Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
1.S. Vynckier, S. Derreumaux, F. Richard, A. Bol, C. Michel, and A. Wambersie, “Is it possible to verify directly a proton-treatment plan using positron emission tomography?,” Radiother. Oncol. 26(3), 275277 (1993).
2.C. H. Min, H. R. Lee, C. H. Kim, and S. B. Lee, “Development of array-type prompt gamma measurement system for in vivo range verification in proton therapy,” Med. Phys. 39(3), 21002107 (2012).
3.C.-H. Min, C. H. Kim, M.-Y. Youn, and J.-W. Kim, “Prompt gamma measurements for locating the dose falloff region in the proton therapy,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 89(18), 183517 (2006).
4.J. C. Polf et al., “Measurement and calculation of characteristic prompt gamma ray spectra emitted during proton irradiation,” Phys. Med. Biol. 54, N519N527 (2009).
5.M. Moteabbed, S. España, and H. Paganetti, “Monte Carlo patient study on the comparison of prompt gamma and PET imaging for range verification in proton therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 56(4), 10631082 (2011).
6.L. Sulak et al., “Experimental studies of the acoustic signature of proton beams traversing fluid media,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods 161(2), 203217 (1979).
7.G. De Bonis, “Acoustic signals from proton beam interaction in water—Comparing experimental data and Monte Carlo simulation,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 604(Suppl. 1–2), S199S202 (2009).
8.J. Tada, Y. Hayakawa, K. Hosono, and T. Inada, “Time resolved properties of acoustic pulses generated in water and in soft tissue by pulsed proton beam irradiation—A possibility of doses distribution monitoring in proton radiation therapy,” Med. Phys. 18(6), 11001104 (1991).
9.L. M. Lyamshev, Radiation Acoustics (CRC, Boca Raton, Florida, 2004).
10.R. A. Kruger, P. Liu, Y. R. Fang, and C. R. Appledorn, “Photoacoustic ultrasound (PAUS)–reconstruction tomography,” Med. Phys. 22(10), 16051609 (1995).
11.R. A. Kruger and P. Liu, “Photoacoustic ultrasound: Pulse production and detection of 0.5% Liposyn,” Med. Phys. 21(7), 11791184 (1994).
12.Y. Yuan, D. Xing, and L. Xiang, “High-contrast photoacoustic imaging based on filtered back-projection algorithm with velocity potential integration,” Proc. SPIE 7519, 75190L-175190L-8 (2009).
13.H. H. Barrett and W. Swindell, Radiological Imaging the Theory of Image Formation, Detection, and Processing (Academic, San Diego, 1981).
14.G. Battistoni et al., “The fluka code: Description and benchmarking,” AIP Conf. Proc. 896(1), 3149 (2007).
15.A. Ferrari, J. Ranft, P. R. Sala, and A. Fassò, Fluka (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2005).
16.V. Moskvin et al., “A fluka Monte Carlo computational model of a scanning proton beam therapy nozzle at IU proton therapy center,” Med. Phys. 39, 3818 (2012).
17.K. Kurosu et al., “Optimization of gate and phits Monte Carlo code parameters for uniform scanning proton beam based on simulation with fluka general purpose code,” Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 336, 4554 (2014).
18.A.-C. Knopf and A. Lomax, “In vivo proton range verification: A review,” Phys. Med. Biol. 58(15), R131R160 (2013).
19.J. Smeets et al., “Prompt gamma imaging with a slit camera for real-time range control in proton therapy,” Phys. Med. Biol. 57(11), 33713405 (2012).
20.Y. Hayakawa et al., “Acoustic pulse generated in a patient during treatment by pulsed proton radiation beam,” Radiat. Oncol. Invest. 3(1), 4245 (1995).
21.R. A. Kruger, D. R. Reinecke, and G. A. Kruger, “Thermoacoustic computed tomography – Technical considerations,” Med. Phys. 26(9), 18321837 (1999).
22.W. L. Kiser and R. A. Kruger, “Thermoacoustic computed tomography  – Limits to spatial resolution,” Proc. SPIE 3659, 895905 (1999).
23.M. Xu and L. V. Wang, “Analytic explanation of spatial resolution related to bandwidth and detector aperture size in thermoacoustic or photoacoustic reconstruction,” Phys. Rev. E 67, 056605 (2003).
24.M.-L. Li and C.-C. Cheng, “Reconstruction of photoacoustic tomography with finite-aperture detectors: Deconvolution of the spatial impulse response,” Proc. SPIE 7564(1), 75642S (2010).
25.K. Wang et al., “An imaging model incorporating ultrasonic transducer properties for three-dimenstional optoacoustic tomography,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 30(2), 203214 (2011).
26.A. Rosenthal, V. Ntziachristos, and D. Razansky, “Model-based optoacoustic inversion with arbitrary-shape detectors,” Med. Phys. 38(7), 42854295 (2011).
27.S. Manohar et al., “Concomitant speed-of-sound tomography in photoacoustic imaging,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 91(13), 131911 (2007).
28.C. Huang et al., “Full-wave iterative image reconstruction in photoacoustic tomography with acoustically inhomogenous media,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 32(6), 10971110 (2013).
29.B. E. Treeby, E. Z. Zhang, and B. T. Cox, “Photoacoustic tomography in absorbing acoustic media using time reversal,” Inverse Probl. 26(11), 115003 (2010).
30.M. A. Anastasio et al., “Improving limited-view reconstruction in photoacoustic tomography by incorporating a priori boundary information,” Proc. SPIE 6856(1), 68561B (2008).
31.C. Huang, A. A. Oraevsky, and M. A. Anastasio, “Investigation of limited-view image reconstruction in optoacoustic tomography employing a priori structural information,” Proc. SPIE 7800, 780004 (2010).
32.L. A. Kunyansky, “Thermoacoustic tomography with detectors on an open curve: An efficient reconstruction algorithm,” Inverse Probl. 24, 118 (2008).
33.L. A. Kunyansky, “Explicit inversion formulae for the spherical mean Radon transform,” Inverse Probl. 23, 373383 (2007).
34.M. Xu and L. V. Wang, “Universal back-projection algorithm for photoacoustic computed tomography,” Phys. Rev. E 71, 17 (2005).
35.J. N. Matthews, “Accelerators shrink to meet growing demand for proton therapy,” Phys. Today 62(3), 2224 (2009).
36.S. Peggs, T. Satogata, and J. FLanz, “A survey of Hadron Therapy Accelerator Technologies,” IEEE Conf. Proc (PAC07) C070625: 115–119 (2007).
37.J. Flanz and A. Smith, “Technology for proton therapy,” Cancer J. 15(4), 292297 (2009).
38.G. J. Caporaso et al., “A compact Linac for intensity modulated proton therapy based on a dielectric wall accelerator,” Phys. Med. 24(2), 98101 (2008).
39.U. Linz and J. Alonso, “What will it take for laser driven proton accelerators to be applied to tumor therapy?,” Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.–Accel. Beams 10(9), 094801 (2007).
40.M. Murakami et al., “Current status of the HIBMC, providing particle beam radiation therapy for more than 2,600 patients the prospects of laser-driven proton radiotherapy,” in World Congress on Medical Physics Biomedical Engineering, September 7–12 2009, Munich, Germany, edited by O. Dössel and W. C. Schlegel (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, 2009), pp. 878882.
41.H. Schwoerer et al., “Laser-plasma acceleration of quasi-monoenergetic protons from microstructured targets,” Nature 439(7075), 445448 (2006).

Data & Media loading...


Article metrics loading...



The objective of this study is to establish the feasibility of using radiation-induced acoustics to measure the range and Bragg peak dose from a pulsed proton beam. Simulation studies implementing a prototype scanner design based on computed tomographic methods were performed to investigate the sensitivity to proton range and integral dose.

Derived from thermodynamic wave equation, the pressure signals generated from the dose deposited from a pulsed proton beam with a 1 cm lateral beam width and a range of 16, 20, and 27 cm in water using Monte Carlo methods were simulated. The resulting dosimetric images were reconstructed implementing a 3D filtered backprojection algorithm and the pressure signals acquired from a 71-transducer array with a cylindrical geometry (30 × 40 cm) rotated over 2 about its central axis. Dependencies on the detector bandwidth and proton beam pulse width were performed, after which, different noise levels were added to the detector signals (using 1 s pulse width and a 0.5 MHz cutoff frequency/hydrophone) to investigate the statistical and systematic errors in the proton range (at 20 cm) and Bragg peak dose (of 1 cGy).

The reconstructed radioacoustic computed tomographic image intensity was shown to be linearly correlated to the dose within the Bragg peak. And, based on noise dependent studies, a detector sensitivity of 38 mPa was necessary to determine the proton range to within 1.0 mm (full-width at half-maximum) (systematic error < 150 μm) for a 1 cGy Bragg peak dose, where the integral dose within the Bragg peak was measured to within 2%. For existing hydrophone detector sensitivities, a Bragg peak dose of 1.6 cGy is possible.

This study demonstrates that computed tomographic scanner based on ionizing radiation-induced acoustics can be used to verify dose distribution and proton range with centi-Gray sensitivity. Realizing this technology into the clinic has the potential to significantly impact beam commissioning, treatment verification during particle beam therapy and image guided techniques.


Full text loading...


Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd