Program Information
The Impact of Using Dual-Energy CT for Determining Proton Stopping Powers: Comparison Between Theory and Experiments
E Baer1*, K Jee2 , R Zhang3 , A Lalonde4 , K Yang5 , G Sharp6 , G Royle7 , B Liu8 , H Bouchard9 , H Lu10 , (1) ,,,(2) Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, (3) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, (4) University of Montreal, Montreal,, QC, (5) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, (6) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, (7) University College London, London, London, (8) Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, (9) Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, (10) Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
Presentations
TU-FG-BRB-2 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016) 1:45 PM - 3:45 PM Room: Ballroom B
Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of dual-energy CT (DECT) in determining proton stopping power ratios (SPR) and demonstrate advantages over conventional single-energy CT (SECT).
Methods: SECT and DECT scans of tissue-equivalent plastics as well as animal meat samples are performed with a Siemens SOMATOM Definition Flash. The methods of Schneider et al. (1996) and Bourque et al. (2014) are used to determine proton SPR on SECT and DECT images, respectively. Water-equivalent path length (WEPL) measurements of plastics and tissue samples are performed with a 195 MeV proton beam. WEPL values are determined experimentally using the depth-dose shift and dose extinction methods.
Results: Comparison between CT-based and experimental WEPL is performed for 12 tissue-equivalent plastic as well as 6 meat boxes containing animal liver, kidney, heart, stomach, muscle and bones. For plastic materials, results show a systematic improvement in determining SPR with DECT, with a mean absolute error of 0.4% compared to 1.7% for SECT. For the meat samples, preliminary results show the ability for DECT to determine WEPL with a mean absolute value of 1.1% over all meat boxes.
Conclusion: This work demonstrates the potential in using DECT for determining proton SPR with plastic materials in a clinical context. Further work is required to show the benefits of DECT for tissue samples. While experimental uncertainties could be a limiting factor to show the benefits of DECT over SECT for the meat samples, further work is required to adapt the DECT formalism in the context of clinical use, where noise and artifacts play an important role.
Contact Email: