English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Many laboratories develop depth-encoding detectors to improve the trade-off between spatial resolution and sensitivity in positron emission tomography (PET) scanners. One challenge in implementing these detectors is the need to calibrate the depth of interaction (DOI) response for the large numbers of detector elements in a scanner. In this work, we evaluate two different methods, a linear detector calibration and a linear crystal calibration, for determining DOI calibration parameters. Both methods can use measurements from any source distribution and location, or even the intrinsic lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO) background activity, and are therefore well suited for use in a depth-encoding PET scanner. The methods were evaluated by measuring detector and crystal DOI responses for all eight detectors in a prototype depth-encoding PET scanner. The detectors utilize dual-ended readout of LSO scintillator arrays with position-sensitive avalanche photodiodes (PSAPDs). The LSO arrays have 7 x 7 elements, with a crystal size of 0.92 x 0.92 x 20 mm(3) and pitch of 1.0 mm. The arrays are read out by two 8 x 8 mm(2) area PSAPDs placed at opposite ends of the arrays. DOI is measured by the ratio of the amplitude of the total energy signals measured by the two PSAPDs. Small variations were observed in the DOI responses of different crystals within an array as well as DOI responses for different arrays. A slightly nonlinear dependence of the DOI ratio on depth was observed and the nonlinearity was larger for the corner and edge crystals. The DOI calibration parameters were obtained from the DOI responses measured in a singles mode. The average error between the calibrated DOI and the known DOI was 0.8 mm if a linear detector DOI calibration was used and 0.5 mm if a linear crystal DOI calibration was used. A line source phantom and a hot rod phantom were scanned on the prototype PET scanner. DOI measurement significantly improved the image spatial resolution no matter which DOI calibration method was used. A linear crystal DOI calibration provided slightly better image spatial resolution compared with a linear detector DOI calibration.

Depth of interaction calibration for PET detectors with dual-ended readout by PSAPDs