Simulation Study of a 3-D Multislit Prompt Gamma Imaging System for Proton Therapy Monitoring

Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Debin; Fan, Pingzhi; Wang, Shi; Wu, Zhaoxia; Ma, Tianyu; Liu, Yaqiang

doi:10.1109/trpms.2021.3107411

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 As such, most PGI systems detect high energy prompt gammas (2−8 MeV) released from excited nuclei which are the product of proton nuclear reactions. 16 Particle and energy filters were used to select the desired particles and energy. The actor records photons interacting with the detector material as long as their deposited energies falls within the acceptance energy range.…”

Section: Monte Carlo Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,13 PGI systems either utilize physical collimation such as gamma cameras or non-physical collimation such as Compton cameras (CCs). 5,15,16 Compton cameras provide the possibility of 3D imaging and are currently investigated for applications to particle therapy dose monitoring. 17,18 The detection efficiency of CCs are ranging from 10 −6 to 10 −3 in proton therapy and nuclear medicine imaging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…32 Several research groups have attempted to improve the poor detection efficiency through the construction of multi-head systems. 16,33 Choi et al designed a hybrid PET-PG system, with parallel hole collimators, capable of 3D imaging from prompt gammas. 33 The collimator weight and the bulky detectors around the patient are a limiting factors in this PGI design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Typical camera dimensions as axial and transaxial direction are 10 × 20 cm 2 by Smeets et al, 16 × 10 cm 2 by Park et al, and 40 × 36 cm 2 by Lin et al 12,27,34 Significantly lower efficiencies are associated with the additional collimation used in 2D imaging system.Higher efficiencies are reported for systems that utilize multiple camera heads. 16,33 For example, the hybrid PG-PET design of Choi et al utilizes 16 camera heads placed at 15 cm distance from the 4.4 MeV point source with a reported efficiency of 1.4 × 10 −3 for a 15 cm source to collimator distance. 33 The collimator weight and the bulky detectors around the patient are limiting factors in these deigns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several research groups have attempted to improve the poor detection efficiency through the construction of multi‐head systems 16,33 . Choi et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Design and performance evaluation of a slit‐slat camera for 2D prompt gamma imaging in proton therapy monitoring: A Monte Carlo simulation study

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose We investigated the design of a prompt gamma camera for real‐time dose delivery verification and the partial mitigation of range uncertainties. Methods A slit slat (SS) camera was optimized using the trade‐off between the signal‐to‐noise ratio and spatial resolution. Then, using the GATE Monte Carlo package, the camera performances were estimated by means of target shifts, beam position quantification, changing the camera distance from the beam, and air cavity inserting. A homogeneous PMMA phantom and the air gaps induced PMMA phantom were used. The air gaps ranged from 5 mm to 30 mm by 5 mm increments were positioned in the middle of the beam range. To reduce the simulation time, phase space scoring was used. The batch method with five realizations was used for stochastic error calculations. Results The system's detection efficiency was 1.1×10−4PGsEmitted0.33emPGs(1.8×10−5$1.1 \times {10}^{-4}\frac{{\rm PGs}}{{\rm Emitted}\ {\rm PGs}}\ (1.8 \times {10}^{-5}$ PGs/proton) for a 10 × 20 cm2 detector (source‐to‐collimator distance = 15.0 cm). Axial and transaxial resolutions were 23 mm and 18 mm, respectively. The SS camera estimated the range as 69.0 ± 3.4 (relative stochastic error 1‐sigma is 5%) and 67.6 ± 1.8 mm (2.6%) for the real range of 67.0 mm for 107 and 108 protons of 100 MeV, respectively. Considering 160 MeV, these values are 155.5 ± 3.1 (2%) and 152.2 ± 2.0 mm (1.3%) for the real range of 152.0 mm for 107 and 108 protons, respectively. Considering phantom shift, for a 100 MeV beam, the precision of the quantification (1‐sigma) in the axial and lateral phantom shift estimation is 2.6 mm and 1 mm, respectively. Accordingly, the axial and lateral quantification precisions were 1.3 mm and 1 mm for a 160 MeV beam, respectively. Furthermore, the quantification of an air gap formulated as gapdet=0.98×gapreal${{\rm gap}}_{det}=0.98 \times {{\rm gap}}_{{\rm real}}$, where gapdet${{\rm gap}}_{det}$ and gapreal are the estimated and real air gap, respectively. The precision of the air gap quantification is 1.6 mm (1 sigma). Moreover, 2D PG images show the trajectory of the proton beam through the phantom. Conclusion The proposed slit‐slat imaging systems can potentially provide a real‐time, in‐vivo, and non‐invasive treatment monitoring method for proton therapy.

show abstract

Section: Monte Carlo Simulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several research groups have attempted to improve the poor detection efficiency through the construction of multi‐head systems 16,33 . Choi et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations