skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-C-207A-04: Accuracy of Acoustic-Based Proton Range Verification in Water

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the accuracy and dose required for acoustic-based proton range verification (protoacoustics) in water. Methods: Proton pulses with 17 µs FWHM and instantaneous currents of 480 nA (5.6 × 10{sup 7} protons/pulse, 8.9 cGy/pulse) were generated by a clinical, hospital-based cyclotron at the University of Pennsylvania. The protoacoustic signal generated in a water phantom by the 190 MeV proton pulses was measured with a hydrophone placed at multiple known positions surrounding the dose deposition. The background random noise was measured. The protoacoustic signal was simulated to compare to the experiments. Results: The maximum protoacoustic signal amplitude at 5 cm distance was 5.2 mPa per 1 × 10{sup 7} protons (1.6 cGy at the Bragg peak). The background random noise of the measurement was 27 mPa. Comparison between simulation and experiment indicates that the hydrophone introduced a delay of 2.4 µs. For acoustic data collected with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 21, deconvolution of the protoacoustic signal with the proton pulse provided the most precise time-of-flight range measurement (standard deviation of 2.0 mm), but a systematic error (−4.5 mm) was observed. Conclusion: Based on water phantom measurements at a clinical hospital-based cyclotron, protoacoustics is a potential technique for measuringmore » the proton Bragg peak range with 2.0 mm standard deviation. Simultaneous use of multiple detectors is expected to reduce the standard deviation, but calibration is required to remove systematic error. Based on the measured background noise and protoacoustic amplitude, a SNR of 5.3 is projected for a deposited dose of 2 Gy.« less

Authors:
; ;  [1];  [2]
  1. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  2. Ion Beam Applications (IBA), Louvainla-neuve, Walloon Brabant (Belgium)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22624339
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; 60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; ACCURACY; ACOUSTICS; AMPLITUDES; BACKGROUND NOISE; BRAGG CURVE; CYCLOTRONS; ERRORS; HOSPITALS; PHANTOMS; RADIATION DOSES; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO; SIMULATION; VERIFICATION

Citation Formats

Jones, KC, Sehgal, CM, Avery, S, and Vander Stappen, F. SU-C-207A-04: Accuracy of Acoustic-Based Proton Range Verification in Water. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4955579.
Jones, KC, Sehgal, CM, Avery, S, & Vander Stappen, F. SU-C-207A-04: Accuracy of Acoustic-Based Proton Range Verification in Water. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955579.
Jones, KC, Sehgal, CM, Avery, S, and Vander Stappen, F. 2016. "SU-C-207A-04: Accuracy of Acoustic-Based Proton Range Verification in Water". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4955579.
@article{osti_22624339,
title = {SU-C-207A-04: Accuracy of Acoustic-Based Proton Range Verification in Water},
author = {Jones, KC and Sehgal, CM and Avery, S and Vander Stappen, F},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To determine the accuracy and dose required for acoustic-based proton range verification (protoacoustics) in water. Methods: Proton pulses with 17 µs FWHM and instantaneous currents of 480 nA (5.6 × 10{sup 7} protons/pulse, 8.9 cGy/pulse) were generated by a clinical, hospital-based cyclotron at the University of Pennsylvania. The protoacoustic signal generated in a water phantom by the 190 MeV proton pulses was measured with a hydrophone placed at multiple known positions surrounding the dose deposition. The background random noise was measured. The protoacoustic signal was simulated to compare to the experiments. Results: The maximum protoacoustic signal amplitude at 5 cm distance was 5.2 mPa per 1 × 10{sup 7} protons (1.6 cGy at the Bragg peak). The background random noise of the measurement was 27 mPa. Comparison between simulation and experiment indicates that the hydrophone introduced a delay of 2.4 µs. For acoustic data collected with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 21, deconvolution of the protoacoustic signal with the proton pulse provided the most precise time-of-flight range measurement (standard deviation of 2.0 mm), but a systematic error (−4.5 mm) was observed. Conclusion: Based on water phantom measurements at a clinical hospital-based cyclotron, protoacoustics is a potential technique for measuring the proton Bragg peak range with 2.0 mm standard deviation. Simultaneous use of multiple detectors is expected to reduce the standard deviation, but calibration is required to remove systematic error. Based on the measured background noise and protoacoustic amplitude, a SNR of 5.3 is projected for a deposited dose of 2 Gy.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4955579},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Studies show that WEPL can be determined from modulated dose rate functions (DRF). However, the previous calibration method based on statistics of the DRF is sensitive to energy mixing of protons due to scattering through different materials (termed as range mixing here), causing inaccuracies in the determination of WEPL. This study intends to explore time-domain features of the DRF to reduce the effect of range mixing in proton radiography (pRG) by this technique. Methods: An amorphous silicon flat panel (PaxScan™ 4030CB, Varian Medical Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA) was placed behind phantoms to measure DRFs from a proton beammore » modulated by a specially designed modulator wheel. The performance of two methods, the previously used method based on the root mean square (RMS) and the new approach based on time-domain features of the DRF, are compared for retrieving WEPL and RSP from pRG of a Gammex phantom. Results: Calibration by T{sub 80} (the time point for 80% of the major peak) was more robust to range mixing and produced WEPL with improved accuracy. The error of RSP was reduced from 8.2% to 1.7% for lung equivalent material, with the mean error for all other materials reduced from 1.2% to 0.7%. The mean error of the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of retrieved inserts was decreased from 25.85% to 5.89% for the RMS and T{sub 80} method respectively. Monte Carlo simulations in simplified cases also demonstrated that the T{sub 80} method is less sensitive to range mixing than the RMS method. Conclusion: WEPL images have been retrieved based on single flat panel measured DRFs, with inaccuracies reduced by exploiting time-domain features as the calibration parameter. The T{sub 80} method is validated to be less sensitive to range mixing and can thus retrieve the WEPL values in proximity of interfaces with improved numerical and spatial accuracy for proton radiography.« less
  • Purpose: Through simulation, to assess acoustic-based range verification of proton beams (protoacoustics) under clinical conditions. Methods: Pressure waves generated by the energy deposition of a 150 MeV, 8 mm FWHM pulsed pencil proton beam were numerically simulated through two Methods: 1) For a homogeneous water medium, an analytical wave-equation solution was used to calculate the time-dependent pressure measured at detector points surrounding the proton Bragg peak. 2) For heterogeneity studies, a CT tissue image was used to calculate the proton dose deposition and define the acoustic properties of the voxels through which numerical pressure wave propagation was simulated with themore » k-Wave matlab toolbox. The simulations were used to assess the dependence of the acoustic amplitude and range-verification accuracy on proton pulse rise time and tissue heterogeneity. Results: As the proton pulse rise time is increased from 1 to 40 µs, the amplitude of the expected acoustic emission decreases (a 60% drop distal to the Bragg peak), the central frequency of the expected signal decreases (from 45 to 6 kHz), and the accuracy of the range-verification decreases (from <1 mm to 16 mm at 5 cm distal to the Bragg peak). For a 300 nA pulse, the expected pressure range is on the order of 0.1 Pa, which is observable with commercial detectors. For the heterogeneous medium, our test case shows that pressure waves emitted by an anterior pencil beam directed into the abdomen and detected posteriorly can determine the Bragg peak range to an accuracy of <2mm for a 1 µs proton pulse. Conclusion: For proton pulses with fast rise-times, protoacoustics is a promising potential method for monitoring penetration depth through heterogeneous tissue. The loss of range-verification accuracy with increasing rise-times, however, suggests the need for comparisons to modeling to improve accuracy for slower cyclotron proton sources.« less
  • Purpose: We investigated proton-acoustic signals detection for range verification with current ultrasound instruments in typical clinical scenarios. Using simulations that included a realistic noise model, we determined the theoretical minimum dose required to generate detectable proton-acoustic signals. Methods: An analytical model was used to calculate the dose distributions and local pressure rise (per proton) for beams of different energy (100 and 160 MeV) and spot widths (1, 5, and 10 mm) in a water phantom. The acoustic waves propagating from the Bragg peak were modeled by the general 3D pressure wave equation and convolved with Gaussian kernels to simulate variousmore » proton pulse widths (0.1 – 10 ms). A realistic PZT ultrasound transducer (5 cm diameter) was simulated with a Butterworth band-pass filter, and ii) randomly generated noise based on a model of thermal noise in the transducer. The signal-to-noise ratio was calculated, determining the minimum number of protons and dose required per pulse. The maximum spatial resolution was also estimated from the signal spectrum. Results: The calculated noise in the transducer was 12–28 mPa, depending on the transducer center frequency (70–380 kHz). The minimum number of protons were on the order of 0.6–6 million per pulse, leading to 3–110 mGy dose per pulse at the Bragg peak, depending on the spot size. The acoustic signal consisted of lower frequencies for wider pulses, leading to lower noise levels, but also worse spatial resolution. The resolution was 1-mm for a 0.1-µs pulse width, but increased to 5-mm for a 10-µs pulse width. Conclusion: We have established minimum dose detection limits for proton-acoustic range validation. These limits correspond to a best case scenario with a large detector with no losses and only detector thermal noise. Feasible proton-acoustic range detection will require at least 10{sup 7} protons per pulse and pulse widths ≤ 1-µs.« less
  • Purpose: To investigate the feasibility and requirement for intra-fraction on-line multiple scanning particle beam range verifications (BRVs) with in-situ PET imaging, which is beyond the current single-beam BRV with extra factors that will affect the BR measurement accuracy, such as beam diameter, separation between beams, and different image counts at different BRV positions. Methods: We simulated a 110-MeV proton beam with 5-mm diameter irradiating a uniform PMMA phantom by GATE simulation, which generated nuclear interaction-induced positrons. In this preliminary study, we simply duplicated these positrons and placed them next to the initial protons to approximately mimic the two spatially separatedmore » positron distributions produced by two beams parallel to each other but with different beam ranges. These positrons were then imaged by a PET (∼2-mm resolution, 10% sensitivity, 320×320×128 mm^3 FOV) with different acquisition times. We calculated the positron activity ranges (ARs) from reconstructed PET images and compared them with the corresponding ARs of original positron distributions. Results: Without further image data processing and correction, the preliminary study show the errors between the measured and original ARs varied from 0.2 mm to 2.3 mm as center-to-center separations and range differences were in the range of 8–12 mm and 2–8 mm respectively, indicating the accuracy of AR measurement strongly depends on the beam separations and range differences. In addition, it is feasible to achieve ≤ 1.0-mm accuracy for both beams with 1-min PET acquisition and 12 mm beam separation. Conclusion: This study shows that the overlap between the positron distributions from multiple scanning beams can significantly impact the accuracy of BRVs of distributed particle beams and need to be further addressed beyond the established method of single-beam BRV, but it also indicates the feasibility to achieve accurate on-line multi-beam BRV with further improved method.« less
  • Purpose: For 23 patients, an off-line positron emission tomography scan and a computed tomography scan after proton radiotherapy was performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital to assess in vivo treatment verification. A well-balanced population of patients was investigated to assess the effect of the tumor location on the accuracy of the technique. Methods and Materials: Range verification was achieved by comparing the measured positron emission tomography activity distributions with the corresponding Monte Carlo-simulated distributions. Observed differences in the distal end of the activity distributions were analyzed as potential indicators for the range differences between the actual delivered and planned dose.more » Results: The average spatial agreement between the measured and simulated activity distribution was within {+-}3 mm, and the corresponding average absolute agreement was within {+-}45% (derived from gamma index analysis). The mean absolute range deviation at 93 randomly chosen positions in 17 treatment fields delivered to 11 patients was 3.6 mm. Characteristic differences in the agreement of the measured and simulated activity distribution for the different tumor/target sites were found. This resulted from the different effect of factors such as biologic washout effects, motion, or limitations in the Monte Carlo-simulated activity patterns. Conclusion: We found that intracranial and cervical spine patients can greatly benefit from off-line positron emission tomography and computed tomography range verification. However, for the successful application of the method to patients with abdominopelvic tumors, major technological and methodologic improvements are needed. Among the intracranial and cervical spine target sites, patients with arteriovenous malformations or metal implants represent groups that could especially benefit from the approach.« less