Development and performance of SIAT bPET: a high-resolution and high-sensitivity MR-compatible brain PET scanner using dual-ended readout detectors.

PURPOSE: Positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI) is a powerful tool for brain imaging, but the spatial resolution of the PET scanners currently used for brain imaging can be further improved to enhance the quantitative accuracy of brain PET imaging. The purpose of this study is to develop an MR-compatible brain PET scanner that can simultaneously achieve a uniform high spatial resolution and high sensitivity by using dual-ended readout depth encoding detectors. METHODS: The MR-compatible brain PET scanner, named SIAT bPET, consists of 224 dual-ended readout detectors. Each detector contains a 26 × 26 lutetium yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO) crystal array of 1.4 × 1.4 × 20 mm3 crystal size read out by two 10 × 10 silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) arrays from both ends. The scanner has a detector ring diameter of 376.8 mm and an axial field of view (FOV) of 329 mm. The performance of the scanner including spatial resolution, sensitivity, count rate, scatter fraction, and image quality was measured. Imaging studies of phantoms and the brain of a volunteer were performed. The mutual interferences of the PET insert and the uMR790 3 T MRI scanner were measured, and simultaneous PET/MRI imaging of the brain of a volunteer was performed. RESULTS: A spatial resolution of better than 1.5 mm with an average of 1.2 mm within the whole FOV was obtained. A sensitivity of 11.0% was achieved at the center FOV for an energy window of 350-750 keV. Except for the dedicated RF coil, which caused a ~ 30% reduction of the sensitivity of the PET scanner, the MRI sequences running had a negligible effect on the performance of the PET scanner. The reduction of the SNR and homogeneity of the MRI images was less than 2% as the PET scanner was inserted to the MRI scanner and powered-on. High quality PET and MRI images of a human brain were obtained from simultaneous PET/MRI scans. CONCLUSION: The SIAT bPET scanner achieved a spatial resolution and sensitivity better than all MR-compatible brain PET scanners developed up to date. It can be used either as a standalone brain PET scanner or a PET insert placed inside a commercial whole-body MRI scanner to perform simultaneous PET/MRI imaging.

Mutual interferences between SIAT aPET insert and a 3 T uMR 790 MRI scanner.

Objective.Dual-modality small animal PET/MR imaging provides temporally correlated information on two biochemical processes of a living object. An magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-compatible small animal PET insert named Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology (SIAT) aPET was developed by using dual-ended readout depth encoding detectors to simultaneously achieve a uniform high spatial resolution and high sensitivity at the SIAT. In this work, the mutual interferences between SIAT aPET and the 3 T uMR 790 MRI scanner of United Imaging was quantitatively evaluated.Approach.To minimize the mutual interferences, only the PET detectors and the readout electronics were placed inside the MRI scanner, the major signal processing electronic was placed in the corner of the MRI room and the auxiliary unit was placed in the MRI technical room. A dedicated mouse radio fRequency (RF) coil with a transmitter and receiver was developed for the PET insert. The effects of PET scanner on theB0andB1field of the MRI scanner and the quality of the MRI images were measured. The effects of MRI imaging on the performance of both the PET detectors and scanner were also measured.Main results.The electronic and mechanical components of the PET insert affected the homogeneity of theB0field. The PET insert had no effect on the homogeneity ofB1produced by the dedicated mouse coil but slightly reduced the strength ofB1. The mean and standard deviation of the RF noise map were increased by 2.2% and 11.6%, respectively, while the PET insert was placed in the MRI scanner and powered on. Eddy current was produced while the PET insert was placed in the MRI scanner, and it was further increased while the PET insert was powered on. Despite the above-mentioned interferences from the PET insert, the MR images of a uniform cylindrical water phantom showed that the changes in the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and homogeneity as the PET insert was placed in the MRI scanner were acceptable regardless of whether the PET insert was powered off or powered on. The maximum reduction of SNR was less than 11%, and the maximum reduction of homogeneity was less than 2.5% while the PET insert was placed inside the MRI scanner and powered on for five commonly used MRI sequences. MRI using gradient echo (GRE), spin echo (SE) and fast spin echo (FSE) sequences had negligible effects on the flood histograms and energy resolution of the PET detectors, as well as the spatial resolution and sensitivity of the PET scanner.Significance.The mutual interference between the SIAT aPET and the 3 T uMR 790 MRI scanner are acceptable. Simultaneous PET/MRI imaging of small animals can be performed with the two scanners.

Technical note: Comparison of arithmetic mean and energy-weighted mean flood histogram generation methods for dual-ended readout positron emission tomography detectors.

PURPOSE: Dual-ended readout pixelated scintillator array detectors can provide a suitable crystal resolvability and satisfactory depth of interaction (DOI), energy, and timing resolutions. Usually, the flood histogram measured by one-sided readout is depth dependent, and the flood histogram quality degrades as the distance between the interaction site and photodetector increases. Information measured by two photodetectors must be combined to obtain an improved flood histogram yielding a better PET scanner spatial resolution. METHODS: Two flood histogram generation algorithms for dual-ended readout of pixelated scintillator array detectors were compared by theoretical calculations and experimental measurements. The first algorithm is the arithmetic mean (AM) algorithm, which assigns the same weight to the flood histograms measured by photodetectors 1 and 2. The second algorithm is the energy-weighted mean (EWM) algorithm, which assigns each flood histogram a certain weight proportional to the energy measured by the photodetector. Theoretical equations were derived to determine the quality of the flood histograms obtained with these two algorithms. Experimental measurements were performed with an 18 × 18 lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO) array with a crystal size of 0.62 × 0.62 × 20 mm3 read out by two multi-anode photomultiplier tubes at both ends. Flood histograms of the whole array and five specific depths were compared between the above two algorithms. RESULTS: The theoretical results indicated that the flood histograms obtained with the EWM method matched those obtained with the AM method at the middle detector depth and were better at other detector depths when the distance (S) between the locations of the same crystal in the flood histograms measured by photodetectors 1 and 2 reached 0. The advantage of the EWM method decreased with increasing S value since the crystal position in the flood histogram obtained with the EWM method varies with the depth when S does not equal 0. The advantage of the EWM method decreased with increasing S value. The experimental results generally agreed with the theoretical predictions. Compared to the AM method, the EWM method provided a similar flood histogram at a depth of 10 mm but generated a better flood histogram at depths of 2 and 18 mm. Although an inverse correlation between Q (a quality factor representing the advantage of the EWM method) and S was observed, the variation in Q given the same S value was high. The average Q value at the same S still agreed with the theoretical predictions. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretical equations were derived, and experimental measurements were performed to compare two flood histogram generation algorithms for dual-ended readout PET detectors. The results indicated that the EWM method based on inverse variance weighting theory could provide better flood histograms than those provided by the AM method.

High resolution detectors for whole-body PET scanners by using dual-ended readout.

BACKGROUND: Most current whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) scanners use detectors with high timing resolution to measure the time-of-flight of two 511 keV photons, improving the signal-to-noise ratio of PET images. However, almost all current whole-body PET scanners use detectors without depth-encoding capability; therefore, their spatial resolution can be affected by the parallax effect. METHODS: In this work, four depth-encoding detectors consisting of LYSO arrays with crystals of 2.98 × 2.98 × 20 mm3, 2.98 × 2.98 × 30 mm3, 1.95 × 1.95 × 20 mm3, and 1.95 × 1.95 × 30 mm3, respectively, were read at both ends, with 6 × 6 mm2 silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) pixels in a 4 × 4 array being used. The timing signals of the detectors were processed individually using an ultrafast NINO application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to obtain good timing resolution. The 16 energy signals of the SiPM array were read using a row and column summing circuit to obtain four position-encoding energy signals. RESULTS: The four PET detectors provided good flood histograms in which all crystals could be clearly resolved, the crystal energy resolutions measured being 10.2, 12.1, 11.4 and 11.7% full width at half maximum (FWHM), at an average crystal depth of interaction (DOI) resolution of 3.5, 3.9, 2.7, and 3.0 mm, respectively. The depth dependence of the timing of each SiPM was measured and corrected, the timing of the two SiPMs being used as the timing of the dual-ended readout detector. The four detectors provided coincidence time resolutions of 180, 214, 239, and 263 ps, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The timing resolution of the dual-ended readout PET detector was approximately 20% better than that of the single-ended readout detector using the same LYSO array, SiPM array, and readout electronics. The detectors developed in this work used long crystals with small cross-sections and provided good flood histograms, DOI, energy, and timing resolutions, suggesting that they could be used to develop whole-body PET scanners with high sensitivity, uniform high spatial resolution, and high timing resolution.

Ultra-high-resolution depth-encoding small animal PET detectors: Using GAGG and LYSO crystal arrays.

PURPOSE: Small animal positron emission tomography (PET) scanners are widely used in current biomedical research. The study aimed to develop high-efficiency and ultra-high-resolution detectors that could be used to develop a small animal PET scanner with high sensitivity and spatial resolution approaching to its physical limit. METHODS: Four crystal arrays were fabricated and measured in this study. Crystal arrays 1 and 2 consisted of 38 × 38 gadolinium aluminum gallium garnet (GAGG) and lutetium-yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO) crystals of 0.4 × 0.4 × 20 mm3 size. Crystal array 3 consisted of 16 × 16 GAGG crystals of 0.3 × 0.3 × 20 mm3 size, and crystal array 4 consisted of 24 × 24 LYSO crystals 0.3 × 0.3 × 20 mm3 in size. The crystal arrays were dual-ended readouts using 8 × 8 silicon photomultiplier (SiPM) arrays of 2 × 2 mm2 pixel area. The SiPM array was readout using a signal multiplexing circuit to convert the 64 output signals into four position-encoding signals. The performances of the four detectors in terms of flood histogram, energy resolution, depth of interaction (DOI) resolution, and timing resolution were measured. RESULTS: The GAGG detectors provided better flood histograms, ∼30% higher photopeak amplitude, ∼20% higher energy resolution, ∼12% worse DOI resolution, and ∼15% worse timing resolution compared with LYSO detectors of the same crystal size. These four detectors provided DOI resolutions of <2 mm, energy resolutions of <22%, and timing resolutions of <1.6 ns. All crystals of 0.4 × 0.4 × 20 mm3 and 0.3 × 0.3 × 20 mm3 could be clearly resolved if the crystal array was 1 mm smaller in the four sides than that in the SiPM array. CONCLUSIONS: High DOI resolution PET detectors were developed using both GAGG and LYSO arrays with crystal sizes of 0.3 and 0.4 mm, respectively, and a length of 20 mm. The detectors can be used in the future to develop small animal PET scanners, especially dedicated mouse imaging PET scanners, which can simultaneously achieve high sensitivity and ultra-high spatial resolution.

Physical and imaging performance of SIAT aPET under different energy windows and timing windows.

PURPOSE: The performance of small animal PET scanners depends on the energy window (EW) and timing window (TW). In National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Standards Publication NU 4-2008, detailed procedures of the performance measurements are defined, but the EW and TW are not specified. In this work, the effects of EW and TW on the physical and imaging performance of Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology small animal PET (SIAT aPET) will be evaluated. METHODS: First, the flood histogram, energy resolution, and timing resolution were measured for a detector of SIAT aPET. Second, the spatial resolutions were measured with different EWs. Third, the sensitivities, the scatter fractions (SFs), and noise equivalent count rates (NECRs) of a mouse-sized phantom and a rat-sized phantom, the recovery coefficients (RCs) of rods of different sizes, and the percentage standard deviation (%STD) of the NEMA image quality phantom were measured for different EWs and TWs. Last, images of a hot rod phantom, a mouse heart, and a rat brain were acquired from the scanner with different EWs. RESULTS: The SIAT aPET detectors provided good flood histograms such that all but the corner crystals can be resolved even with lower energies of 250-350 keV, an average energy resolution of 21.1 ± 1.9%, and an average timing resolution of 2.63 ± 0.69 ns. The average spatial resolutions obtained with EWs of 250-350 keV and 450-550 keV are 0.68 mm and 0.75 mm. For EWs of 250-750 keV, 350-750 keV, and 450-750 keV with a fixed TW of 12 ns, the sensitivities at the center of field of view (FOV) are 16.0%, 11.9%, and 8.2%, the peak NECRs of a mouse-sized phantom are 355.6 kcps, 324.4 kcps, and 249.4 kcps, and the peak NECRs of a rat-sized phantom are 148.5 kcps, 144.3 kcps, and 117.7 kcps, respectively. For the TWs of 4 ns, 8 ns,12 ns, and 20 ns with a fixed EW of 350-750 keV, the sensitivities at the center of FOV are 9.6%, 11.4%, 11.9%, and 12.2%, the peak NECRs of a mouse-sized phantom are 260.1 kcps, 311.5 kcps, 324.4 kcps and 324.9 kcps, and the peak NECRs of a rat-sized phantom are 110.5 kcps, 137.3 kcps, 144.3 kcps, and 142.6 kcps, respectively. Narrowing the EW and TW improves the RCs of rods of all sizes, and the %STD of images obtained with different EWs and TWs are similar. Rods with diameter down to 0.8 mm can be visually resolved from images of the hot rod phantom obtained with different EWs. Images of mouse heart with high spatial resolution and rat brain with detail brain structure were obtained with different EWs. Images of both phantom and in vivo animals obtained with different EWs only showed subtle difference. CONCLUSION: The performance of SIAT aPET under different EWs and TWs was compared. The EW and TW affect the sensitivity, SF, and NECR but not the spatial resolution and animal images of SIAT aPET, which imply that careful optimization of the EW and TW is not required.