↓ Skip to main content

Proton beam deflection in MRI fields: Implications for MRI‐guided proton therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Proton beam deflection in MRI fields: Implications for MRI‐guided proton therapy
Published in
Medical Physics, November 2016
DOI 10.1118/1.4916661
Pubmed ID
Authors

B M Oborn, S Dowdell, P E Metcalfe, S Crozier, R Mohan, P J Keall

Abstract

This paper investigates, via magnetic modeling and Monte Carlo simulation, the ability to deliver proton beams to the treatment zone inside a split-bore MRI-guided proton therapy system. Field maps from a split-bore 1 T MRI-Linac system are used as input to geant4 Monte Carlo simulations which model the trajectory of proton beams during their paths to the isocenter of the treatment area. Both inline (along the MRI bore) and perpendicular (through the split-bore gap) orientations are simulated. Monoenergetic parallel and diverging beams of energy 90, 195, and 300 MeV starting from 1.5 and 5 m above isocenter are modeled. A phase space file detailing a 2D calibration pattern is used to set the particle starting positions, and their spatial location as they cross isocenter is recorded. No beam scattering, collimation, or modulation of the proton beams is modeled. In the inline orientation, the radial symmetry of the solenoidal style fringe field acts to rotate the protons around the beam's central axis. For protons starting at 1.5 m from isocenter, this rotation is 19° (90 MeV) and 9.8° (300 MeV). A minor focusing toward the beam's central axis is also seen, but only significant, i.e., 2 mm shift at 150 mm off-axis, for 90 MeV protons. For the perpendicular orientation, the main MRI field and near fringe field act as the strongest to deflect the protons in a consistent direction. When starting from 1.5 m above isocenter shifts of 135 mm (90 MeV) and 65 mm (300 MeV) were observed. Further to this, off-axis protons are slightly deflected toward or away from the central axis in the direction perpendicular to the main deflection direction. This leads to a distortion of the phase space pattern, not just a shift. This distortion increases from zero at the central axis to 10 mm (90 MeV) and 5 mm (300 MeV) for a proton 150 mm off-axis. In both orientations, there is a small but subtle difference in the deflection and distortion pattern between protons fired parallel to the beam axis and those fired from a point source. This is indicative of the 3D spatially variant nature of the MRI fringe field. For the first time, accurate magnetic and Monte Carlo modeling have been used to assess the transport of generic proton beams toward a 1 T split-bore MRI. Significant rotation is observed in the inline orientation, while more complex deflection and distortion are seen in the perpendicular orientation. The results of this study suggest that due to the complexity and energy-dependent nature of the magnetic deflection and distortion, the pencil beam scanning method will be the only choice for delivering a therapeutic proton beam inside a potential MRI-guided proton therapy system in either the inline or perpendicular orientation. Further to this, significant correction strategies will be required to account for the MRI fringe fields.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 82 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 26%
Student > Master 9 10%
Other 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 40 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Engineering 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 24 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,911,152
of 24,464,848 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#270
of 7,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,698
of 425,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#5
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,464,848 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,873 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,144 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.