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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Junyu, Lu, Yan, Sheng, Yinxiangzi, Wang, Weiwei, Hong, Zhengshan, Sun, Yun, Zhou, Rong, Cheng, Jingyi
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