Field
The present disclosure generally relates to the field of medical imaging, and more particularly, to systems, devices and methodologies related to calibration of a proton computed tomography scanner.
Description of the Related Art
Energetic ions such as protons can be used to form images of an object such as a portion of a patient. Such ion-based imaging can include, for example, computed tomography (CT).
CT images generated by use of protons can be based on a distribution of relative stopping power (RSP) associated with the object. An accurate measurement of energy loss of protons resulting from passage through the object can yield an improved reconstruction of the RSP distribution of the object.
In some implementations, the present disclosure relates to a method for calibrating a proton computed tomography scanner. The method includes performing, for each of a plurality of energy degradation settings: introducing one or more degrader plates into a beam of protons having energy E, the one or more degrader plates in combination having a known water-equivalent thickness (WET) value; and obtaining signals from an energy detector for each of a plurality of selected protons that have passed through the one or more degrader plates and captured by the energy detector. The method further includes calculating a weighted response of the energy detector based on at least some of the signals and one or more weighting factors associated with the energy detector. The method further includes generating a relationship between the weighted response and water-equivalent path length (WEPL) based on the known WET values associated with the plurality of energy degradation settings.
In some implementations, the method can further include storing information representative of the relationship in a non-transitory computer-readable medium. In some implementations, introducing the one or more degrader plates can include positioning one or more substantially parallel polystyrene plates into the beam of protons such that the plates are approximately perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the beam of protons. The WET values associated with the plurality of degradation settings can be in a range between zero and an upper limit that yields a weighted response about 10% of a maximum weighted response obtained without any degrader plate.
In some implementations, the energy detector can include a segmented calorimeter having a plurality of crystals such that the calorimeter includes a plurality of channels corresponding to the plurality of crystals. In some embodiments, each of the crystals can include a cesium iodide (CsI) crystal. The plurality of selected protons can include protons that pass a proton event cut and having calculated most likely path lengths within Y % of a path length corresponding to the known WET value. The value of Y can be, for example, approximately 0.5. The proton event cut can include one or more of excluding events where the proton was scattered out of the scanner, where proton tracking information is ambiguous, and where the proton did not pass through all tracking planes of the scanner.
In some implementations, the beam of protons can include a cone beam dimensioned to allow hits of the selected protons at each of the crystals of the segmented calorimeter. In some implementations, the one or more weighting factors can include a weighting factor wi for the i-th channel of the calorimeter. The i-th weighting factor wi can be represented as, for example, wi=(scale factor)/<r>i where the scale factor is selected to provide a desired scale of values for the weighted response of the energy detector, and <r>i represents an average signal of the i-th channel when the crystals are subjected to selected undegraded protons. The selected undegraded protons can include protons that do not pass through any degrader and enter at center portions of and at directions generally parallel to their respective crystals. The scale factor can be proportional to the beam energy E. The scale factor can be selected to be C*E, where C is a constant selected so that a mean weighted sum of all of the channels yields a desired value.
In some implementations, the weighted response of the energy detector can include a weighted sum of signals from selected channels. Each of the signals can have a value higher than 3σ above a noise floor value. The selected channels can include a high value channel having the largest signal, and channels corresponding to crystals immediately surrounding the crystal of the high value channel.
In some implementations, the relationship between the weighted response and WEPL can include a fit based on data points corresponding to the plurality of energy degradation settings. The fit can include a fit of a second-degree polynomial.
In some implementations, the present disclosure relates to a proton computed tomography scanner that includes a tracker configured to facilitate tracking of individual protons of a beam before and after passage through a target region. The scanner further includes an energy detector configured to detect energy of the individual protons that have passed through the target region. The scanner further includes a calibration device configured to be positionable at or near the target region and allow introduction of a plurality of energy degradation settings for the beam or protons. The calibration device includes a plurality of degrader plates configured to allow introduction one or more of the degrader plates into the beam, with the one or more degrader plates in combination having a known water-equivalent thickness (WET) value. The scanner further includes a data acquisition system configured to obtain signals from the energy detector for each of a plurality of selected protons that have passed through the one or more degrader plates and captured by the energy detector. The scanner further includes a processor configured to: calculate a weighted response of the energy detector based on at least some of the signals and one or more weighting factors associated with the energy detector; and generate a relationship between the weighted response and water-equivalent path length (WEPL) based on the known WET values associated with the plurality of energy degradation settings.
In some embodiments, the energy detector can include a segmented calorimeter having a plurality of crystals such that the calorimeter includes a plurality of channels corresponding to the plurality of crystals. In some embodiments, each of the crystals can include a cesium iodide (CsI) crystal.
In some embodiments, the tracker can include a front tracker having a plurality of detections planes of silicon strips, and a rear tracker having a plurality of detection planes of silicon strips. In some embodiments, the calibration device can include an actuator mechanically coupled to each of the plurality of degrader plates so as to allow remote controlling of the introduction of the one or more of the degrader plates into the beam. In some embodiments, each the plurality of degrader plates can be a polystyrene plate.
In some implementations, the present disclosure relates to a calibration device for an ion based imaging system. The calibration device includes a frame configured to allow the calibration device to be positioned at a target region of the imaging system and allow a beam of ions pass through the target region. The calibration device further includes a plurality of degrader plates configured to be movable into and out of the beam of ions, with each degrader plate having a known water-equivalent thickness (WET) value such that combinations of the degrader plates allow introduction of a plurality of energy degradation settings for the beam of ions and estimation of a relationship between response associated with measurement of residual energy of individual ions and water-equivalent path length (WEPL).
In some embodiments, the calibration device can further include a plurality of actuators mechanically coupled to the plurality of degrader plates so as to allow remote controlling of the introduction of the energy degradation settings. In some implementations, the ions can include protons. In some implementations, the imaging system can include a computed tomography imaging system.
For purposes of summarizing the disclosure, certain aspects, advantages and novel features of the inventions have been described herein. It is to be understood that not necessarily all such advantages may be achieved in accordance with any particular embodiment of the invention. Thus, the invention may be embodied or carried out in a manner that achieves or optimizes one advantage or group of advantages as taught herein without necessarily achieving other advantages as may be taught or suggested herein.
The headings provided herein, if any, are for convenience only and do not necessarily affect the scope or meaning of the claimed invention.
Provided herein are various examples of systems, devices and methodologies related to calibration of proton-based imaging apparatus such as a proton computed tomography (pCT) scanner. Although described in the context of such a pCT scanner, it will be understood that one or more features described herein can also be utilized in other imaging apparatus such as a proton radiograph apparatus.
Also, various features and examples described herein are in the context of protons. It will be understood that one or more features described herein can also be implemented in systems that use other energetic ions, including but not limited to carbon ions.
Proton computed tomography (pCT) involves reconstruction of tomographic images with protons of sufficient energy to penetrate a patient. PCT can be more accurate than X-ray CT in providing relative stopping power (RSP) distributions in the patient without the need for converting Hounsfield units to RSP, and may, therefore, be used instead of X-ray CT for applications such as proton treatment planning.
In some implementations, pCT scanning and image reconstruction can be based on measurement of energy loss of protons resulting from passage of the protons through an object being scanned. Protons can also be used to perform proton radiography for 2D imaging based on protons traversing an object. Proton radiography can be utilized as, for example, a tool for quality assurance in X-ray-CT-planned proton treatment or to quantify proton range variations during respiration.
By measuring the energy loss or residual range of protons after they interacted with an object such as a portion of a patient, a water-equivalent path length (WEPL) distribution across the object can be inferred. Obtaining such a WEPL distribution typically involves conversion of a detector response to an integral of the object's RSP along the path l of the proton. Such a conversion can be based on a relationship
L=∫lρdl (1)
where L represents WEPL, and ρ is defined as a ratio of the local stopping power of the material of the object, Sm, to the stopping power of water, Sw:
It is noted that, for proton energies in a range between about 30 MeV and 250 MeV, variation of RSP with proton energy is generally negligible. For example, for brain tissue (as defined by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)) the difference of the RSP at 30 MeV and 200 MeV is only about 0.07%. For practical purposes, one can, therefore, consider ρ as being generally independent of proton energy.
Assuming that the residual energy of protons (after passing through the object) is known, an estimate of the WEPL, L, can be obtained by numerically solving an integral of the reciprocal of the stopping power of protons in water
where Ein is the incoming energy of the proton and Eout is the outgoing energy. S(Iw,E) is the stopping power of water for protons of energy E and Iw is the mean excitation energy of water. The stopping power in the energy range above 10 MeV can be described appropriately by the Bethe-Bloch equation.
The use of Equation 3 requires knowledge of the outgoing energy of protons after traversing the object. Described herein are examples of how a calorimeter (such as a thallium-doped cesium iodide (CsI(Tl)) crystal-based calorimeter) can be calibrated so as to allow accurate determination of the outgoing energy of proton. In some implementations, such calibration can be based on known degrader plates having known water-equivalent thickness (WET) values.
The accelerator's output beam 122 can be delivered to a desired location by a beam delivery system 104. Such a delivery system can be configured in a number of known ways so as to yield a delivered beam 124. Such a beam can then be manipulated by a beam control component 106 to yield an input beam 126 for therapy and/or imaging purpose.
The input beam 126 is shown to be delivered to an object 110 being treated or imaged. In some implementations, the object 110 can be mounted and/or held by or on a mount 136. In the context of imaging applications, a beam 130 emerging from the object 110 is shown to be accepted by an energy detector 114 as beam 132.
Vectors associated with protons of the input beam 126 (before entering the object 110) and the emerging beam 130 can be characterized by an upstream detector 108 and a downstream detector 112, respectively. Examples of such detectors are described herein in greater detail.
Signals representative of energies and vectors of the input protons and emerging protons can be obtained from, for example, the upstream detector 108, the downstream detector 112 and the energy detector 114. Reading out and processing (e.g., analog-to-digital conversion) of such signals can be achieved by a data acquisition (DAQ) system 140. Data representative of such processed signals can then be analyzed by an analyzer 150 that includes, for example, a processor 152 and a computer readable medium (CRM) 154. The analyzer 150 can yield data representative of, for example, a pCT image 160, a proton radiograph, etc.
In some implementations, a processor as described herein can be configured to facilitate implementation of various processes described herein. For the purpose of description, embodiments of the present disclosure may also be described with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, may be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
In some embodiments, these computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable medium (e.g., 154 in
As further shown in
The input beam 128 that passes through the one or more degraders is shown to emerge as an emerging beam 130 of protons having energy Eout. Energy values of such protons can be measured by the energy detector 114, and the detector 114 can generate signals in response to the protons. Such response signals can be processed by the analyzer 150 so as to yield an equivalent path length (such as water-equivalent path length (WEPL)). Disclosed herein are various examples of how such the calibration component 200 and the energy detector 112 can be configured and operated so as to yield a WEPL relationship between the WEPL and the response of the energy detector 114.
The front tracker 222 is shown to include first and second detector planes 230, 232. Each of the first and second detector planes 230, 232 is shown to include slight overlap of sensitive planes (e.g., 240a, 240b) so as to provide continuous sensitive areas without a gap. Each of the sensitive planes includes silicon strip detectors arranged as X- and Y-resolving planes, each with a sensitive area of approximately 8.95×17.4 cm2 and a strip pitch of approximately 228 μm.
Similarly, the rear tracker 226 is shown to include first and second detector planes 234, 236. Each of the first and second detector planes 234, 236 is shown to include slight overlap of sensitive planes (e.g., 240a, 240b) so as to provide continuous sensitive areas without a gap. Each of the sensitive planes includes silicon strip detectors arranged as X- and Y-resolving planes, each with a sensitive area of approximately 8.95×17.4 cm2 and a strip pitch of approximately 228 μm.
Accordingly, the front tracker 222 includes eight silicon strip detectors (four per each of the two detector planes 230, 232), and the rear tracker 226 includes eight silicon strip detectors (four per each of the two detector planes 234, 236). It will be understood that a number of other tracking detection devices and methodologies can also be utilized.
The example calorimeter 228 includes 18 thallium-doped cesium iodide (CsI(Tl)) crystals 238 arranged to form a 3×6 rectangular matrix encompassing the sensitive area of the tracker 226. It will be understood that a number of other energy detection devices and methodologies can also be utilized.
In the example shown in
In the example calorimeter 228, each crystal 238 is approximately 12.5 cm long (dimension a5 in
As shown in
In the example calorimeter configuration of
Signals and/or digital data from the calorimeter 228 and the tracker (222, 226) can be read out and/or further processed by a data acquisition (DAQ) system. For the example configurations described herein, an FPGA (field-programmable gate array) based DAQ system can process and record both the tracking and energy information at a rate up to approximately 105 protons per second. With higher proton rates, the pile-up rate can increase, thereby reducing the overall acquisition rate of events having desired proton histories.
Data acquired in the foregoing manner can be analyzed to yield, for example, a CT image. Such an analysis can include tomographic reconstruction algorithms including but not limited to parallelizable algorithms configured for implementation on graphics processing units (GPUs). Such reconstruction algorithms can include, for example, algorithms that utilize energy loss measurements of individual protons and most likely path (MLP) techniques to yield tomographic reconstructions with sufficient spatial resolution, despite the effect of multiple Coulomb scattering. Such reconstructions can also include methodologies and techniques where a matrix representative of MLPs and object voxel index, along with a vector having WEPL of individual protons from the calorimeter response, are utilized so as to generate a solution representative of a distribution of RSP in the object being imaged. Such generation of a solution can include, for example, use of an algebraic reconstruction technique (ART) and superiorization methods. Additional details concerning some or all of the foregoing reconstruction features can be found in, for example, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011-0220794, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODOLOGIES FOR PROTON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
As described herein, obtaining accurate WEPL values from calorimeter responses is generally desirable.
In both example configurations (270, 280), the assembly of degrader plates (272, 282) are positioned along a beam 128 of protons that have passed through the front tracker 222 (which receives a beam 126 of input protons). The beam of protons 128 is can pass through one or more degraders and pass through the rear tracker 226. Such protons can then be captured by the calorimeter 228 so as generate response signals representative of the protons' residual energy remaining after passage through the degrader plate(s).
In
When the calibration device 280 is mounted so as to provide the foregoing functionality, it is preferable to have the degrader plates 282 be positioned in the active area 300 precisely in some selected orientation. For example, a degrader plate 282 can be oriented so that its plane defined is substantially perpendicular to a beam axis at the center of the active area 300. To facilitate such positioning, lateral movements of the degrader plates 282 can be guided at their bottom portions by guide slots 296 (
In the example calibration device 280, the actuators 284 are based on commercially available Firgelli L-16 linear motion actuators set for a linear stroke of about 10 cm. It will be understood that mechanical mounting and electrical operation of such actuators can be implemented in a number of known ways by one of ordinary skill in the art. It will also be understood that other actuation devices and methodologies (e.g., mechanical, electrical, magnetic, hydraulic, pneumatic, or any combination thereof) can also be utilized.
As one can see, different effective thicknesses in a range from zero to 79d0 can be provided by providing various combinations of the example plates 282a-282h. For example, first few thicknesses in increments of d0 can be achieved by d2, d4, d2+d4, d6, d2+d6, d4+d6, d2+d4+d6, d8, etc. In terms of WET values, such plates can provide different effective water-equivalent thicknesses between about 0 cm and 26 cm (for 200 MeV protons), or about 0 cm and 8 cm (for 100 MeV protons), by combining different degrader plates. In some implementations the degrader plates can be dimensioned so as to allow different plate combinations whose WET values range from about zero to an upper limit that yields X % of a maximum detector response value without any degrader. In some implementations, the value of X can be, for example, 20, 10, or 5.
The example degrader plates as described herein are machined from polystyrene material having substantially uniform density. It will be understood that other degrader materials having greater or lesser WET values can also be utilized.
As shown in
To calibrate a calorimeter such as the example calorimeter 228, different energy degradation settings can be provided by different combinations of the degrader plates as described herein. Energy measurements at such degradation settings can be obtained for a given beam energy (e.g., 200 MeV or 100 MeV). Because the effective WET values are known from the degrader plates used, a relationship between WET and calorimeter response can be obtained. For the calibration examples described herein, a given proton's path length was calculated using a most likely path (MLP) technique, and if the calculated path length exceeded the known net physical degrader thickness by more than 0.5%, the proton was not used for calibration. Such an example of selecting protons can allow calibration to be performed using protons that traverse degrader plate(s) having a known thickness essentially perpendicularly. Accordingly, for a proton traversing a degrader plate approximately perpendicularly, the plate's WET can be approximately the same as the proton's WEPL through the plate. Although described in the context of selecting protons that pass through degrader plate(s) perpendicularly, other non-perpendicular protons can also be selected, based on, for example, comparison of the proton's MLP with a projected straight line (e.g., based on the front tracker) through the degrader plate(s).
In the context of segmented calorimeters (such as the example calorimeter 228), responses from different crystals (or channels) can be different even if the input protons are identical. Such differences in responses among the channels can be due to a number of factors, such as variations in material property, variations in light collection efficiency, and/or variations in photo detector performance (quantum efficiency, gain, etc.). Accordingly, it is desirable to normalize such differences in responses associated with the different channels.
In some situations, the energy of proton beam being delivered during a given operating period may vary somewhat from a desired setting. External factors such as variations in temperature can also influence calorimeter responses. Further, some or all of the foregoing example factors that can influence channels differently can also impact calorimeter responses. Accordingly, a calibration process as described herein can be performed to accommodate different operating situations. Two non-limiting examples of such situations are described in reference to
As described herein, a relationship between weighted sum of crystal responses and water-equivalent thickness (WET) (of the material the protons had traversed before being stopped in the calorimeter) can be obtained. As also described herein, the WET of degrader plates (their physical thickness multiplied by the RSP of the degrader material) can be the controlled variable in the calibration process, and the response of the calorimeter (which can be subject to statistical variation) can be the dependent variable. Accordingly, the uncertainty of an individual WEPL measurement can be derived by propagating the uncertainty of the calorimeter response into the relationship that yield the corresponding WEPL value.
In some implementations, a calibration process that generates the foregoing relationship between the calorimeter response and the WEPL can include two stages. The first stage can include normalization of the channels of the calorimeter 228. Such a normalization process can include determination of a relative weighting factor for each channel (crystal) of the calorimeter.
In block 454 of the process 450, proton events can be selected based on proton entrance location and direction at each crystal. For example, protons whose tracks (obtained from the front and rear trackers) that enter a crystal near its center and have entrance angles approximately parallel to the crystal's axis can be selected. In
In block 456 of the process 450, response of each crystal can be obtained based on the selected proton events. For an i-th crystal (i=1, . . . , N), where N is the total number of crystals in the calorimeter, a relative weighting factor for the raw response can be defined as
where E is the beam energy at which the calibration is being performed, and <r>i is the average signal of the i-th crystal. The factor 10E can be arbitrary so that, for example, the mean weighted sum of all crystal responses to a proton of 200 MeV is approximately 2,000. Other factors can also be utilized.
In block 504, desired proton events can be selected. For example, tracking and calorimeter response data can be collected for about 105 proton for each degrader WET value. A series of data cuts can be made to the response data of the calorimeter to individual proton events to, for example, exclude events where the proton was scattered out of the scanner system, where pile-up occurred in the tracker (and therefore yielding ambiguous tracking information), where the proton did not pass through all eight layers of silicon tracking detector, or where the calculated most likely path (MLP) length exceeded the known degrader thickness by greater than approximately 0.5%. The example path length based cut allows selection of protons that passed essentially straight and perpendicularly through the degrader plate(s).
In block 506, signals from crystals associated with the selected proton events can be obtained. In block 508, a normalized calorimeter response can be calculated based on the obtained signals. For the proton events that remain after the foregoing example cuts, a calorimeter response r can be calculated by forming a weighted sum of crystals' signals higher than 3σ above the noise floor using the weighting factors defined by Equation 4 and obtained as described in reference to
For a given proton event, a crystal having the largest response is identified. In an example shown in
In some implementations, steps 502 to 508 of
Normalized calorimeter responses obtained in the foregoing manner can be used to generate a relationship between WEPL and response of a calorimeter.
The example data points of
L(r)=p2r2+p1r+p0 (5)
where p0, p1 and p2 are fit parameters. When fit using a least-squares fitting method, the fit parameters p0, p1 and p2 are as shown in
Once such a fitted calibration is obtained, the calorimeter's response to subsequent proton events can be quickly converted to a corresponding WEPL. Statistical uncertainty of this value can also be derived. For the example calibration relationship described herein, a mean variance of the calorimeter response (σ2r) can propagate to a variance of the WEPL, and the resulting uncertainty of the individual WEPL measurement can be expressed as
σ2L=σ2r(2p2r+p1)2. (6)
The example calibration curve 560 is in the context of the calorimeter response being expressed in some arbitrary unit. For example, the weighting factor for each crystal is multiplied by a factor of 10E so that the mean weighted sum of all crystal responses to a 200 MeV proton is approximately 2,000. It will be understood that other units and/or scales can also be utilized. For example,
To verify the foregoing example calibration method, the WET of a set of tissue-equivalent plates (Gammex Inc., Middleton, Wis., USA) was derived from the pCT scanner calibration curve obtained with 100 MeV protons and compared to results using a water phantom depth-dose range shift measurement. The tissue-equivalent degraders included 1 cm thick plates of muscle, adipose, brain, and compact bone material, and a 2 cm thick plate of lung. Each plate was inserted into the scanner, one at a time, and approximately 30,000 proton histories were recorded with 100 MeV protons. The weighted calorimeter response for each plate was converted to WEPL using the 100-MeV calibration curve. The mean WEPL for each plate was found by fitting a Gaussian distribution to the converted WEPL values. The RSP, ρ, was calculated using the formula
ρ=L/tp, (7)
where tp is the physical thickness of the plate. The water-tank measurements were performed with a beam energy of 186 MeV and a 60 mm modulation wheel to produce a spread out Bragg peak (SOBP). The range shift as a result of inserting the tissue plate into the beam path was then measured by scanning a Markus chamber along the beam axis inside a water phantom. The plates were placed outside the water tank. The RSP, ρ, was determined using the formula
where R50,w is depth to 50% ionization in water, and R50,p is the depth to 50% ionization in water behind the plate.
Table 2 compares the WET values obtained with the pCT measurement as described herein and the foregoing water-tank measurement. Both methods agree to better than about ±0.5. Note that the RSP uncertainty is smaller for the results obtained with the pCT scanner, while the dose to the phantom was significantly lower, by a factor of approximately 105.
A second test of the validity of the calibration procedure as described herein was performed by acquiring a pCT scan of an acrylic cylinder with 0.5 cm thick walls and 15 cm diameter filled with distilled water and degassed in a vacuum chamber. The water phantom was scanned with a cone beam of 200 MeV protons in 90 angular steps over 360 degrees. A total number of about 40 million proton histories were utilized for the image reconstruction of RSP values across the phantom using an iterative DROP (diagonally relaxed orthogonal relaxation) algorithm combined with a superiorization of total variation as described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011-0220794. The phantom was reconstructed in 3D with a 16×16×8 cm3 reconstruction volume. The volume was divided into voxels of 0.625×0.625×2.5 mm3 size.
It is also noted that, as expected from Equation 6, the WEPL uncertainty decreases for larger path lengths (hence, smaller response). The contribution of the spread of the initial proton energy to this uncertainty should be negligible at 200 MeV, since the momentum spread of the Loma Linda University proton synchrotron is known to be about 0.01% (which translates to an energy spread of about 0.040 MeV (1 sigma)). At zero or small WEPL (no or thin degrader), the uncertainty may be due to a combination of intrinsic noise of the calorimeter and energy straggling in the materials between the accelerator and the calorimeter, including secondary emission monitor at beam exit, the vacuum exit window, lead scattering foil, air, and the silicon tracker modules. The combined energy straggling in these materials at 200 MeV energy is estimated to be about 0.52 MeV (0.26%). As the relative uncertainty of calorimeter response at small WEPL is about 2%, the largest contribution to the uncertainty at small WEPL may be the intrinsic resolution of the calorimeter, which can be mostly defined by the process of light collection. Some additional uncertainty can arise from, for example, leakage of energy due to large-angle elastic scattering of primary protons and inelastic nuclear interactions in the calorimeter leading to the production of neutrons and gamma rays, which leave the calorimeter. These events are expected to contribute to the low-energy tail visible in the calorimeter spectrum, but can also broaden the main peak to some degree. For larger WEPL values, the uncertainty of the calorimeter response can increase due to increasing energy straggling in the degrader, but this can be compensated by the increasing sensitivity of the energy deposited in the calorimeter to changes in WEPL, thus leading to an overall decrease in WEPL uncertainty. One should also note that by recording a larger number of proton events, very precise RSP determinations of any material can be performed.
In current practice, water-equivalent density is typically derived by conversion of the Hounsfield values of an X-ray CT scan, which can lead to average systematic range uncertainties of the order of 3%-4% in relatively uniform tissues, and possibly higher uncertainties in the presence of larger heterogeneities. It is believed that proton CT can reduce the uncertainty related to conversion of Hounsfield values by measuring the residual energy (or a quantity that is related to it) and converting it to WEPL of protons traversing a heterogeneous sample using an adequate calibration of the detector response against WET of known materials. The pCT scanner can then be used to reconstruct RSP by acquiring many proton histories from multiple directions. It can also be used to accurately measure the WET of materials of not exactly known composition that may be present in the beam path during treatment.
The calibration methodologies described herein can provide a number of advantageous features over other calibration methods. For example, the pCT scanner measurement as described herein is much faster than the water tank based method. It can only takes a few seconds to collect the proton histories required for an accurate RSP measurement, while the water tank measurements can require about 15 minutes per WET determination for 10-15 individual measurements along the distal fall-off of the original and shifted SOBP.
The present disclosure describes various features, no single one of which is solely responsible for the benefits described herein. It will be understood that various features described herein may be combined, modified, or omitted, as would be apparent to one of ordinary skill. Other combinations and sub-combinations than those specifically described herein will be apparent to one of ordinary skill, and are intended to form a part of this disclosure. Various methods are described herein in connection with various flowchart steps and/or phases. It will be understood that in many cases, certain steps and/or phases may be combined together such that multiple steps and/or phases shown in the flowcharts can be performed as a single step and/or phase. Also, certain steps and/or phases can be broken into additional sub-components to be performed separately. In some instances, the order of the steps and/or phases can be rearranged and certain steps and/or phases may be omitted entirely. Also, the methods described herein are to be understood to be open-ended, such that additional steps and/or phases to those shown and described herein can also be performed.
Some aspects of the systems and methods described herein can advantageously be implemented using, for example, computer software, hardware, firmware, or any combination of computer software, hardware, and firmware. Computer software can comprise computer executable code stored in a computer readable medium (e.g., non-transitory computer readable medium) that, when executed, performs the functions described herein. In some embodiments, computer-executable code is executed by one or more general purpose computer processors. A skilled artisan will appreciate, in light of this disclosure, that any feature or function that can be implemented using software to be executed on a general purpose computer can also be implemented using a different combination of hardware, software, or firmware. For example, such a module can be implemented completely in hardware using a combination of integrated circuits. Alternatively or additionally, such a feature or function can be implemented completely or partially using specialized computers designed to perform the particular functions described herein rather than by general purpose computers.
Multiple distributed computing devices can be substituted for any one computing device described herein. In such distributed embodiments, the functions of the one computing device are distributed (e.g., over a network) such that some functions are performed on each of the distributed computing devices.
Some embodiments may be described with reference to equations, algorithms, and/or flowchart illustrations. These methods may be implemented using computer program instructions executable on one or more computers. These methods may also be implemented as computer program products either separately, or as a component of an apparatus or system. In this regard, each equation, algorithm, block, or step of a flowchart, and combinations thereof, may be implemented by hardware, firmware, and/or software including one or more computer program instructions embodied in computer-readable program code logic. As will be appreciated, any such computer program instructions may be loaded onto one or more computers, including without limitation a general purpose computer or special purpose computer, or other programmable processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the computer program instructions which execute on the computer(s) or other programmable processing device(s) implement the functions specified in the equations, algorithms, and/or flowcharts. It will also be understood that each equation, algorithm, and/or block in flowchart illustrations, and combinations thereof, may be implemented by special purpose hardware-based computer systems which perform the specified functions or steps, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer-readable program code logic means.
Furthermore, computer program instructions, such as embodied in computer-readable program code logic, may also be stored in a computer readable memory (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable medium) that can direct one or more computers or other programmable processing devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory implement the function(s) specified in the block(s) of the flowchart(s). The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto one or more computers or other programmable computing devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the one or more computers or other programmable computing devices to produce a computer-implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable processing apparatus provide steps for implementing the functions specified in the equation(s), algorithm(s), and/or block(s) of the flowchart(s).
Some or all of the methods and tasks described herein may be performed and fully automated by a computer system. The computer system may, in some cases, include multiple distinct computers or computing devices (e.g., physical servers, workstations, storage arrays, etc.) that communicate and interoperate over a network to perform the described functions. Each such computing device typically includes a processor (or multiple processors) that executes program instructions or modules stored in a memory or other non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or device. The various functions disclosed herein may be embodied in such program instructions, although some or all of the disclosed functions may alternatively be implemented in application-specific circuitry (e.g., ASICs or FPGAs) of the computer system. Where the computer system includes multiple computing devices, these devices may, but need not, be co-located. The results of the disclosed methods and tasks may be persistently stored by transforming physical storage devices, such as solid state memory chips and/or magnetic disks, into a different state.
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, throughout the description and the claims, the words “comprise,” “comprising,” and the like are to be construed in an inclusive sense, as opposed to an exclusive or exhaustive sense; that is to say, in the sense of “including, but not limited to.” The word “coupled”, as generally used herein, refers to two or more elements that may be either directly connected, or connected by way of one or more intermediate elements. Additionally, the words “herein,” “above,” “below,” and words of similar import, when used in this application, shall refer to this application as a whole and not to any particular portions of this application. Where the context permits, words in the above Detailed Description using the singular or plural number may also include the plural or singular number respectively. The word “or” in reference to a list of two or more items, that word covers all of the following interpretations of the word: any of the items in the list, all of the items in the list, and any combination of the items in the list. The word “exemplary” is used exclusively herein to mean “serving as an example, instance, or illustration.” Any implementation described herein as “exemplary” is not necessarily to be construed as preferred or advantageous over other implementations.
The disclosure is not intended to be limited to the implementations shown herein. Various modifications to the implementations described in this disclosure may be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the generic principles defined herein may be applied to other implementations without departing from the spirit or scope of this disclosure. The teachings of the invention provided herein can be applied to other methods and systems, and are not limited to the methods and systems described above, and elements and acts of the various embodiments described above can be combined to provide further embodiments. Accordingly, the novel methods and systems described herein may be embodied in a variety of other forms; furthermore, various omissions, substitutions and changes in the form of the methods and systems described herein may be made without departing from the spirit of the disclosure. The accompanying claims and their equivalents are intended to cover such forms or modifications as would fall within the scope and spirit of the disclosure.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/492,894, entitled “SYSTEMS, DEVICES AND METHODS RELATED TO CALIBRATION OF A PROTON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER,” filed Sep. 22, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/413,499, entitled “SYSTEMS, DEVICES AND METHODS RELATED TO CALIBRATION OF A PROTON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER,” filed Mar. 6, 2012, which claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/450,047, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR CALIBRATING A PROTON COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER,” filed Mar. 7, 2011. Each of the above-referenced applications is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and is to be considered part of this specification.
This invention was funded, in part, by government support under NIH Grant No. 1R01EB013118-01 and DOD Contract No. W81XWH0-08-1-0205. The government has certain rights in the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2629831 | Atchley, Jr. | Feb 1953 | A |
3412337 | Lothrop | Nov 1968 | A |
3604931 | Kastner et al. | Sep 1971 | A |
3621240 | Cohen et al. | Nov 1971 | A |
3901588 | Longhenry | Aug 1975 | A |
3942012 | Boux | Mar 1976 | A |
3955089 | McIntyre et al. | May 1976 | A |
3975640 | Boux et al. | Aug 1976 | A |
3986026 | Martin | Oct 1976 | A |
4020356 | Brahme | Apr 1977 | A |
4069457 | Martin et al. | Jan 1978 | A |
4070611 | Ernst | Jan 1978 | A |
4095114 | Taumann | Jun 1978 | A |
4112306 | Nunan | Sep 1978 | A |
4118631 | Froggatt | Oct 1978 | A |
4131799 | Steiber | Dec 1978 | A |
4190772 | Dinwiddie et al. | Feb 1980 | A |
4206355 | Boux | Jun 1980 | A |
4287425 | Elliott, Jr. | Sep 1981 | A |
4365341 | Lam | Dec 1982 | A |
4497061 | Hounsfield | Jan 1985 | A |
4517462 | Boyer et al. | May 1985 | A |
4602622 | Bar et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4691332 | Burstein | Sep 1987 | A |
4711578 | Chaimowicz | Dec 1987 | A |
4726046 | Nunan | Feb 1988 | A |
4789930 | Sones et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
4818943 | Chandra | Apr 1989 | A |
4831254 | Jenkins | May 1989 | A |
4845370 | Thompson et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4868843 | Nunan | Sep 1989 | A |
4870287 | Cole et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4931653 | Hamm et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
5039861 | Swenson | Aug 1991 | A |
5041730 | Attix | Aug 1991 | A |
5107839 | Houdek et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5115391 | Puthenpura et al. | May 1992 | A |
5117829 | Miller et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5206893 | Hara | Apr 1993 | A |
5235628 | Kalender | Aug 1993 | A |
5278886 | Kobiki et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5343048 | Pastyr | Aug 1994 | A |
5402463 | Umetani et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5427097 | Depp | Jun 1995 | A |
5440133 | Moyers et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5446548 | Gerig et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5511549 | Legg et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5521956 | Charpak | May 1996 | A |
5538494 | Matsuda | Jul 1996 | A |
5547454 | Horn et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5553112 | Hardy et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5585642 | Britton et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5596199 | McNulty et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5596619 | Carol | Jan 1997 | A |
5602892 | Llacer | Feb 1997 | A |
5612783 | Hirsh | Mar 1997 | A |
5622170 | Schultz | Apr 1997 | A |
5625663 | Swerdloff et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5668371 | Deasy et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5760395 | Johnstone | Jun 1998 | A |
5769779 | Alderson | Jun 1998 | A |
5777325 | Weinberger et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5818058 | Nakanishi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825845 | Blair et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5847403 | Hughes et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5851182 | Sahadevan | Dec 1998 | A |
5895926 | Britton et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5963658 | Klibanov et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5981946 | Mason | Nov 1999 | A |
6052435 | Hernandez-Guerra et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6104779 | Shepherd et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6148272 | Bergstrom et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6178389 | Sola et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6195409 | Chang et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6200025 | Rich | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6240161 | Siochi | May 2001 | B1 |
6256591 | Yoda et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6307914 | Kuneida et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6316776 | Hiramoto et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6345114 | Mackie et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6385286 | Fitchard et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6420711 | Tümer | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6437513 | Selzer et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6445766 | Whitham | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6462490 | Matsuda et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466813 | Shukla et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473490 | Siochi | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477223 | Francke | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490477 | Zlka et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6509573 | Badura et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6560354 | Maurer, Jr. et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6565577 | Cosman | May 2003 | B2 |
6577707 | Siochi | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6597005 | Badura et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6600164 | Badura et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6614038 | Brand et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6621889 | Mostafavi | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6628745 | Annis et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6639234 | Badura et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6670618 | Hartmann et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6677597 | Haberer et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6683318 | Haberer et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6690965 | Riaziat et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6693283 | Eickhoff et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6694057 | Miller et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6725078 | Bucholz et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6730921 | Kraft | May 2004 | B2 |
6731970 | Schlossbauer et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6736831 | Hartmann et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6745072 | Badura et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6754299 | Patch | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757355 | Siochi | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6780149 | Schulte | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6787771 | Bashkirov et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6792078 | Kato et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6799068 | Hartmann et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6804548 | Takahashi et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6810107 | Steinberg | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6814694 | Pedroni | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6838676 | Jackson | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6859741 | Haberer et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6891177 | Kraft et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6906317 | Bateman et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6936832 | Norimine et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6953943 | Yanagisawa et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6977987 | Yamashita et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6983034 | Wang et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6993112 | Hesse | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7081619 | Bashkirov et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7085347 | Mihara et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7142634 | Engler et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7177390 | Martin et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7193227 | Hiramoto et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7207715 | Yue | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7247869 | Tadokoro et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7268358 | Ma et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7348579 | Pedroni | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7398309 | Baumann et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7482606 | Groezinger et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7587024 | Grözinger et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7589334 | Hiramoto et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7629598 | Harada | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7692168 | Moriyama et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7709818 | Matsuda et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7714309 | Mackie et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7755305 | Umezawa | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7786433 | Gunzert-Marx et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7801270 | Nord et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7807982 | Nishiuchi et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7807987 | Braess | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7812326 | Grozinger et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7816657 | Hansmann et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7820989 | Sommer | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7825388 | Nihongi et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7838855 | Fujii | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7860216 | Jongen et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7868301 | Diehl | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7875846 | Gunzert-Marx et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7875868 | Moriyama | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7889042 | Meinke | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7919765 | Timmer | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7947969 | Pu | May 2011 | B2 |
7961844 | Takeda et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7977648 | Westerly et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7977657 | Flynn et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7987053 | Schaffner | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8045679 | Balakin | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8049176 | Majewski et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8053745 | Moore | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8053746 | Timmer et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8067748 | Balakin | Nov 2011 | B2 |
8080801 | Safai | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8106371 | Fujii et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8109865 | Jackson | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8129699 | Balakin | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8129701 | Al-Sadah et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8154001 | Flynn et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8173981 | Trbojevic | May 2012 | B2 |
8178859 | Balakin | May 2012 | B2 |
8189889 | Pearlstein et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8193508 | Shchory et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8193520 | Pu | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8198608 | Mattern | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8222613 | Tajiri et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8264174 | Liu et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8299447 | Hagino et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8304751 | Honda et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8354656 | Beloussov et al. | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8373145 | Balakin | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8399866 | Balakin | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8405050 | Bert et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8426824 | Jongen | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8461559 | Lomax | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8471228 | Bert et al. | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8487278 | Balakin | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8502177 | Bert et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8552731 | Nichiporov et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8569717 | Balakin | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8598543 | Balakin | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8601116 | Baumann et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8613694 | Walsh | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8632448 | Schulte et al. | Jan 2014 | B1 |
8637837 | Natori et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8737707 | Pearlstein et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8750453 | Cheng et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8841602 | Schulte et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8859980 | Prieels et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
9084887 | Schulte et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9196082 | Pearlstein et al. | Nov 2015 | B2 |
9207193 | Censor | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9220920 | Schulte et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9274067 | Schulte et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
20010016029 | Turner | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20020051513 | Pugachev et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065461 | Cosman | May 2002 | A1 |
20020077545 | Takahashi et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020110268 | Brinker | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020193685 | Mate et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030007601 | Jaffray et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030095625 | Steinberg | May 2003 | A1 |
20030122544 | Parker et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030155530 | Adnani et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040034438 | Uematsu | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040042583 | Wackerle et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040102691 | Mallozzi | May 2004 | A1 |
20040113099 | Eickhoff et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040155206 | Marchand et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040158145 | Ghelmansarai et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050078787 | Dinten et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050116175 | Haberer | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050152502 | Saunders et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20060104410 | Sauer et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060145088 | Ma | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060166353 | Alfano et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060175529 | Harmon et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070031337 | Schulte | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070034812 | Ma et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070086560 | Kia et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070122020 | Claus et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070147672 | Karl et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070181815 | Ebstein | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080031414 | Coppens | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080071131 | Rietzel | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080083871 | Cravens | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080228418 | Green | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090083968 | Meinke | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090083969 | Meinke | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090085709 | Meinke | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090085710 | Meinke | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090168960 | Jongen et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090174517 | Meinke | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090189095 | Flynn et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090196393 | Wang et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090230315 | Hunter et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090251257 | Stelzer et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090251269 | Stelzer et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090251270 | Meinke et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090251271 | Stelzer et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090274269 | Foland | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090314961 | Balakin | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100027745 | Balakin | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100032564 | Morris et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100051833 | Guertin et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100060209 | Balakin | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100141183 | Balakin | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100155621 | Balakin | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100301235 | Bert et al. | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110006224 | Maltz et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110027853 | Bert et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110049377 | Morf et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110118531 | Balakin | May 2011 | A1 |
20110127443 | Comer et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110174984 | Balakin | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110180720 | Balakin | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110182410 | Balakin | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110196223 | Balakin | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110230754 | Overweg | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110233423 | Balakin | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110248188 | Brusasco et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110266455 | Balakin | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110284761 | Balakin | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110285327 | Begg et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110309255 | Bert et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120056109 | Lomax | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120104270 | Marchand | May 2012 | A1 |
20120136194 | Zhang et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120143051 | Balakin | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120160996 | Jongen | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120165651 | Inaniwa et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120205551 | Balakin | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120205557 | Rinecker | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120271164 | Gagnon | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130015352 | Karonis | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130090549 | Meltsner et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130131428 | Jiang et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130251229 | Ramirez Giraldo et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130345489 | Beloussov | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20160016010 | Schulte | Jan 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
102 48 476 | Sep 2003 | DE |
10 2005 034 912 | Feb 2007 | DE |
10 2006 044 139 | Oct 2008 | DE |
10 2005 056 698 | Nov 2008 | DE |
10 2007 032 025 | Dec 2008 | DE |
10 2009 033 284 | Jan 2011 | DE |
586 152 | Mar 1994 | EP |
0 986 070 | Mar 2000 | EP |
1 585 578 | Oct 2005 | EP |
1 112 579 | Jun 2010 | EP |
2 308 561 | Jun 2011 | EP |
2 327 449 | Jun 2011 | EP |
2 305 351 | Nov 2012 | EP |
S61-034207 | Jan 1986 | JP |
S61-054488 | Mar 1986 | JP |
03-094736 | Apr 1991 | JP |
06-119269 | Apr 1994 | JP |
60-263373 | Dec 1995 | JP |
2004-281882 | Oct 2004 | JP |
2008-113792 | May 2008 | JP |
2006-141782 | Jun 2008 | JP |
2010-175309 | Aug 2010 | JP |
WO 87000682 | Jan 1987 | WO |
WO 9625200 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 9625201 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 98018523 | May 1998 | WO |
WO 0025678 | May 2000 | WO |
WO 02045793 | Jun 2002 | WO |
WO 03020196 | Mar 2003 | WO |
WO 04029881 | Apr 2004 | WO |
WO 05057738 | Jun 2005 | WO |
WO 07020212 | Feb 2007 | WO |
WO 07095312 | Aug 2007 | WO |
WO 07126782 | Nov 2007 | WO |
WO 08067842 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO 08140560 | Nov 2008 | WO |
WO 09073272 | Jun 2009 | WO |
WO 09121850 | Oct 2009 | WO |
WO 09124031 | Oct 2009 | WO |
WO 09135202 | Nov 2009 | WO |
WO 09142548 | Nov 2009 | WO |
WO 10000857 | Jan 2010 | WO |
WO 10011676 | Jan 2010 | WO |
WO 10034419 | Apr 2010 | WO |
WO 10076270 | Jul 2010 | WO |
WO 10106193 | Sep 2010 | WO |
WO 10109586 | Sep 2010 | WO |
WO 10149740 | Dec 2010 | WO |
WO 11005862 | Jan 2011 | WO |
WO 11006732 | Jan 2011 | WO |
WO 11009953 | Jan 2011 | WO |
WO 11036254 | Mar 2011 | WO |
WO 11048088 | Apr 2011 | WO |
WO 11060133 | May 2011 | WO |
WO 11060141 | May 2011 | WO |
WO 11064121 | Jun 2011 | WO |
WO 11091104 | Jul 2011 | WO |
WO 11100628 | Aug 2011 | WO |
WO 11154853 | Dec 2011 | WO |
WO 11162851 | Dec 2011 | WO |
WO 12024448 | Feb 2012 | WO |
WO 12161852 | Nov 2012 | WO |
WO 2015195570 | Mar 2016 | WO |
WO 2015053869 | Mar 2017 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Australian Office Action, re AU Application No. 2012259403, dated Sep. 8, 2015. |
European Extended Search Report for EP Application No. 12789981.3, dated Jul. 31, 2014. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability, and Written Opinion, dated Sep. 10, 2013, re PCT/US2012/027911. |
Japanese Office Action, re JP Application No. 2013-557809, dated Apr. 28, 2015. |
Japanese Office Action, re JP Application No. 2013-557809, dated Dec. 8, 2015. |
Menichelli et al.: “Development of a Proton Computed radiography Apparatus,” 2008 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, Oct. 19, 2008, pp. 5600-5608. |
Aharoni et al.: “Block-Iterative Projection Methods for Parallel Computation of Solutions to Convex Feasibility Problems,” Linear Algebra and its Applications 120:165-175 (1989). |
Andersen et al.: Aimultaneous Algebraic Reconstruction Technique (SART): A Superior Implementation of the Art Algorithm, Ultrasonic Imaging 6, 81-94 (1984). |
Archambeau et al., “Conceptual Design of a Proton Therapy Synchrotron for Loma Linda University Medical Center,” Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Jun. 1986, in 106 pages. |
Archambeau et al., “Design of a Proton Therapy Synchrotron,” Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Jun. 1986, pp. LL467-LL574 in 54 pages. |
Bashkirov et al.: “Development of Proton Computed Tomography for Applications in Proton Therapy,” CP1099, Application of Accelerators in Research and Industry: 20th International Conference 2009 American Institute of Physics. |
Bruzzi et al.: “Prototype Tracking Studies for Proton CT,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 54, No. 1, Feb. 2007. |
Butnariu et al.: “Stable Convergence Behavior Under Summable perturbations of a Class of Projection Methods for Convex Feasibility and Optimization Problems,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 1. No. 4, Dec. 2007. |
Censor et al.: “Averaging Strings of Sequential Iterations for Convex Feasibility Problems,” Inherently Parallel Algorithms in Feasibility and Optimization and their Applications 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. |
Censor et al.: “Component averaging: An efficient iterative parallel algorithm for large and sparse unstructured problems,” Parallel Computing 27 (2001) 777-808. |
Censor, et al., “On Diagonally-Relaxed Orthogonal Projection Methods,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 30, pp. 473-504, (2008). |
Chi-square test, 1995, 3 pages. In Dictionary of Economics, Wiley. Retrieved online on Nov. 28, 2012 from <<http://www.credoreference.com/entry/ wileyecon/chi—square—test>>. |
Clark, et al.: “A Halo-ring Technique for Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy”, The British Journal of Radiology, 1996, 66, 522-527. |
Cole et al., “Proceedings of a Medical Workshop on Accelerators for Charged-Particle Beam Therapy” by Fermilab, Jan. 24-25, 1985, LL33170-LL33313 in 144 pages. |
Combettes et al.: “An Adaptive Level Set Method for Nondifferentiable Constrained Image Recovery,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 11, No. 11, Nov. 2002. |
Coutrakon, G. et al., “A Prototype Beam Delivery System for the Proton Medical Accelerator at Loma Linda”, Medical Physics, vol. 18, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 1991. |
Cuperus et al.: “Automatic Generation of Configuration Files for a Distributed Control System,” Proceedings of the 1995 International Conference on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems (ICALEPCS1995), Chicago, IL, Oct. 30-Nov. 3, 1995, McC. Crowley-Milling (ed.), P. Lucas (ed.), P. Schoessow (ed.)., Fermi Lab-Co NF-96-069, 1996. S. 148-153. |
Dicello et al.: Microdosimetric Comparison of Scanned and Conventional Proton Beams Used in Radiation Therapy, Radiation Protection Dosimetry (2011), vol. 143, No. 204, pp. 513-518. |
Feldt et al.: Prototype Tracking Studies for Proton CT,“2005 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record,” N302. |
Gusinskii et al.: “Apparatus for the uniform irradiation of sample surfaces with the beam of ions extracted from an accelerator”, Instruments and Experimental Techniques, vol. 24, No. 1, Jan./Feb. 1981, New York, US, pp. 21-23; G.M. |
Herman: “Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques ,” Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography, Image Reconstruction from Projections, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009. Chapter 11, pp. 193-216. |
Herman: “Backprojection,” Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography, Image Reconstruction from Projections, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009. Chapter 7, pp. 125-133. |
Herman: “Basic Concepts of Reconstruction Algorithms,” Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography, Image Reconstruction from Projections, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009. Chapter 6, pp. 101-124. |
Herman: “Quadratic Optimization Methods,” Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography, Image Reconstruction from Projections, Second Edition, Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009. Chapter 12, pp. 217-233. |
Hurley et al.: “Calibration of a Prototype Proton CT Scanner,” Med. Phys. 38, 3568 (2011). |
Hurley et al.: Water-equivalent path length calibration of a prototype proton CT scanner, Medical Physics 39, 2438 (2012). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority in PCT/US2011/024644 (WO 2011/100628), dated Aug. 9, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion re PCT/US2009/034766, dated Apr. 14, 2009. |
International Search Report, and Written Opinion, dated Nov. 28, 2012, re PCT/US2012/027911. |
Koehler, et al.: “Flattening of Proton Dose Distributions or Large-Field Radiotherapy”, Medical Physics, vol. 4, No. 4, Jul./Aug. 1977, pp. 297-301. |
Kozlov, et al.: “Application of Scattering Foil Systems for Forming Large-Sized Uniform Electron Therapy Fields”, Strahlentherapie 158, 1982, pp. 432-439. |
Kozlov, et al.: “Forming of Electron Beams from a Betatron by Foil Scatterers”, Acta Radiologica Therapy Physics Biology 15, 1976, pp. 493-512. |
Krause, et al.: “Adaption of a Synchrotron Control System for Heavy Ion Tumor Therapy,” Proceedings of the 1995 International Conference on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems (ICALEPCS1995), Chicago, IL, Oct. 30-Nov. 3, 1995, McC. Crowley-Milling (ed.), P. Lucas (ed.), P. Schoessow (ed.)., Fermi Lab-Co NF-96-069, 1996. S. 14-19. |
Krause, et al.: “The GSI Control System,” Proceedings in Accelerators and Large Exerimental Physics Control Systems, International Conference (ICALEPCS1991), Tsukuba, Japan, Nov. 11-15, 1991, C.O. Pak, (ed.), S. Kurokawa, (ed.), T. Katoh, (ed.), KEK, Tsukuba, KEK-Proceedings-92-151, Dec. 1992, a 27-30. |
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, et al., “Dedicated Medical Ion Accelerator Design Study,” Dec. 1977, PCTA008295-PCTA008455. |
Le et al.: “Intelligent ePR system for evidence-based research in radiotherapy: proton therapy for prostate cancer,” Int J CARS (2011) 6:769-784. |
Li et al.: “Reconstruction with most likely trajectory for proton computed tomography,” Medical Imaging 2004: Proceedings of SPIE vol. 5370. |
Li, et al.: “Sparse Object Reconstruction From a Limited Number of Projections Using the Linear Programming,” Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2002 IEEE, Nov. 16, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 989-993. |
Litt et al. Application of Nonlinear system identification to magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Sep. 1995 IEEE-EMBC and CMBRC, Theme 6: Physiological Systems/Modelling and Identification. pp. 1389-1390. |
Mandour, et al.: “Systematic Optimization of the Double-Scatterer System for Electron Beam Field-Flattening”, Strahlentherapie 154, 1978, pp. 328-332. |
Marbach, et al.: “Optimization of Field Flatness and Depth-Dose for Therapy Electron Beams”, Phys. Med. Biol, vol. 26, No. 3, 1981, pp. 435-443. |
Matsu'ura, “Systems for Overall Control and Beam Transport of HIMAC,” Mitsubishi Electric Advance, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Toyko, JP, vol. 72, Sep. 1995, pp. 5-7. |
McAllister et al.: “General Purpose Graphics Processing Unit Speedup of Integral Relative Electron Density Calculation for Proton Computed Tomography,” 2009 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Confdfence Record, HP3-2. |
Montelius, et al.: “Charged Particle Beam Flattening Using an Optimized Dual Scattering Foil Technique”, Manuscript (undated). |
Mueller et al., “Reconstruction for proton computed tomography: A practical approach,” presented at the Oct. 2003 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference, paper M14-342. |
Pemler et al., “A detector system for proton radiography on the gantry of the Paul-Scherrer-Institute,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, vol. 432, No. 2-3, pp. 483-495, Feb. 1999. |
Penfold et al.: Block-Iterative and String-Averaging Projection Algorithms in Proton Computed Tomography Image Reconstruction, Biomedical Mathematics: Promising Directions in Imaging, Therapy Planning, and Inverse Problems. The Huangguoshu International Interdisciplinary Conference on Biomedical Mathematics, The Huanggoushu National Park of China, Guizhou, China—Nov. 3-9, 2008. |
Penfold et al.: “Total variation superiorization schemes in proton computed tomography image reconstruction,” Med. Phys. 37 (11), Nov. 2010. |
Penfold, et al., “A more accurate reconstruction system of matrix for quantitative proton computed tomography,” Med. Phys. 36 (10), Oct. 2009, pp. 4511-4518. |
Penfold, et al., “Characteristics of Proton CT Images Reconstruction with Filtered Backprojection and Iterative Projection Algorithms,” Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record (NSS/MIC), 2009 IEEE, Nov. 1, 2009, pp. 4176-4180. |
Penfold et al.: “Geometrical optimization of a particle tracking system for proton computed tomography,” Radiation Measurements 46 (2011) 2069-2071. |
Penfold, Image Reconstruction and Monte Carlo Simulations in the Development of Proton Computed Tomography for Applications in Proton Radiation Therapy, Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Centre for Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Dec. 2010. Retrieved from the Internet http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/3305; in 202 pages. |
Petterson et al.: “Proton Radiography Studies for Proton CT,” IEEE Nuci Sci Symp Conf 2006. |
Product Overview by BrainLAB Radiotherapy Solutions, 2004, BrainLAB AG, in 6 pages. |
Proton Therapy Facility: Engineering Design Report, by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Feb. 1987, LL45441-LL45570, in 130 pages. |
Proton Therapy System by Brobeck Corporation, Nov. 1985, LL54413-LL54459. |
Renner, et al.: “High Energy Beam Transport System for a Heavy Ion Medical Accelerator,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. NS-32, No. 5, Oct. 1985. |
Sadrozinski et al., Issues in Proton Computed Tomography, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 511, Jun. 2003, pp. 275-281, in 7 pages. |
Sadrozinski et al.: “Development of a head scanner for proton CT,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A 699 (2013) 205-210. |
Sandberg: “Electron Beam Flattening with an Annular Scattering Foil”, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 1973, pp. 1025-1026. |
Schulte et al.: “A maximum likelihood proton path formalism for application in proton computed tomography,” Medical Physics 35, 4849 (2008). |
Schulte et al., “Design of a Proton Computed Tomography System for Applications in Proton Radiation Therapy,” Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, 2003 IEEE, Oct. 25, 2003, vol. 3, pp. 1579-1583. |
Schulte et al., “Conceptual Design of a Proton Computed Tomography System for Applications in Proton Radiation Therapy,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Jun. 2004, pp. 866-872, vol. 51(3), in 7 pages. |
Schulte et al., Nanoparticle-Enhanced Proton Computed Tomography: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study, Biomedical Imaging: Nano to Macro, 2004, IEEE International Symposium, Apr. 15-18, 2004, pp. 1354-1356 in 3 pages. |
Schulte et al.: “Density resolution of proton computed tomography,” Med Phys. 32 (4), Apr. 2005. |
Schulte et al.: “Proton CT for Improved Stopping Power Determination in Proton Therapy, invited,” Trans Am Nucl Soc. 2012; 106: 55-58. |
Schulte et al.: “Proton Computed Tomography Imaging for Proton Radiation Therapy,” Scientific Formal (Paper) Presentations, presented on Dec. 1, 2011. (Abstract Archives of the RSNA, 2011). Abstract Only. |
Steckner et al. Computing the modulation transfer function of a magnetic resonance imager. Medical Physics, Mar. 1994, vol. 21, pp. 483-489. |
Takada, et al.: “Proton computed tomography with a 250 MeV pulsed beam,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, vol. 273, No. 1, pp. 410-422, May 1988. |
Wong et al.: “The Effect of Tissue Inhomogeneities on the Accuracy of Proton Path Reconstruction for Proton Computed Tomography,” CP1099, Application of Accelerators in Research and Industry: 20th International Conference 2009 American Institute of Physics. |
Wong, C. K. et al., “Calibration procedure in dual-energy scanning using the basis function technique”, Medical Physics, vol. 10, No. 5, Sep./Oct. 1993, pp. 628-635. |
Xu, et al.: “Towards a unified framework for rapid 3D computed tomography on Co mmodity GPUs.” Manuscript received Oct. 29, 2003. IEEE, 2004, pp. 2757-2759. |
Yu, et al., “A phantom study of the geometric accuracy of computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging stereotactic localization with the Leksell stereotactic system”, Neurosurgery, 2001, vol. 48, Issue 5, pp. 1092-1098. |
Chao et al.: “Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering”, p. 30-31 (World Scientific), Sep. 1998. |
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, “Design of a Proton Therapy Synchrotron” Jun. 1986, LL467-LL574. |
Izumi et al.: “High Energy X-ray Computor Tomography for Industrial Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 158-161, Apr. 2, 1993. |
Paganetti, et al.: “Proton Beam Radiotherapy—The State of the Art,” AAPM 47th Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, Jul. 25, 2005, in 36 pages. |
Sidky, E.Y., et al., Image Reconstruction in Circular Cone-Beam Computed Tomography by Constrained, Total-variation Minimization, Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 53, (17), 4777-4807, Aug. 13, 2008. |
Slater, James M. et al., “The Proton Treatment Center at Loma Linda University Medical Center: Rationale for and Description of its Development”, I.J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys. vol. 22, pp. 383-389, 1992. |
Yao, et al.: “Frequency-domain optical imaging of absorption and scattering distributions by a Born iterative method,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A., vol. 14, No. 1/Jan. 1997, pp. 325-342. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160178769 A1 | Jun 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61450047 | Mar 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14492894 | Sep 2014 | US |
Child | 15056694 | US | |
Parent | 13413499 | Mar 2012 | US |
Child | 14492894 | US |