1
|
Penescu L, Stora T, Stegemann S, Pitters J, Fiorina E, Augusto RDS, Schmitzer C, Wenander F, Parodi K, Ferrari A, Cocolios TE. Technical Design Report for a Carbon-11 Treatment Facility. Front Med (Lausanne) 2022; 8:697235. [PMID: 35547661 PMCID: PMC9081534 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.697235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 12/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Particle therapy relies on the advantageous dose deposition which permits to highly conform the dose to the target and better spare the surrounding healthy tissues and organs at risk with respect to conventional radiotherapy. In the case of treatments with heavier ions (like carbon ions already clinically used), another advantage is the enhanced radiobiological effectiveness due to high linear energy transfer radiation. These particle therapy advantages are unfortunately not thoroughly exploited due to particle range uncertainties. The possibility to monitor the compliance between the ongoing and prescribed dose distribution is a crucial step toward new optimizations in treatment planning and adaptive therapy. The Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is an established quantitative 3D imaging technique for particle treatment verification and, among the isotopes used for PET imaging, the 11C has gained more attention from the scientific and clinical communities for its application as new radioactive projectile for particle therapy. This is an interesting option clinically because of an enhanced imaging potential, without dosimetry drawbacks; technically, because the stable isotope 12C is successfully already in use in clinics. The MEDICIS-Promed network led an initiative to study the possible technical solutions for the implementation of 11C radioisotopes in an accelerator-based particle therapy center. We present here the result of this study, consisting in a Technical Design Report for a 11C Treatment Facility. The clinical usefulness is reviewed based on existing experimental data, complemented by Monte Carlo simulations using the FLUKA code. The technical analysis starts from reviewing the layout and results of the facilities which produced 11C beams in the past, for testing purposes. It then focuses on the elaboration of the feasible upgrades of an existing 12C particle therapy center, to accommodate the production of 11C beams for therapy. The analysis covers the options to produce the 11C atoms in sufficient amounts (as required for therapy), to ionize them as required by the existing accelerator layouts, to accelerate and transport them to the irradiation rooms. The results of the analysis and the identified challenges define the possible implementation scenario and timeline.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Thierry Stora
- European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Simon Stegemann
- Department of Physics and Astronomy, KU Leuven, Geel, Belgium
| | - Johanna Pitters
- European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Elisa Fiorina
- Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Sezione di Torino, Torino, Italy
- Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO), Pavia, Italy
| | - Ricardo Dos Santos Augusto
- European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
- TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | | | - Fredrik Wenander
- European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Katia Parodi
- Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany
| | - Alfredo Ferrari
- European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Boscolo D, Kostyleva D, Safari MJ, Anagnostatou V, Äystö J, Bagchi S, Binder T, Dedes G, Dendooven P, Dickel T, Drozd V, Franczack B, Geissel H, Gianoli C, Graeff C, Grahn T, Greiner F, Haettner E, Haghani R, Harakeh MN, Horst F, Hornung C, Hucka JP, Kalantar-Nayestanaki N, Kazantseva E, Kindler B, Knöbel R, Kuzminchuk-Feuerstein N, Lommel B, Mukha I, Nociforo C, Ishikawa S, Lovatti G, Nitta M, Ozoemelam I, Pietri S, Plaß WR, Prochazka A, Purushothaman S, Reidel CA, Roesch H, Schirru F, Schuy C, Sokol O, Steinsberger T, Tanaka YK, Tanihata I, Thirolf P, Tinganelli W, Voss B, Weber U, Weick H, Winfield JS, Winkler M, Zhao J, Scheidenberger C, Parodi K, Durante M. Radioactive Beams for Image-Guided Particle Therapy: The BARB Experiment at GSI. Front Oncol 2021; 11:737050. [PMID: 34504803 PMCID: PMC8422860 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.737050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 08/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Several techniques are under development for image-guidance in particle therapy. Positron (β+) emission tomography (PET) is in use since many years, because accelerated ions generate positron-emitting isotopes by nuclear fragmentation in the human body. In heavy ion therapy, a major part of the PET signals is produced by β+-emitters generated via projectile fragmentation. A much higher intensity for the PET signal can be obtained using β+-radioactive beams directly for treatment. This idea has always been hampered by the low intensity of the secondary beams, produced by fragmentation of the primary, stable beams. With the intensity upgrade of the SIS-18 synchrotron and the isotopic separation with the fragment separator FRS in the FAIR-phase-0 in Darmstadt, it is now possible to reach radioactive ion beams with sufficient intensity to treat a tumor in small animals. This was the motivation of the BARB (Biomedical Applications of Radioactive ion Beams) experiment that is ongoing at GSI in Darmstadt. This paper will present the plans and instruments developed by the BARB collaboration for testing the use of radioactive beams in cancer therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daria Boscolo
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Daria Kostyleva
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | | | - Juha Äystö
- University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.,Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Tim Binder
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | | | | | - Timo Dickel
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | - Vasyl Drozd
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | | | - Hans Geissel
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | | | - Christian Graeff
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Tuomas Grahn
- University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.,Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Florian Greiner
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Emma Haettner
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | | | - Felix Horst
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Christine Hornung
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Jan-Paul Hucka
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | - Erika Kazantseva
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Birgit Kindler
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Ronja Knöbel
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | - Bettina Lommel
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Ivan Mukha
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Chiara Nociforo
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | - Stephane Pietri
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Wolfgang R Plaß
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | | | | | | | - Heidi Roesch
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Fabio Schirru
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Christoph Schuy
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Olga Sokol
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Timo Steinsberger
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | | - Isao Tanihata
- Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan.,Peking University, Beijing, China.,Institute of Modern Physics, Lanzhou, China
| | - Peter Thirolf
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | | | - Bernd Voss
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Uli Weber
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Helmut Weick
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - John S Winfield
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Martin Winkler
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany
| | - Jianwei Zhao
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Christoph Scheidenberger
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Gießen, Germany
| | - Katia Parodi
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany
| | - Marco Durante
- GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany.,Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mohammadi A, Tashima H, Iwao Y, Takyu S, Akamatsu G, Kang HG, Nishikido F, Yoshida E, Chacon A, Safavi-Naeini M, Parodi K, Yamaya T. Influence of momentum acceptance on range monitoring of 11C and 15O ion beams using in-beam PET. Phys Med Biol 2020; 65:125006. [PMID: 32176873 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ab8059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
In heavy-ion therapy, the stopping position of primary ions in tumours needs to be monitored for effective treatment and to prevent overdose exposure to normal tissues. Positron-emitting ion beams, such as 11C and 15O, have been suggested for range verification in heavy-ion therapy using in-beam positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, which offers the capability of visualizing the ion stopping position with a high signal-to-noise ratio. We have previously demonstrated the feasibility of in-beam PET imaging for the range verification of 11C and 15O ion beams and observed a slight shift between the beam stopping position and the dose peak position in simulations, depending on the initial beam energy spread. In this study, we focused on the experimental confirmation of the shift between the Bragg peak position and the position of the maximum detected positron-emitting fragments via a PET system for positron-emitting ion beams of 11C (210 MeV u-1) and 15O (312 MeV u-1) with momentum acceptances of 5% and 0.5%. For this purpose, we measured the depth doses and performed in-beam PET imaging using a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) phantom for both beams with different momentum acceptances. The shifts between the Bragg peak position and the PET peak position in an irradiated PMMA phantom for the 15O ion beams were 1.8 mm and 0.3 mm for momentum acceptances of 5% and 0.5%, respectively. The shifts between the positions of two peaks for the 11C ion beam were 2.1 mm and 0.1 mm for momentum acceptances of 5% and 0.5%, respectively. We observed larger shifts between the Bragg peak and the PET peak positions for a momentum acceptance of 5% for both beams, which is consistent with the simulation results reported in our previous study. The biological doses were also estimated from the calculated relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values using a modified microdosimetric kinetic model (mMKM) and Monte Carlo simulation. Beams with a momentum acceptance of 5% should be used with caution for therapeutic applications to avoid extra dose to normal tissues beyond the tumour when the dose distal fall-off is located beyond the treatment volume.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akram Mohammadi
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, 4-9-1 Anagawa, Inage-ku, Chiba 263-8555, Japan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Chacon A, James B, Tran L, Guatelli S, Chartier L, Prokopvich D, Franklin DR, Mohammadi A, Nishikido F, Iwao Y, Akamatsu G, Takyu S, Tashima H, Yamaya T, Parodi K, Rosenfeld A, Safavi‐Naeini M. Experimental investigation of the characteristics of radioactive beams for heavy ion therapy. Med Phys 2020; 47:3123-3132. [PMID: 32279312 DOI: 10.1002/mp.14177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/11/2019] [Revised: 02/27/2020] [Accepted: 03/26/2020] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Chacon
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia
| | - Benjamin James
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia
| | - Linh Tran
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia
| | - Susanna Guatelli
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia
| | - Lachlan Chartier
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Lucas Heights NSW 2234 Australia
| | - Dale Prokopvich
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Lucas Heights NSW 2234 Australia
| | | | - Akram Mohammadi
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology 4‐9‐1 Anagawa Inage‐ku Chiba 263‐8555 Japan
| | - Fumihiko Nishikido
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology 4‐9‐1 Anagawa Inage‐ku Chiba 263‐8555 Japan
| | - Yuma Iwao
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology 4‐9‐1 Anagawa Inage‐ku Chiba 263‐8555 Japan
| | - Go Akamatsu
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology 4‐9‐1 Anagawa Inage‐ku Chiba 263‐8555 Japan
| | - Sodai Takyu
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology 4‐9‐1 Anagawa Inage‐ku Chiba 263‐8555 Japan
| | - Hideaki Tashima
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology 4‐9‐1 Anagawa Inage‐ku Chiba 263‐8555 Japan
| | - Taiga Yamaya
- National Institute of Radiological Sciences (NIRS) National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology 4‐9‐1 Anagawa Inage‐ku Chiba 263‐8555 Japan
| | - Katia Parodi
- Department of Medical Physics Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universit at Munchen Garching b Munchen Germany
| | - Anatoly Rosenfeld
- Centre for Medical Radiation Physics University of Wollongong, Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia
| | - Mitra Safavi‐Naeini
- Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Lucas Heights NSW 2234 Australia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tabbakh F, Hosmane NS. Enhancement of Radiation Effectiveness in Proton Therapy: Comparison Between Fusion and Fission Methods and Further Approaches. Sci Rep 2020; 10:5466. [PMID: 32214140 PMCID: PMC7096444 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-62268-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2019] [Accepted: 03/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Proton therapy as a promising candidate in cancer treatment has attracted much attentions and many studies have been performed to investigate the new methods to enhance its radiation effectiveness. In this regard, two research groups have suggested that using boron isotopes will lead to a radiation effectiveness enhancement, using boron-11 agent to initiate the proton fusion reaction (P-BFT) and using boron-10 agent to capture the low energy secondary neutrons (NCEPT). Since, these two innovative methods have not been approved clinically, they have been recalculated in this report, discussed and compared between them and also with the traditional proton therapy to evaluate their impacts before the experimental investigations. The calculations in the present study were performed by Geant4 and MCNPX Monte Carlo Simulation Codes were utilized for obtaining more precision in our evaluations of these methods impacts. Despite small deviations in the results from the two MC tools for the NCEPT method, a good agreement was observed regarding the delivered dose rate to the tumor site at different depths while, for P-BFT related calculations, the GEANT4 was in agreement with the analytical calculations by means of the detailed cross-sections of proton-11B fusion. Accordingly, both the methods generate excess dose rate to the tumor several orders of magnitude lower than the proton dose rate. Also, it was found that, the P-BFT has more significant enhancement of effectiveness, when compared to the NCEPT, a method with impact strongly depended on the tumor's depth. On the other hand, the advantage of neutron risk reduction proposed by NCEPT was found to give no considerable changes in the neutron dose absorption by healthy tissues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Farshid Tabbakh
- Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.
| | - Narayan S Hosmane
- Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, 60115-2862, USA
| |
Collapse
|