Reducing Calibration Time in PET Systems Based on Monolithic Crystals
In the past years, the gamma-ray detector designs based on the monolithic crystals have demonstrated to be excellent candidates for the design of high-performance PET systems. The monolithic crystals allow to achieve the intrinsic detector resolutions well below state-of-the-art; to increase packing...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d448a1ed2e624d31b135155feba5335d |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | In the past years, the gamma-ray detector designs based on the monolithic crystals have demonstrated to be excellent candidates for the design of high-performance PET systems. The monolithic crystals allow to achieve the intrinsic detector resolutions well below state-of-the-art; to increase packing fraction thus, increasing the system sensitivity; and to improve lesion detectability at the edges of the scanner field of view (FOV) because of their intrinsic depth of interaction (DOI) capabilities. The bottleneck to translate to the clinical PET systems based on a large number of monolithic detectors is eventually the requirement of mechanically complex and time-consuming calibration processes. To mitigate this drawback, several methods have been already proposed, such as using non-physically collimated radioactive sources or implementing the neuronal networks (NN) algorithms trained with simulated data. In this work, we aimed to simplify and fasten a calibration process of the monolithic based systems. The Normal procedure consists of individually acquiring a 11 × 11 22Na source array for all the detectors composing the PET system and obtaining the calibration map for each module using a method based on the Voronoi diagrams. Two reducing time methodologies are presented: (i) TEST1, where the calibration map of one detector is estimated and shared among all others, and (ii) TEST2, where the calibration map is slightly modified for each module as a function of their detector uniformity map. The experimental data from a dedicated prostate PET system was used to compare the standard calibration procedure with both the proposed methods. A greater similarity was exhibited between the TEST2 methodology and the Normal procedure; obtaining spatial resolution variances within 0.1 mm error bars and count rate deviations as small as 0.2%. Moreover, the negligible reconstructed image differences (13% deviation at most in the contrast-to-noise ratio) and almost identical contrast values were reported. Therefore, this proposed method allows us to calibrate the PET systems based on the monolithic crystals reducing the calibration time by approximately 80% compared with the Normal procedure. |
|---|