ArticleMedical physics2026
Improving dual-panel in-beam PET imaging for proton therapy monitoring using 3D U-Net.
Article in Medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn-beam positron emission tomography (PET) integrates dedicated detectors into proton therapy systems, enabling real-time acquisition of proton-induced positron-emitting activity. By pre-delivering a subset of single-energy proton spots as probes, in-beam PET has the potential to support online proton range verification and may inform subsequent spot delivery. However, the limited acquisition time and low yields of positron emitters result in noisy reconstructed images, and the open geometry of dual-panel PET further introduces stretching artifacts. PURPOSE: To address these issues, this study proposed a 3D U-Net-based post-processing method to enhance in-beam PET image quality and evaluated its feasibility through Monte Carlo simulations and preliminary experimental validation.
methodsThirteen head computed tomography (CT) phantoms were irradiated with horizontally and vertically incident single-energy probes, representing two scenarios in which beams passed through relatively homogeneous and heterogeneous tissues. A phantom-level split was used, with seven CT phantoms for training, two for validation, and four held-out CT phantoms for testing. Proton probes in 3×3, 5×5, 7×7, and 9×9 spot patterns were simulated, with each spot delivering 2×10
resultsFor horizontal beams, median PSNR values increased from 21.4-23.9 to 35.2-37.4, median SSIM values increased from 0.450-0.621 to 0.906-0.961, and median ARE values decreased from 1.05-1.18 mm to 0.52-0.73 mm. For vertical beams, median PSNR values improved from 21.9-23.2 to 29.2-34.1, median SSIM values improved from 0.480-0.560 to 0.745-0.895, and median ARE values decreased from 1.80-2.40 mm to 1.50-1.73 mm. The proposed method also demonstrated improved sensitivity to simulated range shifts and consistent improvements on experimental PET data.
conclusionThese findings demonstrate the preliminary feasibility of using 3D U-Net-based post-processing to enhance dual-panel in-beam PET image quality and improve PET-based proton range verification.
Indexed as
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.