1 / 17

Sensitivity Study of the RPC–PET whole-body scanner

Sensitivity Study of the RPC–PET whole-body scanner. M. Couceiro 1,2 , A. Blanco 1 , Nuno C. Ferreira 3 , R. Ferreira Marques 1,4 , P. Fonte 1,2 , L. Lopes 1. 1 LIP, Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Coimbra, Portugal

dwayne
Download Presentation

Sensitivity Study of the RPC–PET whole-body scanner

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Sensitivity Study of the RPC–PET whole-body scanner M. Couceiro1,2, A. Blanco1, Nuno C. Ferreira3, R. Ferreira Marques1,4, P. Fonte1,2, L. Lopes1 1 LIP, Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Coimbra, Portugal 2 ISEC, Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal 3 IBILI-FMUC, Instituto Biomédico de Investigação da Luz e Imagem, Faculdade de Medicina, Coimbra, Portugal 4 Departamento de Física, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

  2. Summary • Resistive Plate Chambers (RPCs) • Simulation Results of Sensitivity for Human Full-Body Axial Field Of View PET Systems • Conclusions

  3. HV Time signal XY readout plane RC passive network Y-strips RC passive network X-strips RPCs for PET Sensitive Area (precise small Gas Gap ~300 µm) Resistive Cathode E e- Resistive Anode At least one resistive electrode Photon • For 511 keV photons, and commonly used materials • ~300 ps FWHM for photon pairs • < 0.4% efficiency per gap for singles • No energy resolution

  4. Stacked RPCs e- e- .......... e- Improving Detection Efficiency • Efficiency depends both on • Photon interaction probability in the converter plate • Electron extraction probability from the converter plate Converter plates with high interaction probability for 511 keV photons Optimize plate thickness for optimum electron extraction

  5. N Plates Lead Glass Lead-Glass N Plates Optimum Thickness (µm) Detection Efficiency: 511 keV Photons (GEANT4 Simulation) Photon (511 keV) Detection Probability Plate Thickness (m) Bateman et al. 5 plates of 0.4 mm glass: Our measurements: 0.8% GEANT4 Simulation: 1.0% Optimum efficiency is balanced by beam absorption (thicker plates) and extraction probability (thinner plates) Optimum thickness depends on the number of plates and on the material.

  6. N Plates Lead Glass Lead-Glass Photon Detection Probability Incident Photon Energy (keV) Detection Efficiency: Energy Dependence (GEANT4 Simulation) @ optimum thickness @ optimum thickness @ optimum thickness Strong ENERGY SENSITIVY scattered photonsstatistically rejected

  7. Full-BodyHuman TOF-PET Comparison With the Standard PET Technology • Disadvantages • Much smaller detection efficiency: 20% to 50%. • No energy resolution, although energy sensitivity. • Advantages • Increased position accuracy • Sub-millimetric spatial resolution • Full 3D detection • Increased system sensitivity • Inexpensive • Large areas possible • large solid angle coverage • Excellent timing resolution (300 ps FWHM for 511 keV photon pair) • TOF-PET • Optimum randoms rejection Possible specialized PETapplications

  8. Human Full Body FOV RPC–PET: Sensitivity Advantage • Main Goals • Study the sensitivity gain for large Axial Field Of View human PET systems (> 200 cm) • Crystal based • RPC based • Comparison with commercial scanners (e.g. GE Advance) • Methods • Simple analytical model for the sensitivity to true coincidences • GEANT4 simulations of photon transport through sensitivity phantoms (NEMA NU2 1994 and an extended version) • Photon interaction within detectors not simulated • Post processing of detection and coincidences (detection efficiency, packing fraction, energy blurring, energy window, coincidence window, etc.): • Scintillator based detectors • RPC based detectors • 3D true sensitivity computation followed the NEMA NU2 1994 procedure

  9. L z Tomograph x1 d   R  Water Phantom d d x2 Z Human Full Body PET Sensitivity: Simplified Analytical Model Emitting Point

  10. 15 cm AFOV by 92.7 cm Ø NEMA NU 2 1994 sensitivity phantom (b) 15 cm AFOV by 92.7 cm Ø with an extended phantom (c) 240 cm AFOV by 92.7 cm Ø with an extended phantom (a) (b) (c) Human Full Body PET Sensitivity: Simulation Setups

  11. Human Full Body PET Sensitivity: Validation for Crystal Based Systems • Data processing • Photons assigned to a Module/Block/Crystal according to the GE Advance segmentation • Gaussian energy blurring with 20% FWHM at 511 keV • 300 – 650 keV energy window • Detection efficiency adjusted to obtain reasonable agreement with published data.

  12. Human Full Body PET Sensitivity: Results for Crystal Based Systems Normalized to the GE Advance sensitivity ring difference of 11(axial acceptance angle ~5.7 deg) + Badawi et al. normalized ~100-fold sensitivity advantage for standard PET without TOF ? ~300-fold sensitivity advantage for LSO based PET with TOF ?

  13. Human Full Body AFOV PET • Full Body AFOV Crystal Based PET Scanners • Maintaining crystal thicknessfor full body AFOV PET scanners • unaffordable • Keeping overall crystal volume, reducing crystal thickness • reduce detection efficiency, and sensitivity • RPC TOF-PET Scanners?

  14. Photon Detection Efficiency Incident Photon Energy (keV) Human Full Body RPC TOF–PET Sensitivity: Selected Efficiencies Efficiencies of 60 and 120 stacked RPCs based on 0.4 mm glass plates 19.4% 11.0%

  15. 3D True Sensitivity (kcps/(µCi/cc)) Axial Field of View (cm) Human Full Body RPC TOF–PET Sensitivity: Simulation Results ~20-fold sensitivity increase With TOF information t = 300 ps FWHM GE Advance (max. ~1240 kcps/(µCi/cc))

  16. Scatter • Important source of image noise; • Typically rejected by energy discrimination. Scatter Fraction in Full Acceptance Mode Axial Field of View (cm) Human Full Body RPC TOF–PET Scatter Fraction: Simulation Results RPC Energy Sensitivity Efficiency Incident Photon Energy (keV) Moderate excess of scatter over most standard PET systems

  17. Conclusions • Full-body AFOV sensitivity • ~20 fold sensitivity gains for 240 cm AFOV RPC TOF-PET may be attainable • Scatter is partially rejected by detector energy sensitivity • RPC application to PET seems possible in • Full-body human PET, offering larger throughput - hopefully without extra cost • Comprehensive study of a full system in progress • A first detector has been assembled and Luís Lopes in his talk will show the detector details, and present some preliminary results obtained with it

More Related