Dual Energy CT: A New Method for Better Dose Calculation in Proton Beam Therapy
NCT ID: NCT02722109
Last Updated: 2018-01-10
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
TERMINATED
14 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2016-08-31
2017-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Dual-Energy CT on Plan Quality, Dose-delivery Accuracy, and Simulated Outcomes of Patients Treated With Proton or Photon Therapy
NCT03403361
Patient- and Task-specific Radiation Dose Optimization for Pediatric Abdominopelvic CT Applications
NCT03429712
Optimization of Novel DCE-MRI Imaging Sequences for Cancer Therapy Monitoring
NCT01752231
Dual-Tracer Theranostic PET
NCT05680675
DE-CT in Lung Cancer Proton Therapy
NCT02844140
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The calculation methods for proton stopping power ratios differs for the two types of CT images, and researchers want to investigate if the proton stopping power ratio can be estimated more accurately by using dual energy CT. A more accurate stopping power ratio calculation gives a more accurate proton range determination in the patient tissue, which again will lead to a better knowledge of the dose distribution in the patient undergoing cancer treatment with proton beam irradiation.
Knowing the accurate dose distribution allows for an uncertainty margin reduction around the tumor, which will result in less normal tissue being irradiated and thereby the risk of side effects is reduced without risking an under-dosage of the tumor.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
OTHER
OTHER
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
No intervention
No intervention will be done
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Aarhus University Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Vicki Trier Taasti
M.Sc., PhD student
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Cai Grau, Professor
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Aarhus University Hospital
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Engelsman M, Schwarz M, Dong L. Physics controversies in proton therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2013 Apr;23(2):88-96. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2012.11.003.
Knopf AC, Lomax A. In vivo proton range verification: a review. Phys Med Biol. 2013 Aug 7;58(15):R131-60. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/15/R131. Epub 2013 Jul 17.
Johnson TR. Dual-energy CT: general principles. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Nov;199(5 Suppl):S3-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9116.
Hunemohr N, Krauss B, Tremmel C, Ackermann B, Jakel O, Greilich S. Experimental verification of ion stopping power prediction from dual energy CT data in tissue surrogates. Phys Med Biol. 2014 Jan 6;59(1):83-96. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/1/83. Epub 2013 Dec 12.
Bourque AE, Carrier JF, Bouchard H. A stoichiometric calibration method for dual energy computed tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2014 Apr 21;59(8):2059-88. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/59/8/2059. Epub 2014 Apr 2.
Hall EJ. Henry S. Kaplan Distinguished Scientist Award 2003. The crooked shall be made straight; dose-response relationships for carcinogenesis. Int J Radiat Biol. 2004 May;80(5):327-37. doi: 10.1080/09553000410001695895.
Paganetti H. Range uncertainties in proton therapy and the role of Monte Carlo simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2012 Jun 7;57(11):R99-117. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/11/R99. Epub 2012 May 9.
Hudobivnik N, Schwarz F, Johnson T, Agolli L, Dedes G, Tessonnier T, Verhaegen F, Thieke C, Belka C, Sommer WH, Parodi K, Landry G. Comparison of proton therapy treatment planning for head tumors with a pencil beam algorithm on dual and single energy CT images. Med Phys. 2016 Jan;43(1):495. doi: 10.1118/1.4939106.
Hansen DC, Seco J, Sorensen TS, Petersen JB, Wildberger JE, Verhaegen F, Landry G. A simulation study on proton computed tomography (CT) stopping power accuracy using dual energy CT scans as benchmark. Acta Oncol. 2015;54(9):1638-42. doi: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1061212. Epub 2015 Jul 29.
Yang M, Virshup G, Clayton J, Zhu XR, Mohan R, Dong L. Theoretical variance analysis of single- and dual-energy computed tomography methods for calculating proton stopping power ratios of biological tissues. Phys Med Biol. 2010 Mar 7;55(5):1343-62. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/5/006. Epub 2010 Feb 10.
Schneider U, Pedroni E, Lomax A. The calibration of CT Hounsfield units for radiotherapy treatment planning. Phys Med Biol. 1996 Jan;41(1):111-24. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/41/1/009.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
VEK52217
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.