Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Meeting ReportOncology, Clinical Diagnosis Track

Proton Range Verification with PET Imaging in Brain and Head and Neck Cancers

Kira Grogg, Xuping Zhu, Helen Shih, Nathaniel Alpert and Georges El Fakhri
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (supplement 1) 658;
Kira Grogg
1Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xuping Zhu
1Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen Shih
1Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nathaniel Alpert
1Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Georges El Fakhri
1Massachusetts General Hospital Boston MA United States
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

658

Objectives: Uncertainty in proton range in tissue is a limiting factor in accurate and optimal planning for proton therapy[1]. Positron emission tomography (PET) has the potential to verify range by imaging the positron emitters generated by nuclear reactions of protons with elements in the tissue[2]-[5]. Images can be taken shortly after any given treatment fraction and compared to treatment plan-based Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the PET activity to check beam delivery. Accurate MC simulations, including biological effects, and appropriate comparison methods are necessary for appropriate assessment of dose accuracy. In this study we compared two MC simulation schemes to our measured PET images and are reporting our most recent clinical study results. Methods: We scanned 15 patients undergoing proton therapy for brain and head and neck tumors. All patients were imaged with a brain PET/CT scanner within 3.5 minutes of treatment with 2 Gy of protons from one or two beams. Most patients had repeated scans to check to reproducibility, resulting in 40 scans total. MC simulations of the expected PET distribution were generated using TOPAS, a Geant4 based particle simulator[6]. Radioactive decay and biological washout were applied to the MC to match the timing of the PET scans. Adjustments were made to the simulations and decay scheme to account for differences between cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) in the head and the whole-body parameters typically used in the simulations. CSF has a similar composition to water, thus ventricles and resected regions were given material properties similar to water, rather than the default values with a greater carbon contribution[7]. Additionally, less biological washout was applied to CSF regions, given the slower flow than in the highly perfused gray and white matter. Reconstructed images were compared to the both the “original MC” and the CSF “modified MC” for accuracy. Profiles along the beam were generated and compared by shifting one profile relative to the other until the difference is minimized[8]. The shift distance is used in generating a map across the beam to designate areas of agreement or disagreement in range. Results: Overall, the agreement between PET and MC-PET images was within a few millimeters. The average range difference for all patients and beams ranged from -1.85 to 2.77 mm with an average of 0.48 mm for the modified MC, and -1.87 to 3.83 mm with an average of 1.10 mm for the original MC. The RMSE of the differences ranged from 1.24 to 4.67 mm with mean 3.13 mm for the modified MC, and 1.92 to 6.07 mm with mean 3.43 mm for the original MC. While use of the modified MC resulted in smaller range differences, the majority of range differences detected by the automatic algorithm were due to remaining differences in the actual and predicted washout, and thus are not true range errors. A graphical user interface displaying the PET and MC, the 2D shift map, and profiles of selected points on the shift map was used to spot check the results. See Figure 2 for an example range comparison and 2D range map. Conclusions: Despite the often-complicated geometry and the high washout, it is possible to use profiles to compare measured and expected range differences of proton treatments in the head. We are able to provide an assessment of range differences between PET and MC-PET, and thus planned and delivered dose, across the entire beam cross section. The modified MC parameters for CSF regions made the profile shape of the MC more realistic and improved the comparison with PET. Results of the range comparisons can be used on a patient/fraction basis to check individual fractions, or population basis to determine the overall accuracy achievable for a given beam/anatomical location combination. Increasing the PET signal by reducing the delay between treatment and imaging has the potential to greatly improve the results. In-beam PET systems could provide higher imaging quality for even more accurate comparisons.

Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 59, Issue supplement 1
May 1, 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Proton Range Verification with PET Imaging in Brain and Head and Neck Cancers
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Proton Range Verification with PET Imaging in Brain and Head and Neck Cancers
Kira Grogg, Xuping Zhu, Helen Shih, Nathaniel Alpert, Georges El Fakhri
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (supplement 1) 658;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Proton Range Verification with PET Imaging in Brain and Head and Neck Cancers
Kira Grogg, Xuping Zhu, Helen Shih, Nathaniel Alpert, Georges El Fakhri
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2018, 59 (supplement 1) 658;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Oncology, Clinical Diagnosis Track

  • Immunohistochemical analysis of Gastrin-Releasing-Peptide receptor (GRPr) and Prostate-Specific- Membrane Antigen (PSMA) in primary prostate cancer: comparison with radiolabeled GRPr antagonist (68Ga-RM2) PET/CT
  • Relationship between FDG PETCT imaging and CA 125 levels in treated patients with Ovarian cancers - Can FDG PETCT define and predict the disease burden in clinically suspected recurrence ?
  • Cancer-associated fibroblasts enhance tumor 18F-FDG uptake and contribute to the intratumor heterogeneity of SUVmax
Show more Oncology, Clinical Diagnosis Track

Image Guided Therapy

  • 99mTc-labeled Mutant Interleukin-2 as a Promising SPECT Probe for in vivo Imaging of Tumor-Infiltrating T Cells
  • Evaluation of 89Zr-labeled Anti-CD8 Fully Human Monoclonal Antibody REGN5054 in Cynomolgus Monkeys
  • ImprovedQuantificationAccuracyUsing Bayesian Penalized Likelihood BasedReconstruction on 68Ga PET-CT
Show more Image Guided Therapy

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire