Upload
inge
View
26
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Time of Flight in Positron Emission Tomography using Fast Sampling. Dan Herbst Henry Frisch. Summary. Overview of PET Fast sampling capabilities Experimental setup Data Analysis. PET. Metabolically-active positron tracer Antiparallel 511 kEv photon emission Detector ring. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Time of Flight in Positron Emission Tomography using Fast
Sampling
Dan Herbst
Henry Frisch
2
Summary
• Overview of PET
• Fast sampling capabilities
• Experimental setup
• Data
• Analysis
3
PET
• Metabolically-active positron tracer
• Antiparallel 511 kEv photon emission
• Detector ring
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/looking-inside-the-human-body-using-positrons/
4
Fast Sampling
• Tektronix– 40 Gs/sec– $142K retail– Continuous fast
sampling
• BLAB1– ~5.12 Gs/sec– ~$10/channel in bulk– Triggered burst of fast
sampling
5
Experimental Setup
6
Hardware Work
• Uploaded drivers onto BLAB’s FPGA
• Plateaued tubes
• Setup coincidence detection
• Setup delay lines to BLAB
• Collected data
7
Data
• Oscilloscope & BLAB pulses (different event)
8
Filtering on Energy• Many photons will
Compton scatter off of scintillation crystal, only depositing partial energy
• Keep only events where both pulses are fully absorbed
9
Pulse Smoothing
• Experimented with different algorithms• Ended up using: f(t) such that is minimized. • Parameter ‘c’ determines smoothness
10
A Typical Time Extraction Algorithm
• Fit the leading-edge points to a function (i.e. linear fit), and take where that function crosses the baseline
Qingguo Xie, UChicago Departmentof Radiology
11
My Objections
• Why weight all points on the leading edge equally?
• Why fit to a line or other arbitrary function?
• Make these things parameters and feed to an optimization algorithm– Quality measure: standard deviation of timing
difference over a large set of representative pulse pairs
12
Why Pulse Shape Optimizations May Have Failed in the Past
• Many degrees of freedom– Valleys become narrow, must scale
parameters – Time extraction must be fast to give optimizer
many attempts– Bias in stepping unless careful
13
My Timing Extractor
• Normalize pulses• Fit the template to the
pulse under the transformations:– Time shift– Time scale (about a
given point)– y-scale (optional)
• …using least squares (horizontal!)
14
Advantage
• Since least squares fitting is in horizontal direction, time-shift, time-scale, and scale-about point (global) are calculated analytically
Disadvantage• Pulse is only “sampled” at a limited
number of points– Working on a new version to fix this problem
15
Results (scope data)
• ~300 p.s. FWHM without y-scaling
• ~270 p.s. with y-scaling (need to confirm)
16
Results (BLAB data)
• 957 p.s. FWHM assuming 5.12 Gs/sec
• Obviously there was a malfunction somewhere
17
Where to Proceed
• Short term:– Shorten travel distances in photo-tube base– Finish full-sampling version of pulse-shape
optimizer– Understand BLAB results
• Long term:– Simulate and optimize phototube design– Improve fast sampling board
18
Questions?
19
Appendix
20
scan time = 5 min 3 min 2 min 1min
35-cm diameter phantom 10, 13, 17, 22-mm hot spheres (6:1 contrast); 28, 37-mm cold spheres background activity concentration of 0.14 Ci/ml
TOF achieves better contrast, with shorter scan
#iter = 10
#iter = 5
nonTOF
TOF
Slide by Joel Karp, University of Pennsylvania Dept. of Radiology & PhysicsMarch 27, 2008
How does Time of Flight improve tumor detection?