ArticleScientific reports2023
Quasi-real-time range monitoring by in-beam PET: a case for
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid compton-PET imaging for ion-range verification: a preclinical study for proton, helium, and carbon therapy at HIT.European physical journal plus · 2025Article
- Image-guided treatment of mouse tumours with radioactive ion beams.Nature physics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A fast and reliable range monitoring method is required to take full advantage of the high linear energy transfer provided by therapeutic ion beams like carbon and oxygen while minimizing damage to healthy tissue due to range uncertainties. Quasi-real-time range monitoring using in-beam positron emission tomography (PET) with therapeutic beams of positron-emitters of carbon and oxygen is a promising approach. The number of implanted ions and the time required for an unambiguous range verification are decisive factors for choosing a candidate isotope. An experimental study was performed at the FRS fragment-separator of GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, Germany, to investigate the evolution of positron annihilation activity profiles during the implantation of [Formula: see text]O and [Formula: see text]O ion beams in a PMMA phantom. The positron activity profile was imaged by a dual-panel version of a Siemens Biograph mCT PET scanner. Results from a similar experiment using ion beams of carbon positron-emitters [Formula: see text]C and [Formula: see text]C performed at the same experimental setup were used for comparison. Owing to their shorter half-lives, the number of implanted ions required for a precise positron annihilation activity peak determination is lower for [Formula: see text]C compared to [Formula: see text]C and likewise for [Formula: see text]O compared to [Formula: see text]O, but their lower production cross-sections make it difficult to produce them at therapeutically relevant intensities. With a similar production cross-section and a 10 times shorter half-life than [Formula: see text]C, [Formula: see text]O provides a faster conclusive positron annihilation activity peak position determination for a lower number of implanted ions compared to [Formula: see text]C. A figure of merit formulation was developed for the quantitative comparison of therapy-relevant positron-emitting beams in the context of quasi-real-time beam monitoring. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that among the positron emitters of carbon and oxygen, [Formula: see text]O is the most feasible candidate for quasi-real-time range monitoring by in-beam PET that can be produced at therapeutically relevant intensities. Additionally, this study demonstrated that the in-flight production and separation method can produce beams of therapeutic quality, in terms of purity, energy, and energy spread.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.