Radiological Physics and Technology

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 44–54 | Cite as

Experimental verification of proton beam monitoring in a human body by use of activity image of positron-emitting nuclei generated by nuclear fragmentation reaction

  • Teiji Nishio
  • Aya Miyatake
  • Kazumasa Inoue
  • Tomoko Gomi-Miyagishi
  • Ryosuke Kohno
  • Satoru Kameoka
  • Keiichi Nakagawa
  • Takashi Ogino
Article

Abstract

Proton therapy is a form of radiotherapy that enables concentration of dose on a tumor by use of a scanned or modulated Bragg peak. Therefore, it is very important to evaluate the proton-irradiated volume accurately. The proton-irradiated volume can be confirmed by detection of pair-annihilation gamma rays from positron-emitting nuclei generated by the nuclear fragmentation reaction of the incident protons on target nuclei using a PET apparatus. The activity of the positron-emitting nuclei generated in a patient was measured with a PET-CT apparatus after proton beam irradiation of the patient. Activity measurement was performed in patients with tumors of the brain, head and neck, liver, lungs, and sacrum. The 3-D PET image obtained on the CT image showed the visual correspondence with the irradiation area of the proton beam. Moreover, it was confirmed that there were differences in the strength of activity from the PET-CT images obtained at each irradiation site. The values of activity obtained from both measurement and calculation based on the reaction cross section were compared, and it was confirmed that the intensity and the distribution of the activity changed with the start time of the PET imaging after proton beam irradiation. The clinical use of this information about the positron-emitting nuclei will be important for promoting proton treatment with higher accuracy in the future.

Keywords

Proton therapy Proton beam monitoring Beam OFF-LINE PET system PET-CT imaging 

References

  1. 1.
    Chu WT, Ludewigt BA, Renner TR. Instrumentation for treatment of cancer using proton and light-ion beams. Rev Sci Instrum. 1993;64(8):2055–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bennett GW, Goldberg A, Levine G, Guthy J, Balsamo J. Beam localization via 15O activation in proton radiation therapy. Nucl Instr Meth. 1975;125:333–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett GW, Archambeau JO, Archambeau BE, Meltzer JI, Wingate CL. Visualization and transport of positron emission from proton activation in vivo. Science. 1978;200:1151–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oelfke U, Lam G, Atkins M. Proton dose monitering with PET: quantiative studies in Lucite. Phys Med Biol. 1996;41:177–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Litzenberg DW, Roberts DA, Lee MY, Pham K, Vander Molen AM, Ronningen R, et al. On-line monitoring of radiotherapy beams: experimental results with proton beams. Med Phys. 1999;26(6):992–1006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parodi K, Enghardt W. Potential application of PET in quality assuarnce of proton therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45:N151–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nishio T, Ogino T, Shimbo M, Katsuta S, Kawasaki S, Murakami T, et al. Distributions of β+ decayed nucleus produced from the target fragment reaction in (CH2) n and patient liver targets by using a proton beam for therapy. Abstracts of the XXXIV PTCOG MEETING in Boston; 2001. pp. 15–6.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parodi K, Enghardt W, Haberer T. In-beam PET measurements of β+ radioactivity induced by proton beams. Phys Med Biol. 2002;47:21–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hishikawa Y, Kagawa K, Murakami M, Sasaki H, Akagi T, Abe M. Usefulness of positron-emission tomographic images after proton therapy. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:1388–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Enghardt W, Crespo P, Fiedler F, Hinz R, Parodi K, Pawelke J, et al. Dose quantification from in-beam positron emission tomography. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73(Suppl. 2):S96–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nishio T, Sato T, Kitamura H, Murakami K, Ogino T. Distributions of β+ decayed nuclei generated in the CH2 and H2O targets by the target nuclear fragment reaction using therapeutic MONO and SOBP proton beam. Med Phys. 2005;32(4):1070–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parodi K, Ponisch F, Enghardt W. Experimental study on the feasibility of in-beam PET for accurate monitoring of proton therapy. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci. 2005;52:778–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nishio T, Ogino T, Nomura K, Uchida H. Dose-volume delivery guided proton therapy using beam ON-LINE PET system. Med Phys. 2006;33(11):4190–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Photon, Electron, Proton and Neutron Interaction Data for Body Tissues (ICRU Report 46). pp. 11–3.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iljinov AS, Semenov VG, Semenova MP, Schopper H. Interactions of protons with nuclei (supplement to I/13a, b, c), (Landolt-Bornstein New Series. 1994).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldharber AS. Statistical models of fragmentation processes. Phys Lett. 1974;53B:306–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winger A, Sherrill BM. Morrissey. INTENSITY: acomputer program for the estimation of secondary beam intensities from a projectile fragment separator. Nucl Instrum Methods. 1992;B70:380–92.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nishio T. Proton therapy facility at National Cancer Center, Kashiwa, Japan. J At Energy Soc. 1999;41(11):1134–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tachikawa T, Sato T, Ogino T, Nishio T. Proton treatment devices at National Cancer Center (Kashiwa). Radiat Indust. 1999;84:48–53.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nishio T, Kataoka S, Tachibana M, Matsumura K, Uzawa N, Saito H, et al. Development of a simple control system for unifom proton dose distribution in a dual-ring double scattering system. Phys Med Biol. 2006;51:1249–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nishio T, Ogino T, Sakudo M, Tanizaki N, Yamada M, Nishida G, et al. Present proton treatment planning system at National Cancer Center Hospital East. Jpn J Med Phys Proc. 2000;20(Suppl. 4):174–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boellaard R, Lingen AV, Lammertsma AA. Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:808–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tomitani T, Pawelke J, Kanazawa M, Yoshikawa K, Yoshida K, Sato M, et al. Washout studies of 11C in rabbit thigh muscle implanted by secondary beams of HIMAC. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:875–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mizuno H, Tomitani T, Kanazawa M, Kitagawa A, Pawelke J, Iseki Y, et al. Washout measurement of radioisotope implanted by radioactive beams in the rabbit. Phys Med Biol. 2003;48:2269–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teiji Nishio
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Aya Miyatake
    • 2
  • Kazumasa Inoue
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  • Tomoko Gomi-Miyagishi
    • 1
  • Ryosuke Kohno
    • 1
  • Satoru Kameoka
    • 1
  • Keiichi Nakagawa
    • 3
  • Takashi Ogino
    • 1
  1. 1.Particle Therapy DivisionResearch Center for Innovative Oncology, National Cancer CenterChibaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear Engineering and ManagementGraduate School of Engineering, University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyGraduate School of Medicine, University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyNational Cancer CenterChibaJapan
  5. 5.Functional Imaging DivisionResearch Center for Innovative Oncology, National Cancer CenterChibaJapan
  6. 6.Graduate School of Health ScienceTokyo Metropolitan UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations