H2RSPET: a 0.5 mm resolution high-sensitivity small-animal PET scanner, a simulation study. (8th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lai, Youfang; Wang, Qian; Zhou, Shiwei; Xie, Zhaoheng; Qi, Jinyi; Cherry, Simon R; Jin, Mingwu; Chi, Yujie; Du, Junwei
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 66:Number 6(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-03-08
• Subjects: PET -- total-body -- high-resolution -- high-sensitivity; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/abe558
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: With the goal of developing a total-body small-animal PET system with a high spatial resolution of ∼0.5 mm and a high sensitivity >10% for mouse/rat studies, we simulated four scanners using the graphical processing unit-based Monte Carlo simulation package (gPET) and compared their performance in terms of spatial resolution and sensitivity. We also investigated the effect of depth-of-interaction (DOI) resolution on the spatial resolution. All the scanners are built upon 128 DOI encoding dual-ended readout detectors with lutetium yttrium oxyorthosilicate (LYSO) arrays arranged in 8 detector rings. The solid angle coverages of the four scanners are all ∼0.85 steradians. Each LYSO element has a cross-section of 0.44 × 0.44 mm 2 and the pitch size of the LYSO arrays are all 0.5 mm. The four scanners can be divided into two groups: (1) H 2 RS110-C10 and H 2 RS110-C20 with 40 × 40 LYSO arrays, a ring diameter of 110 mm and axial length of 167 mm, and (2) H 2 RS160-C10 and H 2 RS160-C20 with 60 × 60 LYSO arrays, a diameter of 160 mm and axial length of 254 mm. C10 and C20 denote the crystal thickness of 10 and 20 mm, respectively. The simulation results show that all scanners have a spatial resolution better than 0.5 mm at the center of the field-of-view (FOV). The radial resolution strongly depends on the DOI resolution and radial offset, but not the axial resolution and tangential resolution. Comparing the C10 and C20 designs, the former provides better resolution, especially at positions away from the center of the FOV, whereas the latter has 2× higher sensitivity (∼10% versus ∼20%). This simulation study provides evidence that the 110 mm systems are a good choice for total-body mouse studies at a lower cost, whereas the 160 mm systems are suited for both total-body mouse and rat studies.