Thumbnail
Access Restriction
Open

Author Ödén, Jakob ♦ Zimmerman, Jens ♦ Nowik, Patrik ♦ Poludniowski, Gavin ♦ Bujila, Robert
Source United States Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information
Content type Text
Language English
Subject Keyword APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES ♦ RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY ♦ ANIMAL TISSUES ♦ CALIBRATION ♦ COMPUTER CODES ♦ COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY ♦ CORRECTIONS ♦ ERRORS ♦ HOSPITALS ♦ ICRU ♦ PROTON BEAMS ♦ RADIOTHERAPY ♦ STOICHIOMETRY ♦ STOPPING POWER
Abstract Purpose: The quantitative effects of assumptions made in the calculation of stopping-power ratios (SPRs) are investigated, for stoichiometric CT calibration in proton therapy. The assumptions investigated include the use of the Bethe formula without correction terms, Bragg additivity, the choice of I-value for water, and the data source for elemental I-values. Methods: The predictions of the Bethe formula for SPR (no correction terms) were validated against more sophisticated calculations using the SRIM software package for 72 human tissues. A stoichiometric calibration was then performed at our hospital. SPR was calculated for the human tissues using either the assumption of simple Bragg additivity or the Seltzer-Berger rule (as used in ICRU Reports 37 and 49). In each case, the calculation was performed twice: First, by assuming the I-value of water was an experimentally based value of 78 eV (value proposed in Errata and Addenda for ICRU Report 73) and second, by recalculating the I-value theoretically. The discrepancy between predictions using ICRU elemental I-values and the commonly used tables of Janni was also investigated. Results: Errors due to neglecting the correction terms to the Bethe formula were calculated at less than 0.1% for biological tissues. Discrepancies greater than 1%, however, were estimated due to departures from simple Bragg additivity when a fixed I-value for water was imposed. When the I-value for water was calculated in a consistent manner to that for tissue, this disagreement was substantially reduced. The difference between SPR predictions when using Janni’s or ICRU tables for I-values was up to 1.6%. Experimental data used for materials of relevance to proton therapy suggest that the ICRU-derived values provide somewhat more accurate results (root-mean-square-error: 0.8% versus 1.6%). Conclusions: The conclusions from this study are that (1) the Bethe formula can be safely used for SPR calculations without correction terms; (2) simple Bragg additivity can be reasonably assumed for compound materials; (3) if simple Bragg additivity is assumed, then the I-value for water should be calculated in a consistent manner to that of the tissue of interest (rather than using an experimentally derived value); (4) the ICRU Report 37 I-values may provide a better agreement with experiment than Janni’s tables.
ISSN 00942405
Educational Use Research
Learning Resource Type Article
Publisher Date 2015-09-15
Publisher Place United States
Journal Medical Physics
Volume Number 42
Issue Number 9


Open content in new tab

   Open content in new tab