No Access

Future Prospects for Particle Therapy Accelerators

S. Myers

ADAM SA, 1217 Meyrin, Switzerland

E-mail Address: Stephen.Myers@avo-adam.com

Search for more papers by this author

A. Degiovanni

ADAM SA, 1217 Meyrin, Switzerland

E-mail Address: Alberto.Degiovanni@avo-adam.com

Search for more papers by this author

, and

J. B. Farr

ADAM SA, 1217 Meyrin, Switzerland

E-mail Address: Jonathan.Farr@avo-adam.com

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793626819300056Cited by:9 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

Particle therapy is the expanding radiotherapy treatment option of choice for cancer. Its cost, however, is currently hindering its worldwide expansion. Also, the ideal application of particle therapy is restricted by a series of unsolved technical challenges. Both the cost and technical limitations are directly traceable to dependence on legacy accelerators and their associated treatment possibilities. This chapter is written to address these needs. Firstly, a technical overview is presented of photon and particle therapy for cancer tumours. Secondly, the underlying limitations of the existing legacy systems are identified, especially those related to accelerators, and suggestions are made for current and future developments to address these shortcomings. The legacy systems referred to here are of the slow scanning variety using large, circular accelerators.

This paper also attempts to make a scientific comparison of the various types of accelerators currently used or being developed for particle therapy.

The following procedure is pursued to perform a comparison between various types of accelerators:

⁽¹⁾	The parameters which are pertinent to particle therapy accelerators (‘specified parameters’) are identified from clinical efficiency and overall cost considerations.
⁽²⁾	The range and values of ‘specified parameters’ associated with each type of particle therapy accelerator are identified.
⁽³⁾	A comparison is made on the best match between the various types of accelerators for each of the ‘specified parameters,’ i.e., the best in class accelerator, when compared to each criterion.
⁽⁴⁾	Based on this match, an overall conclusion is made on the type of accelerator which best fits the needs for particle therapy.

Keywords:

References

1. R. Mohan and H. Paganetti, Appendix: Nomenclature and terminology in proton therapy, in Principles and Practice of Proton Beam Therapy, eds. I. Das and H. Paganetti (Medical Physics Publishing, Madison, WI, 2015), pp. 819–828. Google Scholar
2. M. Durante, R. Orecchia and J. S. Loeffler, Charged-particle therapy in cancer: Clinical uses and future perspectives, Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 14, 483 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
3. B. Gottschalk et al., Multiple Coulomb scattering of 160Mev protons, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B: Beam Interact. Mater. At. 74, 467 (1993). Crossref, Google Scholar
4. J. F. Ziegler, Stopping of energetic light ions in elemental matter (1999). Google Scholar
5. H. Bragg and R. D. Kleeman, XXXIX. On the $α$ particles of radium, and their loss of range in passing through various atoms and molecules, Phil. Mag. 10, 318 (1905). Google Scholar
6. R. R. Wilson, Radiological use of fast protons, Radiology 47, 487 (1947). Crossref, Google Scholar
7. B. Thomadsen et al., Potential hazard due to induced radioactivity secondary to radiotherapy: The report of task group 136 of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Health Phys. 107, 442 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
8. H. Paganetti, Physics of particles, in PTCOG52, Essen, Germany (2013). Google Scholar
9. F. Tommasino, E. Scifoni and M. Durante, New ions for therapy, Int. J. Part. Therapy 2, 428 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
10. Prescribing, recording, and reporting proton-beam therapy, Report ICRU-78. Google Scholar
11. J. S. Loeffler and M. Durante, Charged particle therapy — Optimization, challenges and future directions, Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10, 411 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
12. T. Takatsuji, I. Yoshikawa and M. S. Sasaki, Generalized concept of the LET-RBE relationship of radiation-induced chromosome aberration and cell death, J. Radiat. Res. 40, 59 (1999). Crossref, Google Scholar
13. H. Suit, T. F. Delaney and A. Trofimov, Physical and biological basis of proton and of carbon ion radiation therapy and clinical outcome data, Rev. Accel. Sci. Technol. 2, 1 (2009). Link, Google Scholar
14. T. Auberger et al., Carbon-ion therapy, Radiother. Oncol. 73, S1 (2004). Google Scholar
15. H. Tsujii and T. Kamada, A review of update clinical results of carbon ion radiotherapy, Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 42, 670 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
16. S. E. Combs et al., Randomised phase I/II study to evaluate carbon ion radiotherapy versus fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy in patients with recurrent or progressive gliomas: The CINDERELLA trial, BMC Cancer 10, 533 (2010). Crossref, Google Scholar
17. A. D. Jensen et al., COSMIC: A regimen of intensity modulated radiation therapy plus dose-escalated, raster-scanned carbon ion boost for malignant salivary gland tumors: Results of the prospective phase 2 trial, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 93, 37 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
18. M. Uhl et al., Randomized phase II trial of hypofractionated proton versus carbon ion radiation therapy in patients with sacrococcygeal chordoma-the ISAC trial protocol, Radiat. Oncol. 9, 100 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
19. J. Zeng et al., Immune modulation and stereotactic radiation: Improving local and abscopal responses, Biomed. Res. Int. 2013, 658126 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
20. T. F. DeLaney, Clinical proton radiation therapy research at the Francis H. Burr Proton Therapy Center, Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 6, 61 (2007). Crossref, Google Scholar
21. J. D. Grant and J. Y. Chang, Proton-based stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 389048 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
22. I. T. Material, Radiation protection in radiotherapy, Part 5, Lecture 2: Equipment - linacs. Google Scholar
23. D. I. Thwaites and J. B. Tuohy, Back to the future: The history and development of the clinical linear accelerator, Phys. Med. Biol. 51, R343 (2006). Crossref, Google Scholar
24. T. R. Mackie, History of tomotherapy, Phys. Med. Biol. 51, R427 (2006). Crossref, Google Scholar
25. C. DesRosiers et al., 150–250MeV electron beams in radiation therapy, Phys. Med. Biol. 45, 1781 (2000). Crossref, Google Scholar
26. W. Wuensch, Ultimate field gradient in metallic structures, in Int. Particle Accelerator Conf., Copenhagen, Denmark (JACOW, Geneva, Switzerland, 2017). Google Scholar
27. R. Atun et al., Expanding global access to radiotherapy, Lancet Oncol. 16, 1153 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
28. Y. Iwata et al., Multiple-energy operation with extended flattops at HIMAC, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A: Accel. Spectrom. Detect. Assoc. Equip. 624, 33 (2010). Crossref, Google Scholar
29. A. M. Koehler, R. J. Schneider and J. M. Sisterson, Flattening of proton dose distributions for large fields, Med. Phys. 4, 297 (1977). Crossref, Google Scholar
30. A. M. Koehler, R. J. Schneider and J. M. Sisterson, Range modulators for protons and heavy ions, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 131, 437 (1975). Crossref, Google Scholar
31. T. Kanai et al., Spot scanning system for proton radiotherapy, Med. Phys. 7, 365 (1980). Crossref, Google Scholar
32. T. Toshito et al., A proton therapy system in Nagoya Proton Therapy Center, Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 39, 645 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
33. L. Widesott, A. J. Lomax and M. Schwarz, Is there a single spot size and grid for intensity modulated proton therapy? Simulation of head and neck, prostate and mesothelioma cases, Med. Phys. 39, 1298 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
34. D. Kramer, Carbon-ion cancer therapy shows promise (2015). Google Scholar
35. Y. Iwata et al., Recent progress of a superconducting rotating-gantry for carbon-ion radiotherapy, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 406, 338 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
36. M. Muramatsu and A. Kitagawa, A review of ion sources for medical accelerators (invited), Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 02B909 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
37. G. Zschornack, F. Grossmann, V. P. Ovsyannikov and E. Grriesmayer, Dresden EBIS-SC — a new generation of powerful ion sources for the medical particle therapy, in Cyclotron (Naxos, Italy, 2007). Google Scholar
38. A. Shornikov and F. Wenander, Advanced Electron Beam Ion Sources (EBIS) for 2-nd generation carbon radiotherapy facilities, J. Instrum. (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
39. J. Y. Chang et al., Significant reduction of normal tissue dose by proton radiotherapy compared with three-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy in Stage I or Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 65, 1087 (2006). Crossref, Google Scholar
40. J. Farr et al., Potential organ dose reduction from intensity modulated proton therapy for pediatric Hodgkin disease patients receiving consolidative involved-node intensity modulated photon therapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 90, S670 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
41. S. L. Wolden et al., Management of breast cancer after Hodgkin’s disease, J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 765 (2000). Crossref, Google Scholar
42. T. Haberer et al., Magnetic scanning system for heavy ion therapy, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A: Accel. Spectrom. Detect. Assoc. Equip. 330, 296 (1993). Crossref, Google Scholar
43. D. C. Weber et al., Profile of European proton and carbon ion therapy centers assessed by the EORTC facility questionnaire, Radiother. Oncol. 124, 185 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
44. R. Orecchia et al., Current status of particle therapy at CNAO, Radiother. Oncol. 118 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
45. K. Ando and Y. Kase, Biological characteristics of carbon-ion therapy, Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 85, 715 (2009). Crossref, Google Scholar
46. T. Ogata et al., Particle irradiation suppresses metastatic potential of cancer cells, Cancer Res. 65, 113 (2005). Crossref, Google Scholar
47. X. Cui et al., Effects of carbon ion beam on putative colon cancer stem cells and its comparison with X-rays, Cancer Res. 71, 3676 (2011). Crossref, Google Scholar
48. T. Ohno, Particle radiotherapy with carbon ion beams, EPMA J. 4, 9 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
49. J. R. Castro, Results of heavy ion radiotherapy, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 34, 45 (1995). Crossref, Google Scholar
50. E. A. Blakely and P. Y. Chang, Biology of charged particles, Cancer J. 15, 271 (2009). Crossref, Google Scholar
51. C. R. Peeler et al., Clinical evidence of variable proton biological effectiveness in pediatric patients treated for ependymoma, Radiother. Oncol. 121, 395 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
52. J. B. Farr et al., Dose and dose-weighted linear energy transfer brainstem volumetric thresholds associated with MR signal changes in pediatric patients with ependymoma treated with proton therapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 96, S229. Crossref, Google Scholar
53. C. Geng et al., Assessing the radiation-induced second cancer risk in proton therapy for pediatric brain tumors: The impact of employing a patient-specific aperture in pencil beam scanning, Phys. Med. Biol. 61, 12 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
54. R. Grun et al., Assessment of potential advantages of relevant ions for particle therapy: A model based study, Med. Phys. 42, 1037 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
55. H. Paganetti, Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Med. Biol. 57, R99 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
56. Prescribing, recording, and reporting proton-beam therapy, J. ICRU 7 (2007). Google Scholar
57. A. C. Knopf et al., Adequate margin definition for scanned particle therapy in the incidence of intrafractional motion, Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 6079 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
58. S. O. Grozinger et al., 3D online compensation of target motion with scanned particle beam, Radiother. Oncol. 73, S77 (2004). Crossref, Google Scholar
59. S. O. Grözinger et al., Motion compensation with a scanned ion beam: A technical feasibility study, Radiat. Oncol. 34 (2008). Google Scholar
60. A. J. Lomax et al., Treatment planning and verification of proton therapy using spot scanning: Initial experiences, Med. Phys. 31, 3150 (2004). Crossref, Google Scholar
61. C. Baumgarten, Cyclotrons with fast variable and/or multiple energy extraction, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.: Accel. Beams 16, 100101 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
62. A. L. Radvinsky, J. V. Minervini, P. C. Michael, L. Bromberg and C. E. Miller, Variable Energy Acceleration in a Single Iron-Free Synchrocyclotron (Plasma Science and Fusion Center MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013). Google Scholar
63. K. Mizushima et al., Experimental studies of systematic multiple-energy operation at HIMAC synchrotron, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sci. B: Beam Interact. Mater. At. 331, 243 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
64. M. Galonska et al., Multi-energy trial operation of the HIT medical synchrotron: Accelerator model and data supply, in Int. Particle Accelerator Conf. (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017). Google Scholar
65. D. Trbojevic et al., Lattice design of a rapid cycling medical synchrotron for carbon/proton therapy, in Proc. IPAC11 (2011), pp. 2541–2543. Google Scholar
66. A. Degiovanni et al., Design of a fast-cycling high-gradient rotating linac for protontherapy, in Proc. IPAC’13 (2013), pp. 3642–3644. Google Scholar
67. S. Benedetti, A. Grudiev and A. Latina, High gradient linac for proton therapy, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20, 040101 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
68. A. Gerbershagen, D. Meer, J. M. Schippers and M. Seidel, A novel beam optics concept in a particle therapy gantry utilizing the advantages of superconducting magnets, Z. Med. Phys. 26, 224 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
69. D. Trobojevic et al., Permanent Halbach magnet proton and superconducting carbon cancer therapy gantries, in Proc. IPAC17 (2017), pp. 4679–4682. Google Scholar
70. J. Flanz, Large medical gantries, in Proc. Particle Accelerator Conf. (1995), pp. 2004–2008. Crossref, Google Scholar
71. M. Pullia et al., Conceptual design for a carbon ion gantry, ULICE Project (2012). Google Scholar
72. G. Poludniowski, N. M. Allinson and P. M. Evans, Proton radiography and tomography with application to proton therapy, Br. J. Radiol. 88, 20150134 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
73. A. Degiovanni et al., Linac booster for high energy proton therapy and imaging, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 21, 069701 (2018). Crossref, Google Scholar
74. H. Owen, A. Lomax and S. Jolly, Current and future accelerator technologies for charged particle therapy, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A: Accel. Spectrom. Detect. Assoc. Equip. 809, 96 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
75. U. Amaldi, S. Braccini and P. Puggioni, High frequency linacs for hadrontherapy, Rev. Accel. Sci. Technol. 2, 111 (2009). Link, Google Scholar
76. U. Amaldi et al., LIBO a linac-booster for protontherapy: Construction and test of a prototype, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 521, 512 (2004). Crossref, Google Scholar
77. C. De Martinis et al., Acceleration tests of a 3GHz proton linear accelerator (LIBO) for hadrontherapy, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 681, 10 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
78. C. Ronsivalle et al., The TOP-IMPLART linac: Machine status and experimental activity, in Int. Particle Accelerator Conf. (Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017). Google Scholar
79. V. Vaccaro et al., RF high power tests on the first module of ACLIP linac, in Particle Accelerator Conf. (Vancouver, Canada, 2009). Google Scholar
80. S. Pitman et al., PROBE proton boosting extension for imaging and therapy, in Proc. IPAC17 (2017), pp. 4776–4779. Google Scholar
81. M. Vretenar et al., A compact high-frequency RFQ for medical applications, in Proc. LINAC’14 (2014). Google Scholar
82. S. Kutsaev et al., High-gradient low-beta accelerating structures using the first negative spatial harmonic of the fundamental mode, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.: Accel. Beams 20, 120401 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
83. M. K. Craddock and K. R. Symon, Fixed field alternating gradient accelerators, Rev. Acc. Sci. Tech. 1 65 (2008). Link, Google Scholar
84. S. Antoine et al., Principle design of a protontherapy, rapid-cycling, variable energy spiral FFAG, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 602, 293 (2009). Crossref, Google Scholar
85. S. Machida et al., Acceleration in the linear non-scaling fixed-field alternating-gradient accelerator EMMA, Nat. Phys. 8, 243 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
86. E. Keil, A. Sessler and D. Trobojevic, Hadron cancer therapy complex using nonscaling fixed field alternating gradient accelerator and gantry design, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top.: Accel. Beams 10, 054701 (2007). Crossref, Google Scholar
87. D. Trbojevic, FFAGs as accelerators and beam delivery devices for ion cancer therapy, Rev. Accel. Sci. Tech. 2, 229 (2009). Link, Google Scholar
88. G. J. Caporaso, Y.-J. Chen and S. E. Sampayan, The dielectric wall accelerator, Rev. Accel. Sci. Tech. 2, 253 (2009). Link, Google Scholar
89. A. Zografos et al., Development of the dielectric wall accelerator, in Proc. IPAC13 (2013). Google Scholar
90. S. C. Wilks et al., Energetic proton generation in ultra-intense laser–solid interactions, Phys. Plasmas 8, 542 (2001). Crossref, Google Scholar
91. A. Macchi and C. Benedetti, Ion acceleration by radiation pressure in thin and thick targets, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 620, 41 (2010). Crossref, Google Scholar
92. J. A. Ute Linz, Laser-driven ion accelerators for tumor therapy revisited, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 19, 124802 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
93. J. B. Farr, J. M. Gray, R. C. Lukose, C. H. Hua, H. M. Conklin and T. E. Merchant, A new microbeam scanned proton therapy option and example CNS germ cell tumor treatment planning exercise with improved cognitive sparing, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 93, S147. Crossref, Google Scholar
94. M. Klodowska, P. Olko and M. P. Waligorski, Proton microbeam radiotherapy with scanned pencil-beams–Monte Carlo simulations, Phys. Med. 31, 621 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
95. F. A. Dilmanian, J. G. Eley and S. Krishnan, Minibeam therapy with protons and light ions: Physical feasibility and potential to reduce radiation side effects and to facilitate hypofractionation, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 92, 469 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
96. F. A. Dilmanian et al., Charged particle therapy with mini-segmented beams, Front Oncol. 5, 269 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
97. S. Girst et al., Proton minibeam radiation therapy reduces side effects in an in vivo mouse ear model, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 95, 234 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
98. O. Zlobinskaya et al., Reduced side effects by proton microchannel radiotherapy: Study in a human skin model, Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 52, 123 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
99. C. Zeng et al., Proton pencil beam scanning for mediastinal lymphoma: The impact of interplay between target motion and beam scanning, Phys. Med. Biol. 60, 3013 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
100. S. M. Zenklusen, E. Pedroni and D. Meer, A study on repainting strategies for treating moderately moving targets with proton pencil beam scanning at the new Gantry 2 at PSI, Phys. Med. Biol. 55, 5103 (2010). Crossref, Google Scholar
101. K. Bernatowicz, A. J. Lomax and A. Knopf, Comparative study of layered and volumetric rescanning for different scanning speeds of proton beam in liver patients, Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 7905 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
102. J. B. Farr et al., Fundamental radiological and geometric performance of two types of proton beam modulated discrete scanning systems, Med. Phys. 40, 072101 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
103. C. Bert and E. Rietzel, 4D treatment planning for scanned ion beams, Radiat. Oncol. 2 (2007). Crossref, Google Scholar
104. A. M. Cormack and A. M. Koehler, Quantitative proton tomography: Preliminary experiments, Phys. Med. Biol. 21, 560 (1976). Crossref, Google Scholar
105. R. W. Schulte et al., Overview of the LLUMC/UCSC/CSUSB phase 2 proton CT project, Trans. Amer. Nucl. Soc. 106, 59 (2012). Google Scholar
106. D. C. Hansen et al., A simulation study on proton computed tomography (CT) stopping power accuracy using dual energy CT scans as benchmark, Acta Oncol. 54, 1638 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
107. J. Perl et al., TOPAS: An innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications, Med. Phys. 39, 6818 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
108. L. Lin et al., A benchmarking method to evaluate the accuracy of a commercial proton Monte Carlo pencil beam scanning treatment planning system, J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 18, 44 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
109. W. Yao, T. E. Merchant and J. B. Farr, A simplified analytical random walk model for proton dose calculation, Phys. Med. Biol. 61, 7412 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
110. D. A. Low et al., A technique for the quantitative evaluation of dose distributions, Med. Phys. 25, 656 (1998). Crossref, Google Scholar
111. N. Qin et al., Recent developments and comprehensive evaluations of a GPU-based Monte Carlo package for proton therapy, Phys. Med. Biol. 61, 7347 (2016). Crossref, Google Scholar
112. H. Wan Chan Tseung, J. Ma and C. Beltran, A fast GPU-based Monte Carlo simulation of proton transport with detailed modeling of nonelastic interactions, Med. Phys. 42, 2967 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
113. K. Parodi et al., Patient study of in vivo verification of beam delivery and range, using positron emission tomography and computed tomography imaging after proton therapy, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 68, 920 (2007). Crossref, Google Scholar
114. K. Parodi et al., PET imaging for treatment verification of ion therapy: Implementation and experience at GSI Darmstadt and MGH Boston, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 591, 282 (2008). Crossref, Google Scholar
115. W. C. Hsi et al., In vivo verification of proton beam path by using post-treatment PET/CT imaging, Med. Phys. 36, 4136 (2009). Crossref, Google Scholar
116. S. Vecchio et al., A PET prototype for “in-beam” monitoring of proton therapy, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56, 51 (2009). Crossref, Google Scholar
117. X. P. Zhu et al., Monitoring proton radiation therapy with in-room PET imaging, Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 4041 (2011). Crossref, Google Scholar
118. S. E. Combs et al., Monitoring of patients treated with particle therapy using positron-emission-tomography (PET): The MIRANDA study, BMC Cancer 12 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
119. O. Lopatiuk-Tirpak et al., Spatial correlation of proton irradiation-induced activity and dose in polymer gel phantoms for PET/CT delivery verification studies, Med. Phys. 38, 6483 (2011). Crossref, Google Scholar
120. A. Carnicer et al., Study of the secondary neutral radiation in proton therapy: Toward an indirect in vivo dosimetry, Med. Phys. 39, 7303 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
121. S. Kurosawa et al., Prompt gamma detection for range verification in proton therapy, Curr. Appl. Phys. 12, 364 (2012). Crossref, Google Scholar
122. A. C. Kraan et al., Proton range monitoring with in-beam PET: Monte Carlo activity predictions and comparison with cyclotron data, Phys. Med. 30, 559 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
123. T. Nishio et al., Dose-volume delivery guided proton therapy using beam on-line PET system, Med. Phys. 33, 4190 (2006). Crossref, Google Scholar
124. J. B. Farr et al., In vivo proton beam centroid and range uncertainties determined empirically from positron emission tomography due to single uniform field patient treatment activation, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 87, S185 (2013). Crossref, Google Scholar
125. J. C. Polf et al., Detecting prompt gamma emission during proton therapy: The effects of detector size and distance from the patient, Phys. Med. Biol. 59, 2325 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
126. M. Moteabbed, S. Espana 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, 1063 (2011). Crossref, Google Scholar
127. S. Lehrack et al., Submillimeter ionoacoustic range determination for protons in water at a clinical synchrocyclotron, Phys. Med. Biol. 62, L20 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar