Cargando…
A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases
PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) range verification is an important method that can help improve the confidence in proton therapy for clinical applications. Two kinds of verification methods are implemented and compared based on clinical cases in this study. METHOD: The study is conducted...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8447881/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34540652 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.617787 |
_version_ | 1784569110917545984 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Junyu Lu, Yan Sheng, Yinxiangzi Wang, Weiwei Hong, Zhengshan Sun, Yun Zhou, Rong Cheng, Jingyi |
author_facet | Zhang, Junyu Lu, Yan Sheng, Yinxiangzi Wang, Weiwei Hong, Zhengshan Sun, Yun Zhou, Rong Cheng, Jingyi |
author_sort | Zhang, Junyu |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) range verification is an important method that can help improve the confidence in proton therapy for clinical applications. Two kinds of verification methods are implemented and compared based on clinical cases in this study. METHOD: The study is conducted on 14 breast cancer patients following proton irradiation treatment. Verification is done by calculating the depth error between the numerically predicted values with the measured PET image along the beam direction. Point-based and segment-based methods are applied and compared. The verification results are presented as depth error means and standard deviations in a region of interest (ROI). RESULTS: The mean value of the depth error of all 14 cases is within the range of [−3, 3] mm for both point-based and segment-based methods, and only one case result calculated by the point-based method is slightly beyond −3 mm. When comparing the mean depth error from the two methods, the paired t-test result shows that the p-value is 0.541, and the standard deviation of the segment-based method is smaller than that of the point-based method. CONCLUSION: In breast cancer case verification application, point-based and segment-based methods show no significant difference in the mean value of results. Both methods can quantify the accuracy of proton radiotherapy to the millimeter level. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8447881 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84478812021-09-18 A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases Zhang, Junyu Lu, Yan Sheng, Yinxiangzi Wang, Weiwei Hong, Zhengshan Sun, Yun Zhou, Rong Cheng, Jingyi Front Oncol Oncology PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography (PET) range verification is an important method that can help improve the confidence in proton therapy for clinical applications. Two kinds of verification methods are implemented and compared based on clinical cases in this study. METHOD: The study is conducted on 14 breast cancer patients following proton irradiation treatment. Verification is done by calculating the depth error between the numerically predicted values with the measured PET image along the beam direction. Point-based and segment-based methods are applied and compared. The verification results are presented as depth error means and standard deviations in a region of interest (ROI). RESULTS: The mean value of the depth error of all 14 cases is within the range of [−3, 3] mm for both point-based and segment-based methods, and only one case result calculated by the point-based method is slightly beyond −3 mm. When comparing the mean depth error from the two methods, the paired t-test result shows that the p-value is 0.541, and the standard deviation of the segment-based method is smaller than that of the point-based method. CONCLUSION: In breast cancer case verification application, point-based and segment-based methods show no significant difference in the mean value of results. Both methods can quantify the accuracy of proton radiotherapy to the millimeter level. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8447881/ /pubmed/34540652 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.617787 Text en Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Lu, Sheng, Wang, Hong, Sun, Zhou and Cheng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Oncology Zhang, Junyu Lu, Yan Sheng, Yinxiangzi Wang, Weiwei Hong, Zhengshan Sun, Yun Zhou, Rong Cheng, Jingyi A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases |
title | A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases |
title_full | A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases |
title_fullStr | A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases |
title_short | A Comparative Study of Two In Vivo PET Verification Methods in Clinical Cases |
title_sort | comparative study of two in vivo pet verification methods in clinical cases |
topic | Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8447881/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34540652 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.617787 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhangjunyu acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT luyan acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT shengyinxiangzi acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT wangweiwei acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT hongzhengshan acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT sunyun acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT zhourong acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT chengjingyi acomparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT zhangjunyu comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT luyan comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT shengyinxiangzi comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT wangweiwei comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT hongzhengshan comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT sunyun comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT zhourong comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases AT chengjingyi comparativestudyoftwoinvivopetverificationmethodsinclinicalcases |