Particle therapy exploits the energy deposition pattern of hadron beams. The narrow Bragg Peak at the end of range is a major advantage but range uncertainties can cause severe damage and require online verification to maximise the effectiveness in clinics. In-beam Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is a non-invasive, promising in-vivo technique, which consists in the measurement of the β+ activity induced by beam-tissue interactions during treatment, and presents the highest correlation of the measured activity distribution with the deposited dose, since it is not much influenced by biological washout. Here we report the first clinical results obtained with a state-of-the-art in-beam PET scanner, with on-the-fly reconstruction of the activity distribution during irradiation. An automated time-resolved quantitative analysis was tested on a lacrimal gland carcinoma case, monitored during two consecutive treatment sessions. The 3D activity map was reconstructed every 10 s, with an average delay between beam delivery and image availability of about 6 s. The correlation coefficient of 3D activity maps for the two sessions (above 0.9 after 120 s) and the range agreement (within 1 mm) prove the suitability of in-beam PET for online range verification during treatment, a crucial step towards adaptive strategies in particle therapy.

During one year of clinical activity at the Italian National Center for Oncological Hadron Therapy 31 patients were treated with actively scanned proton beams. Results of patient-specific quality assurance procedures are presented here which assess the accuracy of a three-dimensional dose verification technique with the simultaneous use of multiple small-volume ionization chambers. To investigate critical cases of major deviations between treatment planning system (TPS) calculated and measured data points, a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation tool was implemented for plan verification in water. Starting from MC results, the impact of dose calculation, dose delivery and measurement set-up uncertainties on plan verification results was analyzed. All resulting patient-specific quality checks were within the acceptance threshold, which was set at 5% for both mean deviation between measured and calculated doses and standard deviation. The mean deviation between TPS dose calculation and measurement was less than ±3% in 86% of the cases. When all three sources of uncertainty were accounted for, simulated data sets showed a high level of agreement, with mean and maximum absolute deviation lower than 2.5% and 5%, respectively.