The stopping-power ratio (SPR) of body tissues relative to water depends on the particle energy and mean excitation energy (I value) of the tissues. Effective energies to minimize the range error in proton therapy and ion beam therapy with helium, carbon, oxygen, and neon ions and elemental I values have been updated in recent studies. We investigated the effects of these updates on SPR estimation for computed tomography-based treatment planning. The updates led to an increase of up to 0.5% in the SPRs of soft tissues, whereas they led to a decrease of up to 1.9% in the SPRs of bone tissues compared with the current clinical settings. For 44 proton beams planned for 15 randomly sampled patients, the mean water-equivalent target depth change was - 0.2 mm with a standard deviation of 0.2 mm. The maximum change was - 0.6 mm, which we consider to be insignificant in clinical practice.

Studies have shown large variations in stopping-power ratio (SPR) prediction from computed tomography (CT) across European proton centres. To standardise this process, a step-by-step guide on specifying a Hounsfield look-up table (HLUT) is presented here.
The HLUT specification process is divided into six steps: Phantom setup, CT acquisition, CT number extraction, SPR determination, HLUT specification, and HLUT validation. Appropriate CT phantoms have a head- and body-sized part, with tissue-equivalent inserts in regard to X-ray and proton interactions. CT numbers are extracted from a region-of-interest covering the inner 70% of each insert in-plane and several axial CT slices in scan direction. For optimal HLUT specification, the SPR of phantom inserts is measured in a proton beam and the SPR of tabulated human tissues is computed stoichiometrically at 100 MeV. Including both phantom inserts and tabulated human tissues increases HLUT stability. Piecewise linear regressions are performed between CT numbers and SPRs for four tissue groups (lung, adipose, soft tissue, and bone) and then connected with straight lines. Finally, a thorough but simple validation is performed.
The best practices and individual challenges are explained comprehensively for each step. A well-defined strategy for specifying the connection points between the individual line segments of the HLUT is presented. The guide was tested exemplarily on three CT scanners from different vendors, proving its feasibility.
The presented step-by-step guide for CT-based HLUT specification with recommendations and examples can contribute to reduce inter-centre variations in SPR prediction.

The two-parameter-fitting method (PFM) is commonly used to calculate the stopping-power ratio (SPR). This study proposes a new formalism: a three-PFM, which can be used in multiple spectral computed tomography (CT). Using a photon-counting CT system, seven rod-shaped samples of aluminium, graphite, and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), and four types of biological phantom materials were placed in a water-filled sample holder. The X-ray tube voltage and current were set at 150 kV and 40 μA, respectively, and four CT images were obtained at four threshold settings. A semi-empirical correction method that corrects the difference between the CT values from the photon-counting CT images and theoretical values in each spectral region was also introduced. Both the two- and three-PFMs were used to calculate the effective atomic number and electron density from multiple CT numbers. The mean excitation energy was calculated via parameterisation with the effective atomic number, and the SPR was then calculated from the calculated electron density and mean excitation energy. Then, the SPRs from both methods were compared with the theoretical values. To estimate the noise level of the CT numbers obtained from the photon-counting CT, CT numbers, including noise, were simulated to evaluate the robustness of the aforementioned PFMs. For the aluminium and graphite, the maximum relative errors for the SPRs calculated using the two-PFM and three-PFM were 17.1% and 7.1%, respectively. For the PMMA and biological phantom materials, the maximum relative errors for the SPRs calculated using the two-PFM and three-PFM were 5.5% and 2.0%, respectively. It was concluded that the three-PFM, compared with the two-PFM, can yield SPRs that are closer to the theoretical values and is less affected by noise.