GLAST Proposal Review - Santa Cruz Institute for Particle

Download Report

Transcript GLAST Proposal Review - Santa Cruz Institute for Particle

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Towards Proton Computed Tomography

L. R. Johnson, B. Keeney, G. Ross, H. F.-W. Sadrozinski, A. Seiden, D.C. Williams, L. Zhang

Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, UC Santa Cruz, CA 95064

V. Bashkirov, R. W. M. Schulte, K. Shahnazi

Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA 92354

• Proton Energy Loss in Matter • Proton Tomography / Proton Transmission Radiography • Proton Transmission Radiography Data • Proton Transmission Radiography MC Study

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Computed Tomography (CT)

• • • • •

CT: Based on X-ray absorption Faithful reconstruction of patient’s anatomy Stacked 2D maps of linear X-ray attenuation Coupled linear equations Invert matrices and reconstruct z dependent features

• •

Proton CT: replaces X-ray absorption with proton energy loss reconstruct mass density ( distribution

r)

distribution instead of electron X-ray tube Detector array

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Radiography: X-rays vs. Protons

Attenuation of Photons, Z N(x) = N o e -

x Energy Loss of Protons,

r D

E

 

dE dx dx

  r

dE

D

l dx

10 4 100  [1/cm] 1

X-Ray Absorption Coefficient

100 Bone Muscle H2O Fat dE/dl [MeV/cm] 10

Stopping Power for Protons Bethe-Bloch

dE dl

 r

dE dx

Low Contrast:

Dr

= 0.1 for tissue, 0.5 for bone

Bone Muscle H2O Fat 0.01

1 10 100 X-Ray Energy [keV] 1000 1 10

NIST Data

100 Proton Energy E [MeV] 1000

Measure statistical process of X-ray removal Measure energy loss on individual protons

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Negative Slope in the Bethe-Bloch Formula

300

Relatively low entrance dose

(plateau) •

Maximum dose at depth

(Bragg peak) •

Rapid distal dose fall-off

RBE close to unity 200 Proton Energy [MeV] 100 0 0 Proton Energy Loss in H 2 O 10 Energy Deposit in 1mm [MeV/mm] 5 E = 130 MeV E = 250 MeV 10 20 30 Water Depth [cm] 40 Imaging Treatment 50 0

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Protons vs. X-Rays in Therapy

Protons:

Energy modulation spreads the Bragg peak across the malignancy X-rays:

High entrance dose

Reduced dose at depth

Slow distal dose fall-off leads to increased dose in non-target tissue

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Milestones of Proton Computed Tomography

• •

R. R. Wilson (1946) Points out the Bragg peak, defined range of protons A. M. Cormack (1963) Tomography

• • • •

M. Goitein (1972) 2-D to 3-D, Simulations A. M. Cormack & Koehler (1976) Tomography,

Dr 

0.5 %

K. M.Hanson et al. (1982) Human tissue, Dose advantage U. Schneider et al. (1996) Calibration of CT values, Stoichiometric method T. J. Satogata et al. (Poster M10-204) Reduced Dose of Proton CT compared to X-Ray CT

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

What is new in pCT ?

Increased # of Facilities with gantries etc.

See the following talk by Stephen G. Peggs)

2 Ph.D. Theses at PSI and Harvard Cyclotron (U. Schneider & P. Zygmanski)

Existence of high bandwidth detector systems for protons

– – – –

semiconductors high rate data acquisition ( > MHz) large-scale (6”wafers) fine-grained (100’s um pitch)

Concerted simulation effort

– – – –

Exploitation of angular and energy correlations Support of data analysis Optimization of pCT set-up (detector, energy, ..) Dose calculation

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Potential of Proton CT: Treatment Planning

X-ray CT use in proton cancer therapy can lead to large uncertainties in range determination Range Uncertainties (measured with PTR)

> 5 mm > 10 mm > 15 mm Schneider U. & Pedroni E. (1995), “Proton radiography as a tool for quality control in proton therapy,” Med Phys. 22, 353.

Alderson Head Phantom

Proton CT can measure the density distribution needed for range calculation.

There is an expectation (hope?) that with pCT the required dose can be reduced.

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Low Contrast in Proton CT

Sensitivity Study: Inclusion of 1cm thickness and density

r

at midpoint of 20cm H 2 O 0.8

0.6

Energy Loss [MeV/mm] 0.4

0.2

1

r r*

l [g/cm 2 ] 1.0

1.1

1.5

2.0

Energy [MeV] 164.1

163.6

161.5

158.9

Range [cm] 38.2

38.1

37.7

37.2

TOF [ps] 1309 1311 1317 1325 200 Proton Energy [MeV] 150 0 Energy Loss in Water

dE (250) dE (250)+1.1

dE (250)+1.5

dE (250)+2

Proton Energy

r 1.0

1.1

1.5

2.0

5 10 15 Depth in H 2 O [cm] 20 25

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Requirements for pCT Measurements

Tracking of individual Protons requires Measurement of:

• • • •

Proton location to few hundred um Proton angle to much better than a degree Multiple Coulomb Scattering

MCS

1 o Average Proton Energy to better than % Improve energy determination with statistics

Issue: Dose D = Absorbed Energy / Mass N/A = Fluence

( for Voxel with diameter d = 1mm 10 5 protons of 200 MeV = 7 [mGy]) •

In order to minimize the dose, the final system needs the best energy resolution! Energy straggling is 1- 2 %.

CMS

 13 .

6

MeV

 

p z

 

E

  

E N l

/

X

0 D  N A 

dE dx

E

 1 %

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Dose vs. Voxel Size for pCT Measurements

Trade-off between Voxel size and Contrast (

Dr

) to minimize the Dose Define voxel of volume d 3 Dose in voxel = D v Take n =20cm/d settings Total dose D = n* D v Require 3

Significance

D ~ D 2  r

E

 2

d

5

pCT: Contrast - Voxel Size - Dose 200 MeV Protons, 3Stdv.

1 Dose [mGy] 0.01

0.0001

10 -6 0.01

Voxel Diameter

d=5mm, Si d=2mm, 2% d=5mm, 2% d=1cm, 2%

0.1

1 Density Difference [g/cm 3 ] 1 0.01

0.0001

10 10 -6

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Studies in Proton Computed Tomography

Collaboration Loma Linda University Medical Center – UC Santa Cruz

Exploratory Study in Proton Transmission Radiography

– – –

Silicon detector telescope Simple phantom in front Understand influence of multiple scattering and energy resolution on image

Theoretical Study (GEANT4 MC simulation)

– –

Evaluation of MCS, range straggling, and need for angular measurements Optimization of energy

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Exploratory Proton Radiography Set-up

Proton Beam from Loma Linda University Medical Ctr @ 250 MeV Degraded down to 130 MeV by 10” wax block Object is aluminum annulus 5 cm long, 3 cm OD, 0.67 cm ID Very large effects expected, x =

r

*l = 13.5 g/cm 2 Traversing protons have 50 MeV, by-passing protons have 130 MeV Silicon detector telescope with 2 x-y modules: measure energy and location of exiting protons Wax block Air Air

Object

Beam from Synchrotron 30 cm 27.3 cm y x

Si Modules

x y

250MeV 130MeV 50 + 130MeV

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Silicon Detector Telescope

Simple 2D Silicon Strip Detector (SSD) Telescope of 2 x-y modules built for Nanodosimetry

2 single-sided SSD / module

measure x-y coordinates •

GLAST Space Mission developed SSD

194  m pitch, 400  m thickness

6.4 cm

GLAST Readout

1.3  s shaping time Binary readout Time-over-Threshold TOT Large dynamic range

5 x 64 channels

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Time-Over-Threshold ~ Energy Transfer

Digitization of position (hit channel) and energy deposit (TOT)

Time-over-Threshold TOT Pulse Threshold

TOT

charge

LET 120 100 80 TOT [us] 60 40 20 0 0 TOT Measurement vs Charge 50 100 Input Charge [fC] 150 200

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Calibration of Proton Energy vs. TOT

Good agreement between measurement and MC simulations 100 TOT vs Proton Energy Measurement and Expectation TOT Saturation ToT measured TOT expected TOT [us] 0.4

  

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 10 Proton Energy Resolution 100 Proton Energy [MeV] 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 1000 10 10 LLUMC Synchrotron P Beam GLAST SLAC Test Beam 100 1000 Proton Energy [MeV] 10 4 Derive energy resolution from TOT vs. E plot

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Image of Al Annulus

Subdivide SSD area into pixels 1.

2.

Strip x strip 194um x 194um 4 x 4 strips (0.8mm x 0.8mm) Image corresponds to average energy in pixel

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Energy Resolution => Position Resolution

Slice of average pixel energy in 4x4 pixels (need to apply off-line calibration!)

Hole “filled in” “Fuzzy” Edges

Clear profile of pipe, but interfaces are blurred

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Multiple Scattering: Migration

Image Features: Washed out image in 2 nd plane (30cm downstream) Energy diluted at interfaces (Fuzzy edges, Large RMS, Hole filled in partially) Migration of events are explained by Multiple Coulomb Scattering MCS Protons scatter OUT OF target (not INTO). Scatters have larger energy loss, larger angles, fill hole, dilute energy

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

GEANT4 MC: Use of Angular Information

Si Telescope allows reconstruction of beam divergence and scattering angles Select 2 Areas in both MC and Data A = inside annulus : Wax + Al B = outside annulus : Wax only Angular distributions well understood

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

GEANT4 MC: Migration

Beam profile in slice Migration out of object Energy of protons entering front face Protons entering the object in front face but leaving it before the rear face

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

GEANT4 MC: Use of Angular Information

Angular Cut at

MCS of the Wax

Energy Profile before (after ) Angle Cut

Less Migration Sharp Edges ( Energy Average ) Sharp Edges ( Energy RMS )

Energy RMS before (after ) Angle Cut

Angular cut improves the contrast at the interfaces

2002 IEEE NSS/MIC pCT: Hartmut F.-W. Sadrozinski , SCIPP

Conclusions

• • • •

Present status of pCT: Long tradition, increased interest with many new proton accelerators (see next talk by Stephen G. Peggs) pCT will be useful for treatment planning (reconstruction of true density distribution) Potential dose advantage wrt X-rays ( see Poster M10-204 by Satogata et al. ) Use of GEANT4 simulation program aids in planning of experiments (correlation of energy and angle, “migration”) (see Poster M6-2, L. R. Johnson et al.)

• • •

Our future plans: Optimization of beam energy Investigation of optimal energy measurement method Dose – contrast - resolution relationship on realistic phantoms