Angular Irradiation Methods for DOI Calibration of Light-Sharing Detectors—A Perspective for PET In-System Calibration

IEEE Transactions on Radiation and Plasma Medical Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 673–683

Abstract

Typical positron emission tomography (PET) detectors consist of one-layer segmented scintillators coupled to silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs). Light-sharing detectors, e.g., semi-monoliths, additionally provide depth-of-interaction (DOI) estimation, performing best when calibrated individually. To establish those designs in large PET systems, scalable (re-)calibration methods are needed, possibly transferable to assembled systems. Here, two DOI calibration methods, potentially allowing in-system calibration, are evaluated and compared with an established calibration scheme. Both methods are based on angular detector irradiation using a fan-beam slit collimator and gradient tree boosting (GTB) for 3-Dimensional (3D) position estimation. The positioning performance was assessed for irradiation angles between 0∘ (lateral) and 90∘ (detector normal). With lateral irradiation, a unique DOI position is given, whereas with angular irradiation a gamma-individual reference position must be retrieved. The first method employs one angular beam and calculates DOI from the beam path and planar position estimation. The second method uses two intersecting beams. The intersection defines DOI for gamma interactions that are spatially localized there. Those gamma photons are identified by light distribution comparison using a nearest-neighbor routine. The methods were evaluated on a semimonolithic LYSO slab detector (32×3.9×19 mm slabs). Both methods performed similarly to the benchmark lateral irradiation within 1 %, and 6 %, respectively, for shallow irradiation angles up to 45∘.

Authors 5

1. Yannick Kuhl Aachen Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

2. Stephan Naunheim Aachen Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

3. David Schug Aachen Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Hyperion Hybrid Imaging Systems GmbH, Aachen, Germany

4. Volkmar Schulz Aachen Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems Institute for Experimental Molecular ImagingPhysics Institute III B Physics Institute III B

   Fraunhofer Institute for Digital Medicine · RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, Institute for Experimental Molecular ImagingPhysics Institute III B, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

   Fraunhofer MEVIS, Institute for Digital Medicine, Bremen, Germany

   Hyperion Hybrid Imaging Systems GmbH, Aachen, Germany

   Physics Institute III B, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

5. Florian Mueller Aachen Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging

   RWTH Aachen University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Physics of Molecular Imaging Systems, Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany