001     179541
005     20240229145546.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3389/fonc.2022.830080
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:35402273
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC8990863
|2 pmc
024 7 _ |a altmetric:125354975
|2 altmetric
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2022-00719
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Reidel, Claire-Anne
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Experimental Comparison of Fiducial Markers Used in Proton Therapy: Study of Different Imaging Modalities and Proton Fluence Perturbations Measured With CMOS Pixel Sensors.
260 _ _ |a Lausanne
|c 2022
|b Frontiers Media
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1650877041_22266
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Fiducial markers are used for image guidance to verify the correct positioning of the target for the case of tumors that can suffer interfractional motion during proton therapy. The markers should be visible on daily imaging, but at the same time, they should produce minimal streak artifacts in the CT scans for treatment planning and induce only slight dose perturbations during particle therapy. In this work, these three criteria were experimentally investigated at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center. Several small fiducial markers with different geometries and materials (gold, platinum, and carbon-coated ZrO2) were evaluated. The streak artifacts on treatment planning CT were measured with and without iMAR correction, showing significantly smaller artifacts from markers lighter than 6 mg and a clear improvement with iMAR correction. Daily imaging as X-ray projections and in-room mobile CT were also performed. Markers heavier than 6 mg showed a better contrast in the X-ray projections, whereas on the images from the in-room mobile CT, all markers were clearly visible. In the other part of this work, fluence perturbations of proton beams were measured for the same markers by using a tracker system of several high spatial resolution CMOS pixel sensors. The measurements were performed for single-energy beams, as well as for a spread-out Bragg peak. Three-dimensional fluence distributions were computed after reconstructing all particle trajectories. These measurements clearly showed that the ZrO2 markers and the low-mass gold/platinum markers (0.35mm diameter) induce perturbations being 2-3 times lower than the heavier gold or platinum markers of 0.5mm diameter. Monte Carlo simulations, using the FLUKA code, were used to compute dose distributions and showed good agreement with the experimental data after adjusting the phase space of the simulated proton beam compared to the experimental beam.
536 _ _ |a 315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315
|c POF4-315
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
650 _ 7 |a CMOS pixel sensor
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a Monte Carlo simulation
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a dose perturbation
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a fiducial marker
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a image guidance
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a proton therapy
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a streak artifacts
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Horst, Felix
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Schuy, Christoph
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Jäkel, Oliver
|0 P:(DE-He78)440a3f62ea9ea5c63375308976fc4c44
|b 3
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Ecker, Swantje
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Henkner, Katrin
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Brons, Stephan
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Durante, Marco
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Weber, Uli
|b 8
773 _ _ |a 10.3389/fonc.2022.830080
|g Vol. 12, p. 830080
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2649216-7
|p 830080
|t Frontiers in oncology
|v 12
|y 2022
|x 2234-943X
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:179541
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 3
|6 P:(DE-He78)440a3f62ea9ea5c63375308976fc4c44
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Bildgebung und Radioonkologie
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2022
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2021-01-27
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2021-01-27
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2021-01-27
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2021-01-27
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2021-01-27
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b FRONT ONCOL : 2021
|d 2022-11-08
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2022-11-08
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2022-11-08
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2021-05-11T13:25:45Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2021-05-11T13:25:45Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Blind peer review
|d 2021-05-11T13:25:45Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2022-11-08
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2022-11-08
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1110
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Clinical Medicine
|d 2022-11-08
915 _ _ |a IF >= 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9905
|2 StatID
|b FRONT ONCOL : 2021
|d 2022-11-08
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
|k E040
|l E040 Med. Physik in der Strahlentherapie
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)E040-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21