The purpose of this study was to analyze factors affecting proton stopping-power-ratio (SPR) estimations and range uncertainties in proton therapy planning using the standard stoichiometric calibration. The SPR uncertainties were grouped into five categories according to their origins and then estimated based on previously published reports or measurements. For the first time, the impact of tissue composition variations on SPR estimation was assessed and the uncertainty estimates of each category were determined for low-density (lung), soft, and high-density (bone) tissues. A composite, 95th percentile water-equivalent-thickness uncertainty was calculated from multiple beam directions in 15 patients with various types of cancer undergoing proton therapy. The SPR uncertainties (1σ) were quite different (ranging from 1.6% to 5.0%) in different tissue groups, although the final combined uncertainty (95th percentile) for different treatment sites was fairly consistent at 3.0–3.4%, primarily because soft tissue is the dominant tissue type in human body. The dominant contributing factor for uncertainties in soft tissues was the degeneracy of Hounsfield Numbers in the presence of tissue composition variations. To reduce the overall uncertainties in SPR estimation, the use of dual-energy computed tomography is suggested. The values recommended in this study based on typical treatment sites and a small group of patients roughly agree with the commonly referenced value (3.5%) used for margin design. By using tissue-specific range uncertainties, one could estimate the beam-specific range margin by accounting for different types and amounts of tissues along a beam, which may allow for customization of range uncertainty for each beam direction.
We discovered an empirical relationship between the logarithm of mean excitation energy (ln Im) and the effective atomic number (EAN) of human tissues, which allows for computing patient-specific proton stopping power ratios (SPRs) using dual-energy CT (DECT) imaging. The accuracy of the DECT method was evaluated for 'standard' human tissues as well as their variance. The DECT method was compared to the existing standard clinical practice-a procedure introduced by Schneider et al at the Paul Scherrer Institute (the stoichiometric calibration method). In this simulation study, SPRs were derived from calculated CT numbers of known material compositions, rather than from measurement. For standard human tissues, both methods achieved good accuracy with the root-mean-square (RMS) error well below 1%. For human tissues with small perturbations from standard human tissue compositions, the DECT method was shown to be less sensitive than the stoichiometric calibration method. The RMS error remained below 1% for most cases using the DECT method, which implies that the DECT method might be more suitable for measuring patient-specific tissue compositions to improve the accuracy of treatment planning for charged particle therapy. In this study, the effects of CT imaging artifacts due to the beam hardening effect, scatter, noise, patient movement, etc were not analyzed. The true potential of the DECT method achieved in theoretical conditions may not be fully achievable in clinical settings. Further research and development may be needed to take advantage of the DECT method to characterize individual human tissues.
HdiT) has been measured for thin BSCO films over a larger combined range of magnetic field and reduced temperature than for any other superconductor. H c i(T) diverged anomalously as the temperature decreased: At the lowest temperature, it was 5 times that expected for a conventional superconductor. Such a strong divergence cannot be explained by any conventional model.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.