A Monte Carlo evaluation of three Compton camera absorbers
- 138 Downloads
We present a quantitative study on the performance of cadmium zinc telluride (CZT), thallium-doped sodium iodide (NaI(Tl)) and germanium (Ge) detectors as potential Compton camera absorbers. The GEANT4 toolkit was used to model the performance of these materials over the nuclear medicine energy range. CZT and Ge demonstrate the highest and lowest efficiencies respectively. Although the best spatial resolution was attained for Ge, its lowest ratio of single photoelectric to multiple interactions suggests that it is most prone to inter-pixel cross-talk. In contrast, CZT, which demonstrates the least positioning error due to multiple interactions, has a comparable spatial resolution with Ge. Therefore, we modelled a Compton camera system based on silicon (Si) and CZT as the scatterer and absorber respectively. The effects of the detector parameters of our proposed system on image resolution were evaluated and our results show good agreement with previous studies. Interestingly, spatial resolution which accounted for the least image degradation at 140.5 keV became the dominant degrading factor at 511 keV, indicating that the absorber parameters play some key roles at higher energies. The results of this study have validated the predictions by An et al. which state that the use of a higher energy gamma source together with reduction of the absorber segmentation to sub-millimetre could achieve the image resolution of 5 mm required in medical imaging.
KeywordsCompton camera Absorber GEANT4 Detector parameters Gamma rays
The authors thank Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) for the award of travel grant in support of this work.
- 2.Chelikani S, Gore J, Zubal G (2004) Optimizing Compton camera geometries. Phys Med Biol 49:1387–1408Google Scholar
- 3.Ordonez CE, Bolozdynya A, Chang W (1997) Doppler broadening of energy spectra in Compton cameras. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp 2:1361–1365Google Scholar
- 4.Ordonez CE, Chang W, Bolozdynya A (1998) Angular uncertainties due to geometry and spatial resolution in Compton cameras. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp 3:1535–1540Google Scholar
- 12.Wilderman SJ, Fessler JA, Clinthorne NH, LeBlanc JW, Rogers WL (1999) Improved modeling of system response in list mode EM reconstruction of Compton scatter camera images. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf (2):1052–1056Google Scholar
- 17.Berger MJ, Hubbell J, Seltzer SM, Chang J, Coursey JS, Sukumar R, Zucker DS (2010) XCOM: photon cross section database. http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Xcom/html/xcom1.html. Accessed Dec 2010
- 19.Majewski S, Raylman R, Kross B, Popov V, Weisenberger AG, Welch B, Wojcik R (2003) Evaluation of a double layer 2 × 2 cm thick pixellated NaI(Tl) array for application in positron imager. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf 3:2153–2155Google Scholar
- 20.Ghogali W, Speller RD, Royle GJ, Gabathuse J, Sellin PJ, Lazarus IH, Appelbe DE (2004) Detector characteristics of a pixellated germanium Compton camera for nuclear medicine. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf 4:2216–2220Google Scholar