1
|
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
|
4
|
Kraan AC. Range Verification Methods in Particle Therapy: Underlying Physics and Monte Carlo Modeling. Front Oncol 2015; 5:150. [PMID: 26217586 PMCID: PMC4493660 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00150] [Citation(s) in RCA: 75] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2015] [Accepted: 06/17/2015] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Hadron therapy allows for highly conformal dose distributions and better sparing of organs-at-risk, thanks to the characteristic dose deposition as function of depth. However, the quality of hadron therapy treatments is closely connected with the ability to predict and achieve a given beam range in the patient. Currently, uncertainties in particle range lead to the employment of safety margins, at the expense of treatment quality. Much research in particle therapy is therefore aimed at developing methods to verify the particle range in patients. Non-invasive in vivo monitoring of the particle range can be performed by detecting secondary radiation, emitted from the patient as a result of nuclear interactions of charged hadrons with tissue, including β (+) emitters, prompt photons, and charged fragments. The correctness of the dose delivery can be verified by comparing measured and pre-calculated distributions of the secondary particles. The reliability of Monte Carlo (MC) predictions is a key issue. Correctly modeling the production of secondaries is a non-trivial task, because it involves nuclear physics interactions at energies, where no rigorous theories exist to describe them. The goal of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of various aspects in modeling the physics processes for range verification with secondary particles produced in proton, carbon, and heavier ion irradiation. We discuss electromagnetic and nuclear interactions of charged hadrons in matter, which is followed by a summary of some widely used MC codes in hadron therapy. Then, we describe selected examples of how these codes have been validated and used in three range verification techniques: PET, prompt gamma, and charged particle detection. We include research studies and clinically applied methods. For each of the techniques, we point out advantages and disadvantages, as well as clinical challenges still to be addressed, focusing on MC simulation aspects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aafke Christine Kraan
- Department of Physics, National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Knopf A, Nill S, Yohannes I, Graeff C, Dowdell S, Kurz C, Sonke JJ, Biegun AK, Lang S, McClelland J, Champion B, Fast M, Wölfelschneider J, Gianoli C, Rucinski A, Baroni G, Richter C, van de Water S, Grassberger C, Weber D, Poulsen P, Shimizu S, Bert C. Challenges of radiotherapy: report on the 4D treatment planning workshop 2013. Phys Med 2014; 30:809-15. [PMID: 25172392 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2014.07.341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2014] [Revised: 07/23/2014] [Accepted: 07/28/2014] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
This report, compiled by experts on the treatment of mobile targets with advanced radiotherapy, summarizes the main conclusions and innovations achieved during the 4D treatment planning workshop 2013. This annual workshop focuses on research aiming to advance 4D radiotherapy treatments, including all critical aspects of time resolved delivery, such as in-room imaging, motion detection, motion managing, beam application, and quality assurance techniques. The report aims to revise achievements in the field and to discuss remaining challenges and potential solutions. As main achievements advances in the development of a standardized 4D phantom and in the area of 4D-treatment plan optimization were identified. Furthermore, it was noticed that MR imaging gains importance and high interest for sequential 4DCT/MR data sets was expressed, which represents a general trend of the field towards data covering a longer time period of motion. A new point of attention was work related to dose reconstructions, which may play a major role in verification of 4D treatment deliveries. The experimental validation of results achieved by 4D treatment planning and the systematic evaluation of different deformable image registration methods especially for inter-modality fusions were identified as major remaining challenges. A challenge that was also suggested as focus for future 4D workshops was the adaptation of image guidance approaches from conventional radiotherapy into particle therapy. Besides summarizing the last workshop, the authors also want to point out new evolving demands and give an outlook on the focus of the next workshop.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Aleksandra K Biegun
- KVI-Center for Advanced Radiation Technology, University of Groningen, Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Chiara Gianoli
- Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Italy; Department of Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Germany
| | - Antoni Rucinski
- Radiation Oncology Department, SLK-Klinik Heilbronn, Germany
| | - Guido Baroni
- Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano and Bioengineering Unit, CNAO Foundation, Pavia, Italy
| | - Christian Richter
- Oncoray - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital C.G. Carus, TU Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, DKTK, Dresden, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kuess P, Helmbrecht S, Fiedler F, Birkfellner W, Enghardt W, Hopfgartner J, Georg D. Automated evaluation of setup errors in carbon ion therapy using PET: feasibility study. Med Phys 2014; 40:121718. [PMID: 24320504 DOI: 10.1118/1.4829595] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the possibility of detecting patient mispositioning in carbon-ion therapy with particle therapy positron emission tomography (PET) in an automated image registration based manner. METHODS Tumors in the head and neck (H&N), pelvic, lung, and brain region were investigated. Biologically optimized carbon ion treatment plans were created with TRiP98. From these treatment plans, the reference β(+)-activity distributions were calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation. Setup errors were simulated by shifting or rotating the computed tomography (CT). The expected β(+) activity was calculated for each plan with shifts. Finally, the reference particle therapy PET images were compared to the "shifted" β(+)-activity distribution simulations using the Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC). To account for different PET monitoring options the inbeam PET was compared to three different inroom scenarios. Additionally, the dosimetric effects of the CT misalignments were investigated. RESULTS The automated PCC detection of patient mispositioning was possible in the investigated indications for cranio-caudal shifts of 4 mm and more, except for prostate tumors. In the rather homogeneous pelvic region, the generated β(+)-activity distribution of the reference and compared PET image were too much alike. Thus, setup errors in this region could not be detected. Regarding lung lesions the detection strongly depended on the exact tumor location: in the center of the lung tumor misalignments could be detected down to 2 mm shifts while resolving shifts of tumors close to the thoracic wall was more challenging. Rotational shifts in the H&N and lung region of +6° and more could be detected using inroom PET and partly using inbeam PET. Comparing inroom PET to inbeam PET no obvious trend was found. However, among the inroom scenarios a longer measurement time was found to be advantageous. CONCLUSIONS This study scopes the use of various particle therapy PET verification techniques in four indications. The automated detection of patients' setup errors was investigated in a broad accumulation of data sets. The evaluation of introduced setup errors is performed automatically, which is of utmost importance to introduce highly required particle therapy monitoring devices into the clinical routine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Kuess
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Medical Radiation Physics, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University Vienna, Vienna A-1090, Austria and Christian Doppler Laboratory for Medical Radiation Research for Radiation Oncology, Vienna A-1090, Austria
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|