% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Slie:154627,
author = {J. R. R. Sølie and L. Volz$^*$ and H. E. S. E. S.
Pettersen and P. Piersimoni and O. H. Odland and D. Roehrich
and H. Helstrup and T. Peitzmann and K. Ullaland and M.
Varga-Kofarago and S. Mehendale and O. S. Grøttvik and V.
N. Eikeland and I. Meric and J. Seco$^*$},
title = {{I}mage quality of list-mode proton imaging without front
trackers.},
journal = {Physics in medicine and biology},
volume = {65},
number = {13},
issn = {1361-6560},
address = {Bristol},
publisher = {IOP Publ.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2020-00895},
pages = {135012},
year = {2020},
note = {2020 Jul 9;65(13):135012#LA:E041#},
abstract = {List mode proton imaging relies on accurate reconstruction
of the proton most likely path (MLP) through the patient.
This typically requires two sets of position sensitive
detector systems, one upstream (front) and one downstream
(rear) of the patient. However, for a clinical
implementation it can be preferable to omit the front
trackers (single-sided proton imaging). For such a system,
the MLP can be computed from information available through
the beam delivery system and the remaining rear tracker set.
In this work, we use Monte Carlo simulations to compare a
conventional double-sided (using both front and rear
detector systems) with a single-sided system (only rear
detector system) by evaluating the spatial resolution of
proton radiographs (pRad) and proton CT images (pCT)
acquired with these set-ups. Both the pencil beam spot size,
as well as the spacing between spots was also adjusted to
identify the impact of these beam parameters on the image
quality. Relying only on the pencil beam central position
for computing the MLP resulted in severe image artifacts
both in pRad and pCT. Using the recently extended-MLP
formalism that incorporate pencil beam uncertainty removed
these image artifacts. However, using a more focused pencil
beam with this algorithm induced image artifacts when the
spot spacing was the same as the beam spot size. The spatial
resolution tested with a sharp edge gradient technique was
reduced by 40 $\%$ for single-sided $(MTF10\%=3.0$ lp/cm)
compared to double-sided (MTF10 $\%=4.9$ lp/cm) pRad with
ideal tracking detectors. Using realistic trackers the
difference decreased to $30\%,$ with $MTF10\%$ of4.0 lp/cm
for the realistic double-sided and 2.7 lp/cm for the
realistic single-sided setup. When studying an
anthropomorphic paediatric head phantom both single- and
double-sided set-ups performed similarly where the
difference between the two set-ups were less than 0.01 mm in
homogeneous areas of the head. Larger discrepancies between
the two set-ups were visible in high density gradients like
the facial structures. A complete CT reconstruction of a
Catphan® module was performed. Assuming ideal detectors,
the obtained spatial resolution was 5.1 lp/cm for
double-sided and 3.8 lp/cm for the single-sided setup.
Double- and single-sided pRad with realistic tracker
properties returned a spatial resolution of 3.8 lp/cm and
3.2 lp/cm, respectively. Future studies should investigate
the development of dedicated reconstruction algorithms
targeted for single-sided particle imaging.},
cin = {E041},
ddc = {530},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E041-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:32344385},
doi = {10.1088/1361-6560/ab8ddb},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/154627},
}