Advertisement

A Monte Carlo evaluation of three Compton camera absorbers

  • C. Z. Uche
  • W. H. RoundEmail author
  • M. J. Cree
Scientific Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Compton camera Absorber GEANT4 Detector parameters Gamma rays 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) for the award of travel grant in support of this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Singh M (1983) An electronically collimated gamma camera for single photon emission computed tomography. Part I: theoretical considerations and design criteria. Med Phys 10:421–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chelikani S, Gore J, Zubal G (2004) Optimizing Compton camera geometries. Phys Med Biol 49:1387–1408Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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
  5. 5.
    Meier D et al (2002) Silicon detector for a Compton camera in nuclear medical imaging. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 49:812–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nurdan TC, Nurdan K, Walenta AH, Besch HJ, Fiorini C, Freisleben B, Pavel NA (2004) Silicon drift detector readout electronics for a Compton camera. Nucl Instrum Methods A 523:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Studen A et al (2003) Development of silicon pad detectors and readout electronics for a Compton camera. Nucl Instrum Methods A 501:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seo H, Lee SH, Kim CH, An SH, Lee JH, Lee CS (2008) Optimal geometrical configuration of a double-scattering Compton camera for maximum imaging resolution and sensitivity. Nucl Instrum Methods A 591:80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    An SH, Seo H, Lee JH, Lee CS, Lee JS, Kim CH (2007) Effect of detector parameters on the image quality of Compton camera for 99mTc. Nucl Instrum Methods A 571:251–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang L, Rogers WL, Clinthorne NH (2004) Potential of a Compton camera for high performance Scintimammography. Phys Med Biol 49:617–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirasawa M, Tomitani T (2003) An analytical image reconstruction algorithm to compensate for scattering angle broadening in Compton cameras. Phys Med Biol 48:1009–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Du YF, He Z, Knoll GF, Wehe DK, Li W (2001) Evaluation of a Compton scattering camera using 3-D position sensitive CdZnTe detectors. Nucl Instrum Methods A 457:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen H, Awadalla SA, Mackenzie J, Redden R, Bindley G, Bolotnikov EAE, Camarda GS, Carini G, James RB (2007) Characterization of Travelling Heater Method (THM) grown Cd0.9Zn0.1Te crystals. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 54:811–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen H, Awadalla SA, Iniewski K, Lu PH, Harris F, Mackenzie J, Hasanen T, Chen W, Redden R, Bindley G (2008) Characterization of large cadmium zinc telluride crystals grown by traveling heater method. J Appl Phys 103:014903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Awadalla SA, Chen H, Mackenzie J, Lu P, Iniewski K, Marthandam P, Redden R, Bindley G, He Z, Zhang F (2009) Thickness scalability of large volume cadmium zinc telluride high resolution radiation detectors. J Appl Phys 105:114910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Stickel JR, Cherry SR (2005) High-resolution PET detector design: modelling components of intrinsic spatial resolution. Phys Med Biol 50:179–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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
  21. 21.
    Kim SM, Lee JS, Lee MN, Lee JH, Lee CS, Kim C-H, Lee DS, Lee S-J (2007) Two approaches to implementing projector–backprojector pairs for 3D reconstruction from Compton scattered data. Nucl Instrum Methods A 571:255–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilderman SJ, Rogers WL, Knoll GF, Engdahl JC (1998) Fast algorithm for list mode back-projection of Compton scatter camera data. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 45:957–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EngineeringUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations