7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Compact Method for Proton Range Verification Based on Coaxial Prompt Gamma-Ray Monitoring: a Theoretical Study

      Preprint
      ,

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Range uncertainties in proton therapy hamper treatment precision. Prompt gamma-rays were suggested 16 years ago for real-time range verification, and have already shown promising results in clinical studies with collimated cameras. Simultaneously, alternative imaging concepts without collimation are investigated to reduce the footprint and price of current prototypes. In this manuscript, a compact range verification method is presented. It monitors prompt gamma-rays with a single scintillation detector positioned coaxially to the beam and behind the patient. Thanks to the solid angle effect, proton range deviations can be derived from changes in the number of gamma-rays detected per proton, provided that the number of incident protons is well known. A theoretical background is formulated and the requirements for a future proof-of-principle experiment are identified. The potential benefits and disadvantages of the method are discussed, and the prospects and potential obstacles for its use during patient treatments are assessed. The final milestone is to monitor proton range differences in clinical cases with a statistical precision of 1 mm, a material cost of 25000 USD and a weight below 10 kg. This technique could facilitate the widespread application of in vivo range verification in proton therapy and eventually the improvement of treatment quality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          In vivo proton range verification: a review.

          Protons are an interesting modality for radiotherapy because of their well defined range and favourable depth dose characteristics. On the other hand, these same characteristics lead to added uncertainties in their delivery. This is particularly the case at the distal end of proton dose distributions, where the dose gradient can be extremely steep. In practice however, this gradient is rarely used to spare critical normal tissues due to such worries about its exact position in the patient. Reasons for this uncertainty are inaccuracies and non-uniqueness of the calibration from CT Hounsfield units to proton stopping powers, imaging artefacts (e.g. due to metal implants) and anatomical changes of the patient during treatment. In order to improve the precision of proton therapy therefore, it would be extremely desirable to verify proton range in vivo, either prior to, during, or after therapy. In this review, we describe and compare state-of-the art in vivo proton range verification methods currently being proposed, developed or clinically implemented.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How costly is particle therapy? Cost analysis of external beam radiotherapy with carbon-ions, protons and photons.

            Particle therapy has potentially a better therapeutic ratio than photon therapy. However, investment costs are much higher. This study provides an estimation and comparison of the costs of these therapies. Within an extensive analytical framework capital and operational costs, cost per fraction, and four tumor specific treatment costs are calculated for three facilities: combined carbon-ion/proton, proton-only, and photon. Capital costs for the combined, proton-only and photon facilities are: euro 138.6 million, euro 94.9 million, euro 23.4 million. Total costs per year are: euro 36.7 million, euro 24.9 million, euro 9.6 million. Cost per fraction is: euro 1128 (euro 877-1974), euro 743 (euro 578-1300), euro 233 (euro 190-407). Cost ratio particle/photon therapy is 4.8 for the combined and 3.2 for the proton-only facility. Particle treatment costs vary from euro 10,030 (c-ion: lung cancer) to euro 39,610 (proton: head & neck tumors). Cost difference between particle and photon therapies is relatively small for lung and prostate cancer, larger for skull-base chordoma and head & neck tumors. Investment costs are highest for the combined carbon-ion/proton facility and lowest for the photon facility. Cost differences become smaller when total costs per year and specific treatment costs are compared. Lower fractionation schedule of particle therapy might further reduce its costs. Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Accounting for range uncertainties in the optimization of intensity modulated proton therapy.

              Treatment plans optimized for intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) may be sensitive to range variations. The dose distribution may deteriorate substantially when the actual range of a pencil beam does not match the assumed range. We present two treatment planning concepts for IMPT which incorporate range uncertainties into the optimization. The first method is a probabilistic approach. The range of a pencil beam is assumed to be a random variable, which makes the delivered dose and the value of the objective function a random variable too. We then propose to optimize the expectation value of the objective function. The second approach is a robust formulation that applies methods developed in the field of robust linear programming. This approach optimizes the worst case dose distribution that may occur, assuming that the ranges of the pencil beams may vary within some interval. Both methods yield treatment plans that are considerably less sensitive to range variations compared to conventional treatment plans optimized without accounting for range uncertainties. In addition, both approaches--although conceptually different--yield very similar results on a qualitative level.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                26 July 2019
                Article
                10.1109/TRPMS.2019.2930362
                1907.11768
                6f27e6ec-db69-42eb-84da-106ae1b031ce

                http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

                History
                Custom metadata
                2469--7311 (c) 2019 IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication
                physics.med-ph

                Medical physics
                Medical physics

                Comments

                Comment on this article