Advertisement

Evaluation of light collection in digital indirect detection x-ray imagers: Monte Carlo simulations with a more realistic phosphor screen model

  • Nicholas Petrick
  • Tae-Ho Woo
  • Heang-Ping Chan
  • Berkman Sahiner
  • Lubomir M. Hadjiiski
Conference paper

Abstract

We are performing simulation studies to investigate whether a microlens layer sandwiched between a phosphor screen and a photodetector will improve light collection in indirect-detection x-ray imagers. In this study, we examined the light collection efficiency after incorporating the spatial and angular spread of photons due to the phosphor screen in the model. Monte Carlo simulations of a uniform, planar x-ray source were conducted and the light collection efficiencies of two imager configurations were compared. Imager 1 had the screen in direct contact with the photodetector while Imager 2 had a microlens array sandwiched between the screen and the photodetector. A total of 72% of the scintillation light (31% in the “central” pixel directly below the x-ray interaction point and 41% in the 8 nearest neighbor pixels) was collected by the photodetector for Imager 2 compared with only 56% (28% in the central pixel and 28% by the nearest neighbor pixels) for Imager 1.

Keywords

Modulation Transfer Function Central Pixel Indirect Detection Microlens Array Light Collection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jee, K.-W., Antonuk, L.E., El-Mohri, Y., Maolinbay, M. and Zhao, Q.;Evaluation of direct-detection and indirect-detection active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for digital mammography. Proc. SPIE Med. Img. 4320 (2001) 13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antonuk, L.E., El-Mohri, Y., Hall, A., Jee, K.W., Maolinbay, M., Nassif, S.C., Rong, X., Siewerdsen, J.H. and Zhao, Q.:A Large Area, 97 µm Pitch, Indirect-Detection Active Matrix, Flat-Panel Imager (AMFPI). Proc. SPIE Med. Img. 3336 (1998) 2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capp, M.P.:Radiological Imaging — 2000 A.D. Radiol. 138 (1981) 541–555Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antonuk, L.E., El-Mohri, Y., Huang, W., Jee, K.W., Maolinbay, M. and Street, R.A.:Development of a high resolution, active matrix, flat-panel imager with enhanced fill factor. Proc. SPIE Med. Img. 3032 (1997) 3–13Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vedantham, S., Karellas, A., Suryanarayanan, S., Albagli, D., Han, S., Tkacyk, E.J., Landberg, C.E., Opsahl-Ong, B., Granfors, P.R., Levis, I., D’Orsi, C.J. and Hendrick, R.E.:Full bresat digital mammography with an amorphous slicon-based flat-panel detector: Physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. Med. Phys. 27 (2000) 558–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mulato, M., Lemmi, F., Lau, R., Lu, J.P., Ho, J., Ready, S.E., Rahn, J.T. and Street, R.A.:Charge collection and capacitance in continuous film flat panel detectors. Proc. SPIE Med. Img. 3977 (2000) 26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petrick, N., Woo, T.-H., Chan, H.-P. and Sahiner, B.:Microlens focusing for enhanced light collection in digital x-ray detectors. Radiol. 221 (P) (2001) 691Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petrick, N., Chan, H., Goodsitt, M., Sahiner, B. and Hadjiiski, L.:Digital mammographie imaging using microlens focusing: Estimation of light collection and x-ray utilization. Proc. SPIE Med. Img. 3659 (1999) 276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petrick, N., Chan, H.P., Goodsitt, M.M., Sahiner, B. and Hadjiiski, L.M.:A Technique to Improve the Effective Fill Factor of Digital Mammographie Imagers. Proc. SPIE Med. Img. 3336(1998)210–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Petrick
    • 1
  • Tae-Ho Woo
    • 2
  • Heang-Ping Chan
    • 3
  • Berkman Sahiner
    • 3
  • Lubomir M. Hadjiiski
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Devices and Radiological HealthU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear EngineeringThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations