Journal of the Korean Physical Society

Korean Physical Society (한국물리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of a Newly-designed Stack-up Collimator with Conventional Parallel-hole Collimators in Pre-clinical CZT Gamma Camera Systems: A Monte Carlo Simulation Study

  • Lee, Young-Jin (Department of Radiological Science, College of Health Science, Yonsei University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Joung (Department of Radiological Science, College of Health Science, Yonsei University)
  • Received : 2014.05.19
  • Accepted : 2014.07.29
  • Published : 2014.10.15
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recently, many studies have been conducted with pixelated semiconductor detectors that use cadmium zinc telluride (CZT) because these detectors have many advantages in pre-clinical gamma imaging. Collimators play an extremely important role in the imaging performance of pixelated semiconductor gamma cameras. In our previous study, based on the pixelated semiconductor gamma camera system we recommended the use of a pixelated parallel-hole collimator with equal hole and pixel sizes; this approach improved both the sensitivity and the spatial resolution. However, the pixelated parallel-hole collimator had two major limitations: (a) Although its sensitivity was higher than that of pinhole systems, the pixelated parallel-hole collimator may have still resulted in a partial loss of sensitivity due to its small collimator hole size. (b) The pixelated parallel-hole collimator with an adequate septal height was difficult to manufacture due to its small holes. Here, we present a new design for a parallel-hole collimator, which uses the stack-up method and a CZT pixelated semiconductor gamma camera system. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of various geometric designs of our newly-designed parallel-hole collimator with those of conventional parallel-hole collimators [low-energy high-resolution (LEHR) and low-energy high-sensitivity (LEHS)]. The detector was modeled as an eValuator-2500 (eV Microelectronics Inc., Saxonburg, PA, USA) (3-mm thick, 0.5-mm pixel size) by using a Geant4 Application for Tomographic Emission (GATE) simulation. The proposed parallel-hole collimator consisted of two overlapping parallel-hole collimators. The size of each hole in the proposed parallel-hole collimator was four times that of the hole in the pixelated parallel-hole collimator. The overlap ratios of these collimators were 1 : 1, 1 : 2, 2 : 1, 1 : 5, and 5 : 1. To evaluate and compare the performances of these systems, we evaluated the sensitivity and the spatial resolution of each system. The average sensitivities of the proposed parallel-hole collimators with overlap ratios of 1 : 1, 1 : 2 or 2 : 1, and 1 : 5 or 5 : 1 and of the LEHS conventional parallel-hole collimator were 2.17, 3.45, 13.90, and 3.68 times higher than the average sensitivities of the LEHR conventional parallel-hole collimator, respectively. The average spatial resolution also varied depending on the distance from the collimator. In conclusion, we successfully designed a novel parallel-hole collimator for pre-clinical imaging; this novel collimator employs the stack-up method with a CZT pixelated semiconductor gamma camera.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)

References

  1. R. J. Hicks, E. W. F. Lau and D. S. Binns, Biomed. Imaging Interv. J., doi: 10.2349/biij.3.3.e49 (2007).
  2. M. T. Madsen, J. Nucl. Med. 48, 661 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.106.032680
  3. D. W. Townsend, Phys. Med. Biol. 53, R1 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/4/R01
  4. M. M. Khalil, J. L. Tremoleda, T. B. Bayomy and W. Gsell, Internat. J. Mol. Imaging, doi:10.1155/2011/796025 (2011).
  5. H. O. Anger, J. Nucl. Med. 5, 515 (1964).
  6. R. Y. Zhu, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 413, 297 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(98)00498-7
  7. H. M. Cho, H. J. Kim, Y. N. Choi, S. W. Lee, H. J. Ryu and Y. J. Lee, Phys. Med. Biol. 58, 4865 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/14/4865
  8. Y. J. Lee, H. J. Ryu, H. M. Cho, S. W. Lee, Y. N. Choi and H. J. Kim, J. Intrum. 8, C01044 (2013).
  9. S. Yamamoto, H. Watabe, Y. Kanai, E. Shimosegawa and J. Hatazawa, Med. Phys. 39, 581 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3673774
  10. Y. Takahashi, M. Miyagawa, Y. Nishiyama, H. Ishimura and T. Mochizuki, Ann. Nucl. Med., doi:10.1007/s12149-012-0653-9 (2012).
  11. J. S. Iwanczyk, E. Nygard, O. Meirav, J. Arenson, W. C. Barber, N. E. Hartsough, N. Malakhov and J. C. Wessel, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 56, 535 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2009.2013709
  12. D. Bollini et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 515, 458 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.020
  13. T. Takahashi and S. Watanabe, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 48, 950 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1109/23.958705
  14. C. Scheiber and G. C. Giakos, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 458, 12 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(00)01032-9
  15. Y. Eisen, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 380, 431 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(96)00319-1
  16. S. C. Moore, K. Kouris and I. Cullum, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 19, 138 (1992).
  17. S. Jan et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 56, 881 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/56/4/001
  18. M. J. Park, K. S. Park, J. S. Lee, Y. K. Kim and D. S. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 55, 681 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.55.681
  19. K. Assie, I. Gardin, P. Vera and I. Buvat, Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 3113 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/50/13/010
  20. D. Lazaro et al., Phys. Med. Biol. 49, 271 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/2/007
  21. M. Singh and C. Horne, J. Nucl. Med. 28, 1853 (1987).
  22. E. Sakai, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 196, 121 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-554X(82)90626-7
  23. J. Xu, S. Miyazaki and M. Hirose, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 208, 277 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3093(96)00513-3
  24. S. D. Sordo, L. Abbene, E. Caroli, A. M. Mancini, A. Zappettini and P. Ubertini, Sensors 9, 3491 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3390/s90503491
  25. Y. J. Lee, H. J. Ryu, S. W. Lee, S. J. Park and H. J. Kim, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 713, 33 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2013.03.014
  26. H. Wieczorek and A. Goedicke, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53, 1102 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.874954
  27. R. K. Tyson and S. R. Amtey, Med. Phys. 5, 480 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.594457
  28. Y. J. Lee, S. J. Park, S. W. Lee, D. H. Kim, Y. S. Kim and H. J. Kim, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 62, 1317 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3938/jkps.62.1317

Cited by

  1. A Numerical Study of Different Types of Collimators for a High-Resolution Preclinical CdTe Pixelated Semiconductor SPECT System vol.20, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3807/josk.2016.20.6.663
  2. Conceptual design of a large pixelated CZT detector with four-hole collimator matched pixel detector for SPECT imaging: a Monte Carlo simulation study vol.14, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/14/02/p02026
  3. Evaluation of a variable‐aperture full‐ring SPECT system using large‐area pixelated CZT modules: A simulation study for brain SPECT applications vol.48, pp.5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14836