Design study of an in situ PET scanner for use in proton beam therapy

Proton beam therapy can deliver a high radiation dose to a tumor without significant damage to surrounding healthy tissue or organs. One way of verifying the delivered dose distribution is to image the short-lived positron emitters produced by the proton beam as it travels through the patient. A potential solution to the limitations of PET imaging in proton beam therapy is the development of a high sensitivity, in situ PET scanner that starts PET imaging almost immediately after patient irradiation while the patient is still lying on the treatment bed. A partial ring PET design is needed for this application in order to avoid interference between the PET detectors and the proton beam, as well as restrictions on patient positioning on the couch. A partial ring also allows us to optimize the detector separation (and hence the sensitivity) for different patient sizes. Our goal in this investigation is to evaluate an in situ PET scanner design for use in proton therapy that provides tomographic imaging in a partial ring scanner design using time-of-flight (TOF) information and an iterative reconstruction algorithm. GEANT4 simulation of an incident proton beam was used to produce a positron emitter distribution, which was parameterized and then used as the source distribution inside a water-filled cylinder for EGS4 simulations of a PET system. Design optimization studies were performed as a function of crystal type and size, system timing resolution, scanner angular coverage and number of positron emitter decays. Data analysis was performed to measure the accuracy of the reconstructed positron emitter distribution as well as the range of the positron emitter distribution. We simulated scanners with varying crystal sizes (2-4 mm) and type (LYSO and LaBr(3)) and our results indicate that 4 mm wide LYSO or LaBr(3) crystals (resulting in 4-5 mm spatial resolution) are adequate; for a full-ring, non-TOF scanner we predict a low bias (<0.6 mm) and a good precision (<1 mm) in the estimated range relative to the simulated positron distribution. We then varied the angular acceptance of the scanner ranging from 1/2 to 2/3 of 2π; a partial ring TOF imaging with good timing resolution (≤600 ps) is necessary to produce accurate tomographic images. A two-third ring scanner with 300 ps timing resolution leads to a bias of 1.0 mm and a precision of 1.4 mm in the range estimate. With a timing resolution of 600 ps, the bias increases to 2.0 mm while the precision in the range estimate is similar. For a half-ring scanner design, more distortions are present in the image, which is characterized by the increased error in the profile difference estimate. We varied the number of positron decays imaged by the PET scanner by an order of magnitude and we observe some decrease in the precision of the range estimate for lower number of decays, but all partial ring scanner designs studied have a precision ≤1.5 mm. The largest number tested, 150 M total positron decays, is considered realistic for a clinical fraction of delivered dose, while the range of positron decays investigated in this work covers a variable number of situations corresponding to delays in scan start time and the total scan time. Thus, we conclude that for partial ring systems, an angular acceptance of at least 1/2 (of 2π) together with timing resolution of 300 ps is needed to achieve accurate and precise range estimates. With 600 ps timing resolution an angular acceptance of 2/3 (of 2π) is required to achieve satisfactory range estimates. These results indicate that it would be feasible to develop a partial-ring dedicated PET scanner based on either LaBr(3) or LYSO to accurately characterize the proton dose for therapy planning.

[1]  C. Watson Extension of Single Scatter Simulation to Scatter Correction of Time-of-Flight PET , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[2]  Oliver Jäkel,et al.  Positron emission tomography for quality assurance of cancer therapy with light ion beams , 1999 .

[3]  Wolfgang Enghardt,et al.  In-beam PET imaging for the control of heavy-ion tumour therapy , 1996 .

[4]  D. Townsend,et al.  Three-Dimensional Image Reconstruction for a Positron Camera with Limited Angular Acceptance , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[5]  Hiroshi Uchida,et al.  Dose-volume delivery guided proton therapy using beam on-line PET system. , 2006, Medical physics.

[6]  Imaging performance of a LaBr3-based time-of-flight PET scanner , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[7]  M. Daube-Witherspoon,et al.  The imaging performance of a LaBr3-based PET scanner , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[8]  Contribution of Time-of-Flight Information to Limited Angle Positron Tomography , 1982 .

[9]  Hideyuki Mizuno,et al.  Positron camera for range verification of heavy-ion radiotherapy , 2003 .

[10]  J. Llacer,et al.  A comparison of water equivalent thickness measurements: CT method vs. heavy ion beam technique. , 1985, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  S. Matej,et al.  Iterative image reconstruction using geometrically ordered subsets with list-mode data , 2004, IEEE Symposium Conference Record Nuclear Science 2004..

[12]  H. Malcolm Hudson,et al.  Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[13]  D W Litzenberg,et al.  On-line monitoring of radiotherapy beams: experimental results with proton beams. , 1999, Medical physics.

[14]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Charged hadron tumour therapy monitoring by means of PET , 2004 .

[15]  Keiichi Nakagawa,et al.  The development and clinical use of a beam ON-LINE PET system mounted on a rotating gantry port in proton therapy. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Ignace Lemahieu,et al.  System characteristics of simulated limited angle TOF PET , 2007 .

[17]  Eiji Yoshida,et al.  A proposal of an open PET geometry , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[18]  J. Karp,et al.  Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. , 2007, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[19]  J. Karp,et al.  Design considerations for a limited angle, dedicated breast, TOF PET scanner , 2007, 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[20]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Patient study of in vivo verification of beam delivery and range, using positron emission tomography and computed tomography imaging after proton therapy. , 2007, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[21]  Mitsuyuki Abe,et al.  Usefulness of positron-emission tomographic images after proton therapy. , 2002, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[22]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Comparison between in-beam and offline positron emission tomography imaging of proton and carbon ion therapeutic irradiation at synchrotron- and cyclotron-based facilities. , 2008, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  U Oelfke,et al.  Proton dose monitoring with PET: quantitative studies in Lucite. , 1996, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  D F Jackson,et al.  The relation between X-ray CT numbers and charged particle stopping powers and its significance for radiotherapy treatment planning. , 1983, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  G Brix,et al.  Investigation of scattered radiation in 3D whole-body positron emission tomography using Monte Carlo simulations. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  W. Enghardt,et al.  Direct time-of-flight for quantitative, real-time in-beam PET: a concept and feasibility study , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  D. Townsend,et al.  Performance investigation of a time-of-flight PET/CT scanner , 2008, 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[28]  G Muehllehner,et al.  Image quality assessment of LaBr3-based whole-body 3D PET scanners: a Monte Carlo evaluation , 2004 .

[29]  J. Karp,et al.  Implementation and Evaluation of a 3D PET Single Scatter Simulation with TOF Modeling , 2006, 2006 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[30]  Giuseppe A. P. Cirrone,et al.  Preliminary results of an in-beam PET prototype for proton therapy , 2008 .