Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi1, Tuoyu Cao2, Mark Fries3, Timothy W. Deller2, Floris Jansen2, and Gary Glover4
1Applied Science Lab, GE Healthcare, Menlo Park, CA, United States, 2PET/MR engineering, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, United States, 3Imaging Subsystems, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, United States, 4Radiology Department, Stanford Unviersity, Palo Alto, CA, United States
Synopsis
In a
simultaneous ToF-enabled SiPM PET/MR scanner, eddy currents induced by the changing gradient field lead to increased
temperature around the PET detectors; this can change the detector gain and
shift the position of the photopeak in the spectrum, reducing accuracy
of the reconstructed image. Conventionally, peak stability is achieved by
thermal monitoring system and adjusting the gain based on the temperature. A more accurate gain control algorithm is
presented, which analyzes the spectrum of single events detected on each
device. Reconstructed activity of a PET phantom in extreme MR gradient
switching is measured to remain stable, better than 0.5%.
Purpose
In a simultaneous ToF-enabled SiPM PET/MR scanner, gradient induced
eddy currents lead to increased temperature around the PET detectors and change
the detector gain. This will lead to shifting the energy peak for detected
events and thus reducing accuracy specifically in applications such as
simultaneous fMRI and functional PET1, which are very sensitive to small
changes in tracer’s activity. Conventionally, peak stability is achieved by monitoring
system temperature and adjusting the gain accordingly2,3. Here, we have shown a more accurate gain
compensation by analyzing the spectrum of single events detected by each
device. Theory
The time-of-flight enabled SIGNA PET/MR (GE
Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA) detector ring consists of 28 modules. Each
module (shown in Figure 1, top row), comprises 5 units, each having 4 blocks with
3 SiPM arrays (devices) each. Single events from each channel (either block or
device) are analyzed at the detector level, and as soon as a statistically
significant shift is detected in the gain, an adjustment is made to the gain of
the channel.Methods
An EPI GRE sequence and a Spiral in-and-out GRE
sequence are used to compare the effect of gradient heating on the PET
detector. The EPI GRE parameters were: TR=3100 ms, TE=30 ms, FOV=22 cm, FA=77 degree, 64x64
matrix, 30 slices, 4 mm thickness, 1 mm spacing, 116 temporal phases and 6:00
min scan time. The EPI sequence was repeated
twice with X and Y readouts. The spiral sequence parameters were: TR=2400 ms,
TE=30 ms, FOV=24 cm, FA=90 degree, 96x96 matrix, 30 slices, 5 mm thickness, 0 mm
spacing, 150 temporal phases and 6:00 min scan time. A flood phantom was filled
with 2.5 mCi of FDG and was scanned immediately for 30 minutes. There was no MR
sequence in the first 10 minutes and events were detected in the resting state.
Then a 10 min spiral sequence (with 250 temporal phases) was used to increase
the detector temperature and it was followed by another 10 min resting state as
the detector ring cooled down. The detector front end logic was programmed with
a prototype algorithm for real-time gain control, and data that passed the
energy cutoff levels (425 keV to 650 keV) was written to list mode file. To
evaluate the effect of local temperature variations, events were aggregated
either on a per-device level (12 crystals) or per-block level (36 crystals). The
PET list file was un-listed into 30 frames and reconstructed with TOF-OSEM with
28 subsets and 3 iterations using attenuation, scatter and dead-time
correction.
Results
Figure
2 compares the PET detector temperatures using a 6 min EPI sequence vs. spiral
sequence followed by 7:30 min of cool down period. The EPI sequence heats up
the PET detector along the readout axis. The spiral sequence heats up the
entire ring about 1.5 °C and
causes higher temperatures on the PET detector compared to EPI sequence. Figure
4 evaluates the effect of a 10:00 min spiral sequence on the PET images of a
phantom (Figure 3). Figure 4(a) shows the 4 temperature readings located on
different parts of the gradient coil and shows that the spiral sequence is
increasing the coil temperature up to 55 °C from its resting state of 18 °C. The detector ring temperature map and its average
is shown in figure 4(b) and 4(c) respectively. It shows that the detector
temperatures are increased by an average of 1.5 °C. Figure 4(d) shows the average of phantom images
using 2 compensation methods: per-block and per-SiPM device. Both methods show
a stable reading throughout the spiral reading and during the cooling down
period. The maximum changes in reconstructed uniformity are 0.32% and 0.34% for
gain control per SiPM array and per block respectively.Discussion
Both compensation
methods (per SiPM array and per block) show excellent results providing a very
stable PET reading during the most gradient-stressful spiral MR sequence on the
PET/MR scanner. Compensation per SiPM array shows slightly better results as it
tracks the 3 SiPM arrays in each block individually. However, in PET exams with
very small doses, compensation per block will provide faster response to
changing temperatures, as the count rate will be 3 times than on an individual
SiPM array.
Acknowledgements
GE
Healthcare, Stanford University Lucas Center.
References
[1] Wang F, Hamilton P, Knutson B, Gotlib I, Sacchet M, Mehta H, Schreiner C, Holley D, Chin F, Shen B, Zaharchuk G, Khalighi MM, Glover G. A
Preliminary Study of Major Depressive Disorder Using Simultaneous PET/fMRI with
Two MID Tasks in a Single Scan, ISMRM 2016, p3766
[2] Kim C, Peterson WT, Kidane T, Maramraju SH, Levin CS. Compensation for
thermally-induced loads on PET detectors from MR stimulus in simultaneous
PET/MR, ISMRM 2014, p780.
[3]
Levin CS, Maramraju HS, Khalighi MM, Deller TW, Delso G, Jansen F. Design
Features and Mutual Compatibility Studies of the Time-of-Flight PET Capable GE
SIGNA PET/MR System. IEEE TMI. 2016; 35(8):1907-14