4.6 Article

Feasibility of proton-activated implantable markers for proton range verification using PET

Journal

PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
Volume 58, Issue 21, Pages 7497-7512

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/21/7497

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health through MD Anderson's Cancer Center [CA016672]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Proton beam range verification using positron emission tomography (PET) currently relies on proton activation of tissue, the products of which decay with a short half-life and necessitate an on-site PET scanner. Tissue activation is, however, negligible near the distal dose fall-off region of the proton beam range due to their high interaction energy thresholds. Therefore Monte Carlo simulation is often supplemented for comparison with measurement; however, this also may be associated with systematic and statistical uncertainties. Therefore, we sought to test the feasibility of using long-lived proton-activated external materials that are inserted or infused into the target volume for more accurate proton beam range verification that could be performed at an off-site PET scanner. We irradiated samples of >= 98% O-18-enriched water, natural Cu foils, and >97% Zn-68-enriched foils as candidate materials, along with samples of tissue-equivalent materials including O-16 water, heptane (C7H16), and polycarbonate (C16H14O3)(n), at four depths (ranging from 100% to 3% of center of modulation (COM) dose) along the distal fall-off of a modulated 160 MeV proton beam. Samples were irradiated either directly or after being embedded in Plastic Water (R) or balsa wood. We then measured the activity of the samples using PET imaging for 20 or 30 min after various delay times. Measured activities of candidate materials were up to 100 times greater than those of the tissue-equivalent materials at the four distal dose fall-off depths. The

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available