Timing, Energy, and Spatial Characterization of Highly Sampled Monolithic PET Detectors with Different Thicknesses.

The HyPET project proposes a hybrid dedicated TOF-PET for prostate imaging, with pixelated detector blocks in the front layer and monolithic blocks in the back layer. In this work, four detector configurations have been experimentally evaluated for the rear detector layer. The detector configuration consists of LYSO monolithic blocks with the same size (25.4 mm × 25.4 mm) but different thicknesses (5, 7.5, 10, and 15 mm) coupled to the same SiPM array. Each detector configuration has been experimentally characterized in terms of time, energy and spatial resolution by scanning the crystal surface using a fan beam in steps of 0.25 mm. Regarding spatial resolution, the interaction position was estimated using a Neural Network technique. All resolutions except energy, which remains nearly constant at 17% for all cases, show better values for the 5 mm detector thickness. We have achieved spatial resolution values of FWHM of 1.02 ± 0.10, 1.19 ± 0.13, 1.53 ± 0.17, 2.33 ± 0.55 mm, for the 5, 7.5, 10, and 15 mm blocks, respectively. The detector time resolution obtained was 275 ± 26, 291 ± 21, 344 ± 48, and 433 ± 45 ps respectively, using the energy weighted average method for the time stamps.

Timing evaluation of a PET detector block based on semi-monolithic LYSO crystals.

PURPOSE: Detectors for positron emission tomography (PET) typically use two types of scintillation crystals, pixelated or monolithic. A variant of these types of scintillators are the so-called semi-monolithic crystals. They consist of a monolithic crystal segmented in one direction in pieces called slabs. These scintillators have the potential to successfully combine the benefits of pixelated and monolithic configurations, providing good timing and spatial resolutions as well as the capacity to decode the depth of interaction (DOI) information. In this work, the timing performance of a detector based on semi-monolithic crystals was studied in depth. The energy response was also evaluated. METHODS: The semi-monolithic detector consists of 1 × 24 LYSO slabs of 25.4 × 12 × 0.95 mm3 each. The bottom surface of the slabs is coupled to an array of 8 × 8 silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) of 3 × 3 mm2 active area, 50 µm cell size and 3.2 mm pitch. The 64 output signals were independently readout by the TOFPET2 ASIC. In order to achieve the best coincidence time resolution (CTR), four different time walk corrections were tested. Additional work investigated the best method of combining the timestamps belonging to the same event. RESULTS: The resolvability of the slabs in the measured flood maps improves with the thickness of a light guide placed in between the scintillators and photosensors. The energy resolution does not change significantly with values as good as 13.7%. Regarding the CTR, values of 335.8, 363, 369.8, and 402.5 ps have been obtained for the whole detector for no light guide, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm thickness light guide cases, respectively. These values further improve to 276.1, 302.6, 305.6 and 336.2 ps, respectively, when energy-weighted averaging of timestamps is applied. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown both an excellent timing resolution and good energy resolution for a PET detector based on semi-monolithic crystals. The use of light guides of different thicknesses does not significantly affect the energy resolution of the whole detector, but the timing capabilities slightly worsen with the increasing thickness of the light guide.