Evaluation of In-Beam PET Treatment Verification in Proton Therapy with Different Reconstruction Methods
IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, ISSN: 2469-7311, Vol: 4, Issue: 2, Page: 202-211
2020
- 9Citations
- 11Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In-beam positron emission tomography (PET) monitoring can provide early treatment assessment in proton therapy. However, open ring configurations and low positron emitter production yields degrade image quality, hampering the assessment accuracy. To achieve the highest precision for range monitoring, it is compulsory to mitigate image noise and compensate for data truncation. The goal of this article is to study the performance of state-of-the-art algorithms for in-beam PET image reconstruction, by evaluating the impact of the system response model and assessing the accuracy of range measurements. The approaches investigated here were maximum-a-posteriori algorithms combined with total-variation and median-root priors. Maximum-likelihood-expectation-maximization was used as reference. To compute the system matrix, different models were compared: a precise Monte Carlo model, and single-ray tracing with and without Gaussian blurring in image space. The proposed methods were tested on simulations of spread-out-bragg-peaks delivered on phantoms. The in-beam PET innovative imaging scanner geometry was used as a case study. After image post-processing, the explored methods delivered similar results. This article demonstrates the feasibility and reliability of using a simple and fast reconstruction method to perform range evaluations, given the correct image post-processing.
Bibliographic Details
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know