First in situ TOF-PET study using digital photon counters for proton range verification

Positron emission tomography (PET) is the imaging modality most extensively tested for treatment monitoring in particle therapy. Optimal use of PET in proton therapy requires in situ acquisition of the relatively strong (15)O signal due to its relatively short half-life (~2 min) and high oxygen content in biological tissues, enabling shorter scans that are less sensitive to biological washout. This paper presents the first performance tests of a scaled-down in situ time-of-flight (TOF) PET system based on digital photon counters (DPCs) coupled to Cerium-doped Lutetium Yttrium Silicate (LYSO:Ce) crystals, providing quantitative results representative of a dual-head tomograph that complies with spatial constraints typically encountered in clinical practice (2  ×  50°, of 360°, transaxial angular acceptance). The proton-induced activity inside polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and polyethylene (PE) phantoms was acquired within beam pauses (in-beam) and immediately after irradiation by an actively-delivered synchrotron pencil-beam, with clinically relevant 125.67 MeV/u, 4.6  ×  10(8) protons s(-1), and 10(10) total protons. 3D activity maps reconstructed with and without TOF information are compared to FLUKA simulations, demonstrating the benefit of TOF-PET to reduce limited-angle artefacts using a 382 ps full width at half maximum coincidence resolving time. The time-dependent contributions from different radionuclides to the total count-rate are investigated. We furthermore study the impact of the acquisition time window on the laterally integrated activity depth-profiles, with emphasis on 2 min acquisitions starting at different time points. The results depend on phantom composition and reflect the differences in relative contributions from the radionuclides originating from carbon and oxygen. We observe very good agreement between the shapes of the simulated and measured activity depth-profiles for post-beam protocols. However, our results also suggest that available experimental cross sections underestimate the production of (10)C for in-beam acquisitions, which in PE results in an overestimation of the predicted activity range by 1.4 mm. The uncertainty in the activity range measured in PMMA using the DPC-based TOF-PET prototype setup equals 0.2 mm-0.3 mm.

[1]  G. Borghi,et al.  Sub-200 ps CRT in monolithic scintillator PET detectors using digital SiPM arrays and maximum likelihood interaction time estimation , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  P. Vaska,et al.  Simulation of proton therapy treatment verification via PET imaging of induced positron-emitters , 2003, 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Conference Record (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37515).

[3]  T. Frach,et al.  Fully Digital Arrays of Silicon Photomultipliers (dSiPM) – a Scalable Alternative to Vacuum Photomultiplier Tubes (PMT) , 2012 .

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

[5]  T. Frach,et al.  The digital Silicon Photomultiplier — A novel sensor for the detection of scintillation light , 2009, 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[6]  J S Karp,et al.  Design study of an in situ PET scanner for use in proton beam therapy , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Carsten Degenhardt,et al.  The digital silicon photomultiplier — System architecture and performance evaluation , 2010, IEEE Nuclear Science Symposuim & Medical Imaging Conference.

[8]  Lei Dong,et al.  Physics controversies in proton therapy. , 2013, Seminars in radiation oncology.

[9]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Random coincidences during in-beam PET measurements at microbunched therapeutic ion beams , 2005 .

[10]  H Paganetti,et al.  Automation and uncertainty analysis of a method for in-vivo range verification in particle therapy , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[11]  Katia Parodi,et al.  PET monitoring of hadrontherapy , 2012 .

[12]  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.

[13]  F. Schneider,et al.  Performance analysis of digital silicon photomultipliers for PET , 2015 .

[14]  J. Debus,et al.  The application of PET to quality assurance of heavy-ion tumor therapy , 1999, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie.

[15]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  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.

[17]  K. Parodi,et al.  Suppression of random coincidences during in-beam PET measurements at ion beam radiotherapy facilities , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[18]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Implementation and workflow for PET monitoring of therapeutic ion irradiation: a comparison of in-beam, in-room, and off-line techniques , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  K. Parodi,et al.  Experimental study on the feasibility of in-beam PET for accurate monitoring of proton therapy , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science.

[20]  F Verhaegen,et al.  Monte Carlo calculations of positron emitter yields in proton radiotherapy , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  Hideaki Tashima,et al.  A single-ring OpenPET enabling PET imaging during radiotherapy , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  Wolfgang Enghardt,et al.  On the detector arrangement for in-beam PET for hadron therapy monitoring , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  W Enghardt,et al.  On the feasibility of automatic detection of range deviations from in-beam PET data. , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Harald Paganetti,et al.  Clinical application of in-room positron emission tomography for in vivo treatment monitoring in proton radiation therapy. , 2013, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[25]  Jinsong Ouyang,et al.  Monitoring proton radiation therapy with in-room PET imaging , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  H Paganetti,et al.  Systematic analysis of biological and physical limitations of proton beam range verification with offline PET/CT scans , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  Volkmar Schulz,et al.  Advances in digital SiPMs and their application in biomedical imaging , 2016 .

[28]  Christopher Kurz,et al.  An experimental approach to improve the Monte Carlo modelling of offline PET/CT-imaging of positron emitters induced by scanned proton beams , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[29]  Katia Parodi,et al.  Time-resolved imaging of prompt-gamma rays for proton range verification using a knife-edge slit camera based on digital photon counters , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[30]  R. Dorscheid,et al.  Performance evaluation of a prototype Positron Emission Tomography scanner using Digital Photon Counters (DPC) , 2012, 2012 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[31]  Paulo Alexandre,et al.  Optimization of In-Beam Positron Emission Tomography for Monitoring Heavy Ion Tumor Therapy , 2006 .

[32]  V. Vlachoudis,et al.  The FLUKA Code: Developments and Challenges for High Energy and Medical Applications , 2014 .

[33]  G Sportelli,et al.  First full-beam PET acquisitions in proton therapy with a modular dual-head dedicated system , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[35]  K Parodi,et al.  Potential application of PET in quality assurance of proton therapy. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  Giacomo Borghi,et al.  Probabilities of triggering and validation in a digital silicon photomultiplier , 2014 .

[37]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[38]  Wolfgang Enghardt,et al.  On the effectiveness of ion range determination from in-beam PET data , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[39]  K Parodi,et al.  Integration and evaluation of automated Monte Carlo simulations in the clinical practice of scanned proton and carbon ion beam therapy , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[40]  A. Ferrari,et al.  FLUKA: A Multi-Particle Transport Code , 2005 .

[41]  T. Bortfeld,et al.  Mapping (15)O production rate for proton therapy verification. , 2015, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[42]  Til Aach,et al.  Simultaneous Reconstruction of Activity and Attenuation for PET/MR , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[43]  H Paganetti,et al.  Clinical CT-based calculations of dose and positron emitter distributions in proton therapy using the FLUKA Monte Carlo code , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[44]  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.

[45]  Katia Parodi,et al.  In-beam PET measurements of β+ radioactivity induced by proton beams , 2002 .

[46]  T. Frach,et al.  The digital silicon photomultiplier — Principle of operation and intrinsic detector performance , 2009, 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC).

[47]  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.

[48]  Yiping Shao,et al.  In-beam PET imaging for on-line adaptive proton therapy: an initial phantom study , 2014, Physics in medicine and biology.

[49]  D Dauvergne,et al.  Interaction vertex imaging (IVI) for carbon ion therapy monitoring: a feasibility study , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.