)Zn-enriched foils as candidate materials, along with samples of tissue-equivalent materials including (16)O water, heptane (C7H16), and polycarbonate (C16H14O3)n, at four depths (ranging from 100% to 3% of center of modulation (COM) dose) along the distal fall-off of a modulated 160 MeV proton beam. Samples were irradiated either directly or after being embedded in Plastic Water® or balsa wood. We then measured the activity of the samples using PET imaging for 20 or 30 min after various delay times. Measured activities of candidate materials were up to 100 times greater than those of the tissue-equivalent materials at the four distal dose fall-off depths. The differences between candidate materials and tissue-equivalent materials became more apparent after longer delays between irradiation and PET imaging, due to the longer half-lives of the candidate materials. Furthermore, the activation of the candidate materials closely mimicked the distal dose fall-off with offsets of 1 to 2 mm. Also, signals from the foils were clearly visible compared to the background from the activated Plastic Water® and balsa wood phantoms. These results indicate that markers made from these candidate materials could be used for in vivo proton range verification using an off-site PET scanner.

Citing Articles

In vivo production of fluorine-18 in a chicken egg tumor model of breast cancer for proton therapy range verification.

Espana S, Sanchez-Parcerisa D, Bragado P, Gutierrez-Uzquiza A, Porras A, Gutierrez-Neira C Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):7075.

PMID: 35490180 PMC: 9056503. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-11037-7.


Carbon range verification with 718 keV Compton imaging.

Parajuli R, Sakai M, Arakawa K, Kubota Y, Kubo N, Tashiro M Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):21696.

PMID: 34737390 PMC: 8569035. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00949-5.


On-line range verification for proton beam therapy using spherical ionoacoustic waves with resonant frequency.

Takayanagi T, Uesaka T, Nakamura Y, Unlu M, Kuriyama Y, Uesugi T Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):20385.

PMID: 33230208 PMC: 7683547. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-77422-2.


A novel range-verification method using ionoacoustic wave generated from spherical gold markers for particle-beam therapy: a simulation study.

Takayanagi T, Uesaka T, Kitaoka M, Unlu M, Umegaki K, Shirato H Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):4011.

PMID: 30850625 PMC: 6408528. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-38889-w.


In vivo range verification in particle therapy.

Parodi K, Polf J Med Phys. 2018; 45(11):e1036-e1050.

PMID: 30421803 PMC: 6262833. DOI: 10.1002/mp.12960.

References
1.
WOODARD H, White D . The composition of body tissues. Br J Radiol. 1986; 59(708):1209-18. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-59-708-1209. View

2.
Tuckwell W, Bezak E . Calculation of the positron distribution from 15O nuclei formed in nuclear reactions in human tissue during proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2007; 52(9):2483-98. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/52/9/010. View

3.
Zhu X, Espana S, Daartz J, Liebsch N, Ouyang J, Paganetti H . Monitoring proton radiation therapy with in-room PET imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(13):4041-57. PMC: 3141290. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/13/019. View

4.
Moyers M, Sardesai M, Sun S, Miller D . Ion stopping powers and CT numbers. Med Dosim. 2009; 35(3):179-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.meddos.2009.05.004. View

5.
Alpen E, Saunders W, Chatterjee A, Llacer J, Chen G, Scherer J . A comparison of water equivalent thickness measurements: CT method vs. heavy ion beam technique. Br J Radiol. 1985; 58(690):542-8. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-58-690-542. View