4.5 Article

Resolution uniformity and sensitivity of the NIH ATLAS small animal PET scanner: Comparison to simulated LSO scanners without depth-of-interaction capability

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE
Volume 50, Issue 5, Pages 1347-1350

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNS.2003.817282

Keywords

depth-of-interaction; phoswich detectors; positron emission tomography (PET); small animal PET

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Positron emission tomography (PET) scanners designed to image animals the size of rats and mice should possess simultaneously high and uniform spatial resolution and high sensitivity. ATLAS (Advanced Technology Laboratory Animal Scanner), a 6.0 cm diameter effective transverse field-of-view (FOV), 2 cm axial FOV ring-type research scanner seeks these goals by surrounding the animal with eighteen 15 mm deep, LGSO (7 mm)/GSO (8 mm) phoswich detector modules. A Monte Carlo simulation was used to compare the variation of resolution across the FOV and the absolute central point source sensitivity (ACS) of ATLAS to similar systems comprised only of LSO arrays of different depths with no depth-of-interaction (DOI) capability. For ATLAS radial spatial resolution deteriorated by 27% from the center to 3 cm off-axis. Scanners comprised of 15 mm deep, 10 mm deep and 7 mm deep LSO crystals deteriorated by 100%, 51%, and 20%, respectively, over the same distance. Simulated ACS (absorbed energies greater than or equal to250 keV) for ATLAS was 2.0% and for the 15 nun, 10 mm deep and 7 mm deep LSO scanners 2.4%, 1.5%, and 0.9%, respectively. Radial resolution loss 3 cm off-axis and ACS measured for the actual ATLAS scanner were similar to the values obtained by simulation (27% resolution loss, 1.8% ACS). The phoswich design thus achieves good resolution uniformity over a 6 cm FOV while preserving sensitivity compared to equivalent non-DOI LSO scanners with a range of crystal depths.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available