-
Compared with traditional gamma-ray imaging equipment, the Compton camera is a very promising imaging device in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, and has a strong potential application in monitoring beams in heavy-ion-therapy because of its high efficiency feature. A demonstration device for heavy ion cancer treatment with complete intellectual property right has been built at Institute of Modern Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Wuwei city of Gansu Province. At present the device is being up-graded, and the heavy ion cancer treatment is being generalized in national wide. In view of the broad prospects of heavy ion cancer treatment, the imaging resolution of Compton camera is analyzed theoretically, and three errors effecting the imaging resolution, which are energy resolution, position resolution of detector and the Doppler effect, are determined. Then the three errors are simulated by using the Geant 4 packages. The physical process in simulation is selected as the G4EMPenelopePhysics model, which makes the atomic shell cross section data for low energy physical process used directly. The Compton camera geometry consists of two layers of detectors. The layer close to
$\gamma$ source is called detector and the other one is called absorption detector. The material of scatter detector is selected as low-Z silicon and carbon, and the absorb detector is high-Z germanium. The thickness value of scatter detector and absorb detector are both 20 mm. The spacing between the two layers is 100 mm. The simulation results by Geant 4 are used to reconstruct the image of point-like$\gamma$ source through using the back-projection algorithm. The simulation results and the re-constructed images indicate that the difference between the image full width at half maximum induced by 2 mm position resolution and that induced by 5.0% relative energy resolution of scatter detector is about 10%, and amount to that by the Doppler effect of Silicon. For the$\gamma$ ray with energies of several hundred keV, the energy resolution of Si detectors is easily better than 1.0% in practice. Therefore, the detector's position resolution dominates the image quality of the Compton camera. Considering the Doppler effect, manufacturing techniques and imaging efficiency, 2.0 mm-sized crystal unit and 1.0% energy resolution power is suggested for practically manufacturing the Compton camera.-
Keywords:
- Compton camera /
- heavy ion therapy /
- Geant 4 simulation /
- back-projection imaging
[1] Parodi K 2016 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 809 113Google Scholar
[2] Shakirin G, Braess H, Fiedler F, et al. 2011 Phys. Med. Biol. 56 1281Google Scholar
[3] Enghardt W, Crespo P, Fiedler F, et al. 2004 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 525 284Google Scholar
[4] Nishio T, Ogino T, Nomura K, et al. 2006 Med. Phys. 33 4190Google Scholar
[5] Amaldi U, Hajdas W, Iliescu S, et al. 2010 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 617 248Google Scholar
[6] Henriquet P, Testa E, Chevallier M, et al. 2012 Phys. Med. Biol. 57 4655Google Scholar
[7] Agodi C, Battistoni G, Bellini F, et al. 2012 Phys. Med. Biol. 57 5667Google Scholar
[8] Gwosch K, Hartmann B, Jakubek J, et al. 2013 Phys. Med. Biol. 58 3755Google Scholar
[9] Borm V, Joulaeizadeh L, Beekman F, et al. 2012 Phys. Med. Biol. 57 297Google Scholar
[10] Testa M, Bajard M, Chevallier M, et al. 2010 Radiat. Environ. Biophy. 49 337Google Scholar
[11] Krimmer J, Ley J L, Abellan C, et al. 2015 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 787 98Google Scholar
[12] Peterson S W, Robertson D, Polf J, et al. 2010 Phys. Med. Biol. 55 6841Google Scholar
[13] Seo H, Park J H, Ushakov A, et al. 2011 J. Instrum. 6 C01024
[14] Kurosawa S, Kubo H, Ueno K, et al. 2012 Curr. Appl. Phys. 12 364Google Scholar
[15] Kormoll T, Fiedler F, Schone S, et al. 2011 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 626−627 114Google Scholar
[16] Llosa G, Cabello J, Callier S, et al. 2013 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 718 130Google Scholar
[17] Schoenfelder V, Himer A, Schneider K, et al. 1973 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 107 385Google Scholar
[18] Todd R W, Nightingale J M, Everett D B, et al. 1974 Nature 251 132Google Scholar
-
图 2 康普顿相机的能量分辨本领引起的康普顿散射角不确定度
$ \Delta\theta_{\rm E} $ 分布的模拟结果, 相对能量分辨$\Delta E/E$ 取值从0.3%至5%, 初始$\gamma$ 射线能量为600 keVFigure 2. Simulated distribution of the uncertainty of Compton scattering angle caused by the resolving power of Compton camera. The value of
$\Delta E/E$ is from 0.3% to 5%. The initial$\gamma$ -ray energy is 600 keV.图 4 康普顿相机的位置分辨本领引起的康普顿散射角不确定度
$ \Delta\theta_{\rm P} $ 分布的模拟结果, 位置分辨$\Delta x$ 取值范围为0.5—3.0 mm. 初始$\gamma$ 射线能量为600 keVFigure 4. Simulated distribution of the uncertainty of Compton scattering angle caused by the position resolving power of Compton camera. The value of
$\Delta x$ is from 0.5 mm to 3.0 mm. The initial$\gamma$ -ray energy is 600 keV. -
[1] Parodi K 2016 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 809 113Google Scholar
[2] Shakirin G, Braess H, Fiedler F, et al. 2011 Phys. Med. Biol. 56 1281Google Scholar
[3] Enghardt W, Crespo P, Fiedler F, et al. 2004 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 525 284Google Scholar
[4] Nishio T, Ogino T, Nomura K, et al. 2006 Med. Phys. 33 4190Google Scholar
[5] Amaldi U, Hajdas W, Iliescu S, et al. 2010 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 617 248Google Scholar
[6] Henriquet P, Testa E, Chevallier M, et al. 2012 Phys. Med. Biol. 57 4655Google Scholar
[7] Agodi C, Battistoni G, Bellini F, et al. 2012 Phys. Med. Biol. 57 5667Google Scholar
[8] Gwosch K, Hartmann B, Jakubek J, et al. 2013 Phys. Med. Biol. 58 3755Google Scholar
[9] Borm V, Joulaeizadeh L, Beekman F, et al. 2012 Phys. Med. Biol. 57 297Google Scholar
[10] Testa M, Bajard M, Chevallier M, et al. 2010 Radiat. Environ. Biophy. 49 337Google Scholar
[11] Krimmer J, Ley J L, Abellan C, et al. 2015 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 787 98Google Scholar
[12] Peterson S W, Robertson D, Polf J, et al. 2010 Phys. Med. Biol. 55 6841Google Scholar
[13] Seo H, Park J H, Ushakov A, et al. 2011 J. Instrum. 6 C01024
[14] Kurosawa S, Kubo H, Ueno K, et al. 2012 Curr. Appl. Phys. 12 364Google Scholar
[15] Kormoll T, Fiedler F, Schone S, et al. 2011 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 626−627 114Google Scholar
[16] Llosa G, Cabello J, Callier S, et al. 2013 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 718 130Google Scholar
[17] Schoenfelder V, Himer A, Schneider K, et al. 1973 Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 107 385Google Scholar
[18] Todd R W, Nightingale J M, Everett D B, et al. 1974 Nature 251 132Google Scholar
Catalog
Metrics
- Abstract views: 10638
- PDF Downloads: 208
- Cited By: 0