Affordable Access

Publisher Website

A Comparison of Two Probes to Determine Rectum Optical Properties

  • Li, Andrew C.1
  • Ong, Yi Hong1
  • Li, Celina2
  • He, Jie2
  • Dimofte, Andreea1
  • Busch, Theresa M.1
  • Wilson, Brian C.2
  • Weersink, Robert2
  • Zhu, Timothy C.1
  • 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104
  • 2 University of Toronto/University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
Published Article
Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering
Publication Date
Mar 12, 2021
DOI: 10.1117/12.2582395
PMID: 34083859
PMCID: PMC8171236
PubMed Central
  • Article


Tissue optical properties are crucial for determining the light dose delivered to the tumor. Two probes are compared: the two-catheter probe is based on transmittance measurement between one point source and one isotropic detector inside parallel catheters spaced at 0.5 cm along a 1-inch diameter transparent cylinder; and a 1-inch trans-rectal diffuse optical tomography (DOT) probe designed for prostate measurements, using a multiple fiber-array with source-detector separations of 1.4–10 mm. The two-catheter probe uses an empirical model for primary and scatter light fluence rates in the cylindrical cavity condition for anal PDT to determine optical properties along the source catheter using dual motors to move the source and detector along the catheters. The DOT probe uses finite element method (FEM) to obtain distribution of optical properties in 3D. Validations for the two probes were performed in liquid and solid phantoms. For each method, validation was performed in tissue-mimicking liquid phantoms for a range of known optical properties (μa between 0.05 and 0.9 cm−1 and μs’ between 5.5 and 16.5 cm−1). To cross-check the two methods, solid phantoms were created of known optical properties at the University of Pennsylvania and sent for measurement to Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMH) to mimic realistic patient simulating conditions. Measurements were taken and optical properties were then recovered without knowing the expected values to cross-validate each probe. The results show modest agreement between the measured μa and μs’values, but high degree of agreement between the measured μeff performed independently using the two methods.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times