Investigating the Effect of Compton  Scattering Between PET-Ring Detectors on Image Quality by Monte Carlo Simulation

Araste, Narges; Tavakoli-Anbaran, Hossein

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

¹ PhD. student in nuclear physics, Kharazmi International Campus, Shahrood university of technology, Shahrood, Semnan, Iran

² Associate Professorin nuclear physics, Faculty of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Shahrood university of technology, Shahrood, Semnan, Iran

Abstract

Background: The Compton scattered annihilation gammas between PET detectors reduce spatial resolution by making an incorrect Line of Response. This paper, by presenting a new method, tried to remove these errors from PET imaging. In this way, the detectors were insulated so that scattered gammas from a detector can not enter other detectors of the PET ring.
Method: First of all, the Siemens PET BiographTM 6 scanner ring was simulated and then all detectors of this ring were isolated to resolve this error and investigate its impact on the Response Function of PET detectors.
Results: The analysis of the results of simulation showed that, the isolation of PET detectors reduced counts of detectors in the energy window, especially at the lower threshold (350 to 400 keV). This reduction with a spherical soft issue was less than without that. So that the maximum of the relative percentage difference for counts of detectors between connect and disconnect them was 70% (in 400 keV) and 12% (in 350 keV) in the absence and presence of soft tissue, respectively.
Conclusion: Although the isolation of the detectors boosted the resolution of PET, it removed some true coincidences and reduced the sensitivity of PET; there for, it did not have much effect on image quality of PET. Also, a slight decrease in the count, with the soft tissue, shows the greater effect of the isolation of PET-detectors in improving image quality in abdominal imaging in comparison with other imaging such as head and neck imaging.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Biophysics & Radiotherapy

References

[1]. Ollinger JM, Fessler JA. Positron Emission Tomography. IEEE Signal Processing Mag. 1997; 14(1): 43-55.

[2]. Cherry SR, Dahlbom M. PET: Physics, Instrumentation, and Scanners. In: Phelps ME, editor. Molecular Imaging and Its Biological Applications. 1^sted. New York: Springer; 2004: 1-124.

[3]. Saha GB. Positron Emmision Tomography. In: Saha GB, editor. Physics and Radiobiology of NuclearMedicine. 3^rded. New York: Springer; 2006: 182-225.

[4]. Shayeste S, Shiri I, Dehlaghi V. Physics and Instrumentation of Nuclear Medicine. 1^st ed. Tehran: RoyanPazhouh Publication; 2014: 169-200. (Persian)

[5]. Martins L, Ferreira NC,Caramelo F, Ortigão C, Rodrigues AN, Rodrigues Fand others. Scatter Correction for Positron Emission Mammography usingan Estimation of Trues Method Approach. Procedia Tech. 2012; 5: 903-11.

[6]. Zaidi H, Koral KF. Scatter Correction Strategies in Emission Tomography, In: Zaidi H, editor. Quantitative Analysis in Nuclear Medicine Imaging. 1^sted. Boston: Springer; 2006: 205-35.

[7]. Zaidi H, Montandon ML. Scatter Compensation Techniques in PET. PET Clin. 2007; 2: 219-34.

[8]. Araste N, Tavakoli-Anbaran H. Study of the Compton scattering effect of soft tissue in PET imaging by Monte Carlo method. J ShahidSadoughiUni Med Sci2019; 27(4): 1467-81. (Persian)

[9]. Zeraatkar N, Ay MR, Ghafarian P, Sarkar S, Geramifar P, Rahmim A. Monte Carlo-based evaluation of inter-crystal scatter and penetration in the PET subsystem of three GE Discovery PET/CT scanners. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 2011; 659: 508-14.

[10]. Yoshida E, Tashima H, Yamaya T. Sensitivity booster for DOI-PET scanner by utilizing Compton

[11]. scatteringevents between detector blocks. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A 2014; 763: 502-9.

[12]. Szlávecz Á, BenyóB and others. A novel model and an environment for PET detector block simulation. Proceedings of the 7^th IFAC Symposium on Modelling and Control in Biomedical Systems 2009 Aug 12-14; Aalborg, Denmark.

[13]. Spyrou N, Mesbahi E. A method of evaluating inter-detector scattering in block detectors for positron emission tomography. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 1999; 422: 672-6.

[14]. Lee MS, Kang SK, Lee JS. Novel inter-crystal scattering event identification method for PETDetectors.Phys. Med. Biol. 2018; 63: 115-28.

[15]. Yin Y, Chen X, Li C, Wu H, Komarov S, Guo Q and others.Evaluation of PET Imaging Resolution Using 350μmPixelated CZT as a VP-PET Insert Detector.IEEE Trans. Nuc. Sci. 2014; 61(1): 154-61.

[16]. Yoon C, Lee W, Lee T. Simulation for CZT Compton PET (Maximization of the efficiency for PET using Compton event). Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 2011; 652: 713-16.

[17]. Yin Y, Chen X, Komarov S, Wu H, Wen J, Krawczynski H and others. Study of Highly Pixelated CdZnTe Detector for PET Applications. Phys.Procedia. 2012; 37: 1537-45.

[18]. Abbaszadeh S, Garry C, Levin CS. Positioning true coincidences that undergo inter- and intra- crystal scatter for a sub-mm resolution cadmium zinc telluride-based PET system. Phys. Med. Biol. 2018; 63(2): 025012.

[19]. Rafecas M, Boning G, Pichler BJ, Lorenz E, Schwaiger M, Ziegler SI. Inter-crystal scatter in a dual layer, high resolution LSO-APD positron emission tomography. Phys. Med. Biol. 2003; 48(7): 8-21.

[20]. Auricchio N, Domenico G, Zavattini G, Milano L, Malaguti R. The performance of silicon detectors for theSiliPET project: A small animal PET scanner based on stacks of silicon detectors. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 2011; 628: 448-52.

[21]. Wagadarikar A, Ivan.A and others. Sensitivity Improvement of Time-of-Flight (ToF) PET Detector

[22]. Through Recovery of Compton Scattered Annihilation Photons. IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci, 2014; 61(1):121-5.

[23]. Kishimoto A, Kataoka J, Koide A, Sueoka K, Iwamoto Y, Taya T and others. Development of a compact scintillator-based high-resolution Compton camera for molecular imaging. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 2017; 845: 656-59.

[24]. Gillam JE, Solevi P, Oliver JF, Casella C, Heller M, Joram C and others. Sensitivity recovery for the AX-PETprototype using inter-crystal scatteringevents. Phys. Med. Biol. 2014; 59: 4065-83.

[25]. Gonias P, Bertsekas N, Karakatsanis N, Saatsakis G, Gaitanis A, Nikolopoulos D and others. Validation of a GATE model for the simulation of the Siemens biographTM 6 PET scanner. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 2007; 571: 263-6.

[26]. Fakhroo S, Geramifar P. Monte Carlo Simulation of the PET scanner of the Siemens Biograph6 PET/CT Imaging system using GATE. 20^th annual meeting of Iranian society of nuclear medicine 2016 Oct 26-28; Mazandaran, Iran.

[27]. Araste N, Tavakoli-Anbaran H. Validation of Monte Carlo simulation of the Siemens biograph^TM 6 PET scanner. 21th annual and international nuclear medicine and molecular imaging congress 2017 Nov 22-24; Mashhad, Iran.

[28]. YoshidaE, TashimaH, Hirano Y, Inadama N, Nishikido F,Murayama H and others. Spatial resolution limits for the isotropic-3D PET detector X’tal cube. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Phys. Res. A. 2013; 728: 107-11.

[29]. Stickel J, Cherry SR. High-resolution PET detector design: modeling components of intrinsic spatial resolution. 2005; Phys. Med. Biol. 50: 179-95.

[30]. Knoll GF. Radiation Spectroscopy with Scintillators. In: Radiation Detection and Measurement. 4^th ed. USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2010: 307-26.

[31]. Araste.N. An investigation of the effects of interior body parts near liver cancer on PET imaging by Monte Carlo simulation [dissertation]. Iran, Shahrood univ of tech. 2019. (Persian)

Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences

Investigating the Effect of Compton Scattering Between PET-Ring Detectors on Image Quality by Monte Carlo Simulation

References

References

Volume 27, Issue 1
May and June 2020
Pages 17-26

Investigating the Effect of Compton Scattering Between PET-Ring Detectors on Image Quality by Monte Carlo Simulation

References

References

Volume 27, Issue 1May and June 2020Pages 17-26

Volume 27, Issue 1
May and June 2020
Pages 17-26