1
|
Metzner M, Zhevachevska D, Schlechter A, Kehrein F, Schlecker J, Murillo C, Brons S, Jäkel O, Martišíková M, Gehrke T. Energy painting: helium-beam radiography with thin detectors and multiple beam energies. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:055002. [PMID: 38295403 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad247e] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2024] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Abstract
Objective.Compact ion imaging systems based on thin detectors are a promising prospect for the clinical environment since they are easily integrated into the clinical workflow. Their measurement principle is based on energy deposition instead of the conventionally measured residual energy or range. Therefore, thin detectors are limited in the water-equivalent thickness range they can image with high precision. This article presents ourenergy paintingmethod, which has been developed to render high precision imaging with thin detectors feasible even for objects with larger, clinically relevant water-equivalent thickness (WET) ranges.Approach.A detection system exclusively based on pixelated silicon Timepix detectors was used at the Heidelberg ion-beam therapy center to track single helium ions and measure their energy deposition behind the imaged object. Calibration curves were established for five initial beam energies to relate the measured energy deposition to WET. They were evaluated regarding their accuracy, precision and temporal stability. Furthermore, a 60 mm × 12 mm region of a wedge phantom was imaged quantitatively exploiting the calibrated energies and five different mono-energetic images. These mono-energetic images were combined in a pixel-by-pixel manner by averaging the WET-data weighted according to their single-ion WET precision (SIWP) and the number of contributing ions.Main result.A quantitative helium-beam radiograph of the wedge phantom with an average SIWP of 1.82(5) % over the entire WET interval from 150 mm to 220 mm was obtained. Compared to the previously used methodology, the SIWP improved by a factor of 2.49 ± 0.16. The relative stopping power value of the wedge derived from the energy-painted image matches the result from range pullback measurements with a relative deviation of only 0.4 %.Significance.The proposed method overcomes the insufficient precision for wide WET ranges when employing detection systems with thin detectors. Applying this method is an important prerequisite for imaging of patients. Hence, it advances detection systems based on energy deposition measurements towards clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margareta Metzner
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Daria Zhevachevska
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Germany
- Heidelberg University, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Annika Schlechter
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Florian Kehrein
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Julian Schlecker
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Radiooncology/Radiobiology, Germany
| | - Carlos Murillo
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiology, Germany
| | - Stephan Brons
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Radiation Oncology - Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Oliver Jäkel
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Germany
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Radiation Oncology - Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mária Martišíková
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Germany
| | - Tim Gehrke
- Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO) and National Center for Research in Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg, Germany
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) Heidelberg, Division of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Germany
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Volz L, Graeff C, Durante M, Collins-Fekete CA. Focus stacking single-event particle radiography for high spatial resolution images and 3D feature localization. Phys Med Biol 2024; 69:024001. [PMID: 38056016 PMCID: PMC10777170 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad131a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2023] [Revised: 11/22/2023] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
Objective.We demonstrate a novel focus stacking technique to improve spatial resolution of single-event particle radiography (pRad), and exploit its potential for 3D feature detection.Approach.Focus stacking, used typically in optical photography and microscopy, is a technique to combine multiple images with different focal depths into a single super-resolution image. Each pixel in the final image is chosen from the image with the largest gradient at that pixel's position. pRad data can be reconstructed at different depths in the patient based on an estimate of each particle's trajectory (called distance-driven binning; DDB). For a given feature, there is a depth of reconstruction for which the spatial resolution of DDB is maximal. Focus stacking can hence be applied to a series of DDB images reconstructed from a single pRad acquisition for different depths, yielding both a high-resolution projection and information on the features' radiological depth at the same time. We demonstrate this technique with Geant4 simulated pRads of a water phantom (20 cm thick) with five bone cube inserts at different depths (1 × 1 × 1 cm3) and a lung cancer patient.Main results.For proton radiography of the cube phantom, focus stacking achieved a median resolution improvement of 136% compared to a state-of-the-art maximum likelihood pRad reconstruction algorithm and a median of 28% compared to DDB where the reconstruction depth was the center of each cube. For the lung patient, resolution was visually improved, without loss in accuracy. The focus stacking method also enabled to estimate the depth of the cubes within few millimeters accuracy, except for one shallow cube, where the depth was underestimated by 2.5 cm.Significance.Focus stacking utilizes the inherent 3D information encoded in pRad by the particle's scattering, overcoming current spatial resolution limits. It further opens possibilities for 3D feature localization. Therefore, focus stacking holds great potential for future pRad applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lennart Volz
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Christian Graeff
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Marco Durante
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of Condensed Matter Physics, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fullarton R, Volz L, Dikaios N, Schulte R, Royle G, Evans PM, Seco J, Collins‐Fekete C. A likelihood-based particle imaging filter using prior information. Med Phys 2023; 50:2336-2353. [PMID: 36727634 PMCID: PMC10947404 DOI: 10.1002/mp.16258] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2022] [Revised: 01/13/2023] [Accepted: 01/13/2023] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Particle imaging can increase precision in proton and ion therapy. Interactions with nuclei in the imaged object increase image noise and reduce image quality, especially for multinucleon ions that can fragment, such as helium. PURPOSE This work proposes a particle imaging filter, referred to as the Prior Filter, based on using prior information in the form of an estimated relative stopping power (RSP) map and the principles of electromagnetic interaction, to identify particles that have undergone nuclear interaction. The particles identified as having undergone nuclear interactions are then excluded from the image reconstruction, reducing the image noise. METHODS The Prior Filter uses Fermi-Eyges scattering and Tschalär straggling theories to determine the likelihood that a particle only interacts electromagnetically. A threshold is then set to reject those particles with a low likelihood. The filter was evaluated and compared with a filter that estimates this likelihood based on the measured distribution of energy and scattering angle within pixels, commonly implemented as the 3σ filter. Reconstructed radiographs from simulated data of a 20-cm water cylinder and an anthropomorphic chest phantom were generated with both protons and helium ions to assess the effect of the filters on noise reduction. The simulation also allowed assessment of secondary particle removal through the particle histories. Experimental data were acquired of the Catphan CTP 404 Sensitometry phantom using the U.S. proton CT (pCT) collaboration prototype scanner. The proton and helium images were filtered with both the prior filtering method and a state-of-the-art method including an implementation of the 3σ filter. For both cases, a dE-E telescope filter, designed for this type of detector, was also applied. RESULTS The proton radiographs showed a small reduction in noise (1 mm of water-equivalent thickness [WET]) but a larger reduction in helium radiographs (up to 5-6 mm of WET) due to better secondary filtering. The proton and helium CT images reflected this, with similar noise at the center of the phantom (0.02 RSP) for the proton images and an RSP noise of 0.03 for the proposed filter and 0.06 for the 3σ filter in the helium images. Images reconstructed from data with a dose reduction, up to a factor of 9, maintained a lower noise level using the Prior Filter over the state-of-the-art filtering method. CONCLUSIONS The proposed filter results in images with equal or reduced noise compared to those that have undergone a filtering method typical of current particle imaging studies. This work also demonstrates that the proposed filter maintains better performance against the state of the art with up to a nine-fold dose reduction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan Fullarton
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Lennart Volz
- Department of Biomedical Physics in Radiation OncologyDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Department of Physics and AstronomyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
- GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research GmbHDarmstadtGermany
| | - Nikolaos Dikaios
- Centre for Vision Speech and Signal ProcessingUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
- Mathematics Research CenterAcademy of AthensAthensGreece
| | - Reinhard Schulte
- Department of Basic SciencesDivision of Biomedical Engineering SciencesLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaCaliforniaUSA
| | - Gary Royle
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Philip M. Evans
- Centre for Vision Speech and Signal ProcessingUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
- Chemical, Medical and Environmental ScienceNational Physical LaboratoryTeddingtonUK
| | - Joao Seco
- Department of Biomedical Physics in Radiation OncologyDeutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ)HeidelbergGermany
- Department of Physics and AstronomyHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Knobloch C, Metzner M, Kehrein F, Schömers C, Scheloske S, Brons S, Hermann R, Peters A, Jäkel O, Martišíková M, Gehrke T. Experimental helium-beam radiography with a high-energy beam: Water-equivalent thickness calibration and first image-quality results. Med Phys 2022; 49:5347-5362. [PMID: 35670033 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2021] [Revised: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE A clinical implementation of ion-beam radiography (iRad) is envisaged to provide a method for on-couch verification of ion-beam treatment plans. The aim of this work is to introduce and evaluate a method for quantitative water-equivalent thickness (WET) measurements for a specific helium-ion imaging system for WETs that are relevant for imaging thicker body parts in the future. METHODS Helium-beam radiographs (αRads) are measured at the Heidelberg Ion-beam Therapy Center (HIT) with an initial beam energy of 239.5 MeV/ u. An imaging system based on three pairs of thin silicon pixel detectors is used for ion path reconstruction and measuring the energy deposition (dE) of each particle behind the object to be imaged. The dE behind homogeneous plastic blocks is related to their well-known WETs between 280.6mm and 312.6 mm with a calibration curve that is created by fitting the measured data points. The quality of the quantitative WET measurements is determined by the uncertainty of the measured WET of a single ion (single-ion WET precision) and the deviation of a measured WET value to the well-known WET (WET accuracy). Subsequently, the fitted calibration curve is applied to an energy deposition radiograph of a phantom with a complex geometry. The spatial resolution (modulation transfer function at 10% (MTF10% )) and WET accuracy (mean absolute percentage difference (MAPD)) of the WET map, are determined. RESULTS In the optimal imaging WET-range from ∼ 280 mm to 300 mm, the fitted calibration curve reached a mean single-ion WET precision of 1.55 ± 0.00%. Applying the calibration to an ion radiograph (iRad) of a more complex WET distribution, the spatial resolution was determined to be MTF10% = 0.49 ± 0.03 lp/mm and the WET accuracy was assessed as MAPD to 0.21%. CONCLUSIONS Using a beam energy of 239.5MeV/ u and the proposed calibration procedure, quantitative αRads of WETs between ∼ 280mm to 300 mm can be measured and show high potential for clinical use. The proposed approach with the resulting image qualities encourages further investigation towards the clinical application of helium-beam radiography. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Knobloch
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - M Metzner
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - F Kehrein
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - C Schömers
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Centre (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - S Scheloske
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Centre (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - S Brons
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Centre (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - R Hermann
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Centre (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,Goethe University Frankfurt, Institute of Applied Physics, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - A Peters
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Centre (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - O Jäkel
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Centre (HIT), Department of Radiation Oncology Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - M Martišíková
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - T Gehrke
- German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany.,National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute for Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg, Germany.,Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bär E, Volz L, Collins-Fekete CA, Brons S, Runz A, Schulte RW, Seco J. Experimental comparison of photon versus particle computed tomography to predict tissue relative stopping powers. Med Phys 2022; 49:474-487. [PMID: 34709667 DOI: 10.1002/mp.15283] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/03/2021] [Revised: 09/18/2021] [Accepted: 09/20/2021] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Measurements comparing relative stopping power (RSP) accuracy of state-of-the-art systems representing single-energy and dual-energy computed tomography (SECT/DECT) with proton CT (pCT) and helium CT (HeCT) in biological tissue samples. METHODS We used 16 porcine and bovine samples of various tissue types and water, covering an RSP range from 0.90 ± 0.06 to 1.78 ± 0.05. Samples were packed and sealed into 3D-printed cylinders ( d = 2 cm, h = 5 cm) and inserted into an in-house designed cylindrical polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom ( d = 10 cm, h = 10 cm). We scanned the phantom in a commercial SECT and DECT (120 kV; 100 and 140 kV/Sn (tin-filtered)); and acquired pCT and HeCT ( E ∼ 200 MeV/u, 2 ∘ steps, ∼ 6.2 × 10 6 (p)/ ∼ 2.3 × 10 6 (He) particles/projection) with a particle imaging prototype. RSP maps were calculated from SECT/DECT using stoichiometric methods and from pCT/HeCT using the DROP-TVS algorithm. We estimated the average RSP of each tissue per modality in cylindrical volumes of interest and compared it to ground truth RSP taken from peak-detection measurements. RESULTS Throughout all samples, we observe the following root-mean-squared RSP prediction errors ± combined uncertainty from reference measurement and imaging: SECT 3.10 ± 2.88%, DECT 0.75 ± 2.80%, pCT 1.19 ± 2.81%, and HeCT 0.78 ± 2.81%. The largest mean errors ± combined uncertainty per modality are SECT 8.22 ± 2.79% in cortical bone, DECT 1.74 ± 2.00% in back fat, pCT 1.80 ± 4.27% in bone marrow, and HeCT 1.37 ± 4.25% in bone marrow. Ring artifacts were observed in both pCT and HeCT reconstructions, imposing a systematic shift to predicted RSPs. CONCLUSION Comparing state-of-the-art SECT/DECT technology and a pCT/HeCT prototype, DECT provided the most accurate RSP prediction, closely followed by particle imaging. The novel modalities pCT and HeCT have the potential to further improve on RSP accuracies with work focusing on the origin and correction of ring artifacts. Future work will study accuracy of proton treatment plans using RSP maps from investigated imaging modalities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther Bär
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.,Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Radiotherapy Physics, London, UK
| | - Lennart Volz
- Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Stephan Brons
- Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Armin Runz
- Medical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Joao Seco
- Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld, Heidelberg, Germany.,Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Volz L, Collins-Fekete CA, Bär E, Brons S, Graeff C, Johnson RP, Runz A, Sarosiek C, Schulte RW, Seco J. The accuracy of helium ion CT based particle therapy range prediction: an experimental study comparing different particle and x-ray CT modalities. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:10.1088/1361-6560/ac33ec. [PMID: 34706355 PMCID: PMC8792995 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ac33ec] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2021] [Accepted: 10/27/2021] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
This work provides a quantitative assessment of helium ion CT (HeCT) for particle therapy treatment planning. For the first time, HeCT based range prediction accuracy in a heterogeneous tissue phantom is presented and compared to single-energy x-ray CT (SECT), dual-energy x-ray CT (DECT) and proton CT (pCT). HeCT and pCT scans were acquired using the US pCT collaboration prototype particle CT scanner at the Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center. SECT and DECT scans were done with a Siemens Somatom Definition Flash and converted to RSP. A Catphan CTP404 module was used to study the RSP accuracy of HeCT. A custom phantom of 20 cm diameter containing several tissue equivalent plastic cubes was used to assess the spatial resolution of HeCT and compare it to DECT. A clinically realistic heterogeneous tissue phantom was constructed using cranial slices from a pig head placed inside a cylindrical phantom (ø150 mm). A proton beam (84.67 mm range) depth-dose measurement was acquired using a stack of GafchromicTM EBT-XD films in a central dosimetry insert in the phantom. CT scans of the phantom were acquired with each modality, and proton depth-dose estimates were simulated based on the reconstructions. The RSP accuracy of HeCT for the plastic phantom was found to be 0.3 ± 0.1%. The spatial resolution for HeCT of the cube phantom was 5.9 ± 0.4 lp cm-1for central, and 7.6 ± 0.8 lp cm-1for peripheral cubes, comparable to DECT spatial resolution (7.7 ± 0.3 lp cm-1and 7.4 ± 0.2 lp cm-1, respectively). For the pig head, HeCT, SECT, DECT and pCT predicted range accuracy was 0.25%, -1.40%, -0.45% and 0.39%, respectively. In this study, HeCT acquired with a prototype system showed potential for particle therapy treatment planning, offering RSP accuracy, spatial resolution, and range prediction accuracy comparable to that achieved with a commercial DECT scanner. Still, technical improvements of HeCT are needed to enable clinical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Volz
- Department of Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - C-A Collins-Fekete
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - E Bär
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
- Department of Radiotherapy Physics, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - S Brons
- Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center, Universitäts Klinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - C Graeff
- Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - R P Johnson
- Department of Physics, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, United States of America
| | - A Runz
- Department of Medical Physics in Radiation Therapy, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
| | - C Sarosiek
- Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, United States of America
| | - R W Schulte
- Department of Basic Sciences, Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, United States of America
| | - J Seco
- Department of Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pettersen HES, Aehle M, Alme J, Barnaföldi GG, Borshchov V, van den Brink A, Chaar M, Eikeland V, Feofilov G, Garth C, Gauger NR, Genov G, Grøttvik O, Helstrup H, Igolkin S, Keidel R, Kobdaj C, Kortus T, Leonhardt V, Mehendale S, Mulawade RN, Odland OH, Papp G, Peitzmann T, Piersimoni P, Protsenko M, Rehman AU, Richter M, Santana J, Schilling A, Seco J, Songmoolnak A, Sølie JR, Tambave G, Tymchuk I, Ullaland K, Varga-Kofarago M, Volz L, Wagner B, Wendzel S, Wiebel A, Xiao R, Yang S, Yokoyama H, Zillien S, Röhrich D. Investigating particle track topology for range telescopes in particle radiography using convolutional neural networks. Acta Oncol 2021; 60:1413-1418. [PMID: 34259117 DOI: 10.1080/0284186x.2021.1949037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Proton computed tomography (pCT) and radiography (pRad) are proposed modalities for improved treatment plan accuracy and in situ treatment validation in proton therapy. The pCT system of the Bergen pCT collaboration is able to handle very high particle intensities by means of track reconstruction. However, incorrectly reconstructed and secondary tracks degrade the image quality. We have investigated whether a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based filter is able to improve the image quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS The CNN was trained by simulation and reconstruction of tens of millions of proton and helium tracks. The CNN filter was then compared to simple energy loss threshold methods using the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve (AUROC), and by comparing the image quality and Water Equivalent Path Length (WEPL) error of proton and helium radiographs filtered with the same methods. RESULTS The CNN method led to a considerable improvement of the AUROC, from 74.3% to 97.5% with protons and from 94.2% to 99.5% with helium. The CNN filtering reduced the WEPL error in the helium radiograph from 1.03 mm to 0.93 mm while no improvement was seen in the CNN filtered pRads. CONCLUSION The CNN improved the filtering of proton and helium tracks. Only in the helium radiograph did this lead to improved image quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Max Aehle
- Chair for Scientific Computing, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
| | - Johan Alme
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | | | | | | | - Mamdouh Chaar
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Viljar Eikeland
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Grigory Feofilov
- Department of High Energy and Elementary Particles Physics, St. Petersburg University, St. Petersburg, Russia
| | - Christoph Garth
- Scientific Visualization Lab, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
| | - Nicolas R. Gauger
- Chair for Scientific Computing, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
| | - Georgi Genov
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Ola Grøttvik
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Håvard Helstrup
- Department of Computer Science, Electrical Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway
| | - Sergey Igolkin
- Department of High Energy and Elementary Particles Physics, St. Petersburg University, St. Petersburg, Russia
| | - Ralf Keidel
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - Chinorat Kobdaj
- Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
| | - Tobias Kortus
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - Viktor Leonhardt
- Scientific Visualization Lab, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany
| | - Shruti Mehendale
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Raju Ningappa Mulawade
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - Odd Harald Odland
- Department of Oncology and Medical Physics, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Gábor Papp
- Institute for Physics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Thomas Peitzmann
- Institute for Subatomic Physics, Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | | | - Maksym Protsenko
- Research and Production Enterprise “LTU” (RPE LTU), Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Attiq Ur Rehman
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | | | - Joshua Santana
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - Alexander Schilling
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - Joao Seco
- Department of Biomedical Physics in Radiation Oncology, DKFZ-German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Arnon Songmoolnak
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- Institute of Science, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand
| | - Jarle Rambo Sølie
- Department of Diagnostic Physics, Division of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
| | - Ganesh Tambave
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Ihor Tymchuk
- Research and Production Enterprise “LTU” (RPE LTU), Kharkiv, Ukraine
| | - Kjetil Ullaland
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | | | - Lennart Volz
- Department of Biophysics, GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany
- Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK
| | - Boris Wagner
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Steffen Wendzel
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - Alexander Wiebel
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - RenZheng Xiao
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
- College of Mechanical & Power Engineering, China Three Gorges University, Yichang, People’s Republic of China
| | - Shiming Yang
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| | - Hiroki Yokoyama
- Institute for Subatomic Physics, Utrecht University/Nikhef, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Sebastian Zillien
- Center for Technology and Transfer (ZTT), University of Applied Sciences Worms, Worms, Germany
| | - Dieter Röhrich
- Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pettersen HES, Volz L, Sølie JR, Alme J, Barnaföldi GG, Barthel R, van den Brink A, Borshchov V, Chaar M, Eikeland V, Genov G, Grøttvik O, Helstrup H, Keidel R, Kobdaj C, van der Kolk N, Mehendale S, Meric I, Harald Odland O, Papp G, Peitzmann T, Piersimoni P, Protsenko M, Ur Rehman A, Richter M, Tefre Samnøy A, Seco J, Shafiee H, Songmoolnak A, Tambave G, Tymchuk I, Ullaland K, Varga-Kofarago M, Wagner B, Xiao R, Yang S, Yokoyama H, Röhrich D. Helium radiography with a digital tracking calorimeter-a Monte Carlo study for secondary track rejection. Phys Med Biol 2021; 66:035004. [PMID: 33181502 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abca03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Radiation therapy using protons and heavier ions is a fast-growing therapeutic option for cancer patients. A clinical system for particle imaging in particle therapy would enable online patient position verification, estimation of the dose deposition through range monitoring and a reduction of uncertainties in the calculation of the relative stopping power of the patient. Several prototype imaging modalities offer radiography and computed tomography using protons and heavy ions. A Digital Tracking Calorimeter (DTC), currently under development, has been proposed as one such detector. In the DTC 43 longitudinal layers of laterally stacked ALPIDE CMOS monolithic active pixel sensor chips are able to reconstruct a large number of simultaneously recorded proton tracks. In this study, we explored the capability of the DTC for helium imaging which offers favorable spatial resolution over proton imaging. Helium ions exhibit a larger cross section for inelastic nuclear interactions, increasing the number of produced secondaries in the imaged object and in the detector itself. To that end, a filtering process able to remove a large fraction of the secondaries was identified, and the track reconstruction process was adapted for helium ions. By filtering on the energy loss along the tracks, on the incoming angle and on the particle ranges, 97.5% of the secondaries were removed. After passing through 16 cm water, 50.0% of the primary helium ions survived; after the proposed filtering 42.4% of the primaries remained; finally after subsequent image reconstruction 31% of the primaries remained. Helium track reconstruction leads to more track matching errors compared to protons due to the increased available focus strength of the helium beam. In a head phantom radiograph, the Water Equivalent Path Length error envelope was 1.0 mm for helium and 1.1 mm for protons. This accuracy is expected to be sufficient for helium imaging for pre-treatment verification purposes.
Collapse
|
9
|
Dickmann J, Sarosiek C, Rykalin V, Pankuch M, Coutrakon G, Johnson RP, Bashkirov V, Schulte RW, Parodi K, Landry G, Dedes G. Proof of concept image artifact reduction by energy-modulated proton computed tomography (EMpCT). Phys Med 2021; 81:237-244. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.12.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
10
|
Abstract
Objective Particle radiobiology has contributed new understanding of radiation safety and underlying mechanisms of action to radiation oncology for the treatment of cancer, and to planning of radiation protection for space travel. This manuscript will highlight the significance of precise physical and biologically effective dosimetry to this translational research for the benefit of human health. This review provides a brief snapshot of the evolving scientific basis for, and the complex current global status, and remaining challenges of hadron therapy for the treatment of cancer. The need for particle radiobiology for risk planning in return missions to the Moon, and exploratory deep-space missions to Mars and beyond are also discussed. Methods Key lessons learned are summarized from an impressive collective literature published by an international cadre of multidisciplinary experts in particle physics, radiation chemistry, medical physics of imaging and treatment planning, molecular, cellular, tissue radiobiology, biology of microgravity and other stressors, theoretical modeling of biophysical data, and clinical results with accelerator-produced particle beams. Results Research pioneers, many of whom were Nobel laureates, led the world in the discovery of ionizing radiations originating from the Earth and the Cosmos. Six radiation pioneers led the way to hadron therapy and the study of charged particles encountered in outer space travel. Worldwide about 250,000 patients have been treated for cancer, or other lesions such as arteriovenous malformations in the brain between 1954 and 2019 with charged particle radiotherapy, also known as hadron therapy. The majority of these patients (213,000) were treated with proton beams, but approximately 32,000 were treated with carbon ion radiotherapy. There are 3500 patients who have been treated with helium, pions, neon or other ions. There are currently 82 facilities operating to provide ion beam clinical treatments. Of these, only 13 facilities located in Asia and Europe are providing carbon ion beams for preclinical, clinical, and space research. There are also numerous particle physics accelerators worldwide capable of producing ion beams for research, but not currently focused on treating patients with ion beam therapy but are potentially available for preclinical and space research. Approximately, more than 550 individuals have traveled into Lower Earth Orbit (LEO) and beyond and returned to Earth. Conclusion Charged particle therapy with controlled beams of protons and carbon ions have significantly impacted targeted cancer therapy, eradicated tumors while sparing normal tissue toxicities, and reduced human suffering. These modalities still require further optimization and technical refinements to reduce cost but should be made available to everyone in need worldwide. The exploration of our Universe in space travel poses the potential risk of exposure to uncontrolled charged particles. However, approaches to shield and provide countermeasures to these potential radiation hazards in LEO have allowed an amazing number of discoveries currently without significant life-threatening medical consequences. More basic research with components of the Galactic Cosmic Radiation field are still required to assure safety involving space radiations and combined stressors with microgravity for exploratory deep space travel. Advances in knowledge The collective knowledge garnered from the wealth of available published evidence obtained prior to particle radiation therapy, or to space flight, and the additional data gleaned from implementing both endeavors has provided many opportunities for heavy ions to promote human health.
Collapse
|
11
|
Meyer S, Bortfeldt J, Lämmer P, Englbrecht FS, Pinto M, Schnürle K, Würl M, Parodi K. Optimization and performance study of a proton CT system for pre-clinical small animal imaging. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 65:155008. [DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab8afc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
12
|
Dedes G, Dickmann J, Giacometti V, Rit S, Krah N, Meyer S, Bashkirov V, Schulte R, Johnson RP, Parodi K, Landry G. The role of Monte Carlo simulation in understanding the performance of proton computed tomography. Z Med Phys 2020; 32:23-38. [PMID: 32798033 PMCID: PMC9948882 DOI: 10.1016/j.zemedi.2020.06.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2020] [Revised: 05/18/2020] [Accepted: 06/16/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Proton computed tomography (pCT) is a promising tomographic imaging modality allowing direct reconstruction of proton relative stopping power (RSP) required for proton therapy dose calculation. In this review article, we aim at highlighting the role of Monte Carlo (MC) simulation in pCT studies. After describing the requirements for performing proton computed tomography and the various pCT scanners actively used in recent research projects, we present an overview of available MC simulation platforms. The use of MC simulations in the scope of investigations of image reconstruction, and for the evaluation of optimal RSP accuracy, precision and spatial resolution omitting detector effects is then described. In the final sections of the review article, we present specific applications of realistic MC simulations of an existing pCT scanner prototype, which we describe in detail.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- George Dedes
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching b. München, Germany.
| | - Jannis Dickmann
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching b. München, Germany
| | - Valentina Giacometti
- The Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland Cancer Centre, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
| | - Simon Rit
- University of Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1044, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France
| | - Nils Krah
- University of Lyon, CREATIS, CNRS UMR5220; Inserm U1044, INSA-Lyon, Université Lyon 1, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France,University of Lyon, Institute of Nuclear Physics Lyon (IPNL), CNRS UMR 5822, Villeurbanne, France
| | - Sebastian Meyer
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching b. München, Germany,Department of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America
| | - Vladimir Bashkirov
- Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, United States of America
| | - Reinhard Schulte
- Division of Biomedical Engineering Sciences, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, United States of America
| | - Robert P. Johnson
- Department of Physics, U. C. Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, United States of America
| | - Katia Parodi
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching b. München, Germany
| | - Guillaume Landry
- Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Garching b. München, Germany,Department of Radiation Oncology, Department of Medical Physics, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany,German Cancer Consortium, (DKTK), Munich, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Volz L, Collins-Fekete CA, Sølie JR, Seco J. Theoretical considerations on the spatial resolution limit of single-event particle radiography. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2020; 6:055002. [DOI: 10.1088/2057-1976/ab9c3f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
14
|
Faddegon B, Ramos-Méndez J, Schuemann J, McNamara A, Shin J, Perl J, Paganetti H. The TOPAS tool for particle simulation, a Monte Carlo simulation tool for physics, biology and clinical research. Phys Med 2020; 72:114-121. [PMID: 32247964 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2020.03.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 91] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2019] [Revised: 02/06/2020] [Accepted: 03/19/2020] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE This paper covers recent developments and applications of the TOPAS TOol for PArticle Simulation and presents the approaches used to disseminate TOPAS. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fundamental understanding of radiotherapy and imaging is greatly facilitated through accurate and detailed simulation of the passage of ionizing radiation through apparatus and into a patient using Monte Carlo (MC). TOPAS brings Geant4, a reliable, experimentally validated MC tool mainly developed for high energy physics, within easy reach of medical physicists, radiobiologists and clinicians. Requiring no programming knowledge, TOPAS provides all of the flexibility of Geant4. RESULTS After 5 years of development followed by its initial release, TOPAS was subsequently expanded from its focus on proton therapy physics to incorporate radiobiology modeling. Next, in 2018, the developers expanded their user support and code maintenance as well as the scope of TOPAS towards supporting X-ray and electron therapy and medical imaging. Improvements have been achieved in user enhancement through software engineering and a graphical user interface, calculational efficiency, validation through experimental benchmarks and QA measurements, and either newly available or recently published applications. A large and rapidly increasing user base demonstrates success in our approach to dissemination of this uniquely accessible and flexible MC research tool. CONCLUSIONS The TOPAS developers continue to make strides in addressing the needs of the medical community in applications of ionizing radiation to medicine, creating the only fully integrated platform for four-dimensional simulation of all forms of radiotherapy and imaging with ionizing radiation, with a design that promotes inter-institutional collaboration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bruce Faddegon
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| | - José Ramos-Méndez
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Jan Schuemann
- Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Aimee McNamara
- Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Jungwook Shin
- Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Joseph Perl
- SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, USA
| | - Harald Paganetti
- Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| |
Collapse
|