Search

Purpose: Charge sharing is a significant problem for CdTe‐based photon counting detectors (PCDs) and can cause high‐energy photons to be misclassified as one or more low‐energy events. Charge sharing is especially problematic in PCDs for CT because the high flux necessitates small pixels, which increase the magnitude of charge sharing. Analog charge summing (ACS) is a powerful solution to reduce spectral distortion arising from charge sharing but may be difficult to implement. We investigate correction of the signal after digitization by the comparator (“digital count summing”), which is only able to correct a subset of charge sharing events but may have implementation advantages. We compare and quantify the relative performance of digital and ACS in simulations. Methods: Transport of photons in CdTe was modeled using Monte Carlo simulations. Energy deposited in the CdTe substrate was converted to electrical charges of a predetermined shape, and all charges within the detector pixel are assumed to be perfectly collected. In ACS, the maximum charge received over any 2 × 2 block of pixels was grouped together prior to digitization. In digital count summing (DCS), the charge was digitized in each pixel, and subsequently, adjacent pixels that detected events grouped their charge to record a single, higher energy event. All simulations were performed at the limit of low flux (no pileup). The default tube voltage was 120 kVp, object thickness was 20 cm of water, pixel pitch was 250 μm, and charge cloud modeled as a Gaussian with σ = 40 μm. Variation of these parameters was examined in a sensitivity analysis. Results: Detectors that used no correction, DCS, and ACS misclassified 51%, 39%, and 15% of incident photons, respectively. For iodine basis material imaging, DCS exhibited 100% greater dose efficiency compared to uncorrected, and ACS exhibited an additional 111% greater dose efficiency compared to digital charge summing. For a nonspectral task, the dose efficiency improvement as estimated by improvement of zero‐frequency detective quantum efficiency, DQE(0) was 10% for DCS compared to uncorrected and 10% for ACS compared to DCS. A sensitivity analysis showed that DCS generally achieved half the benefit of ACS over a range of conditions, although the benefit was markedly less if the charge cloud was instead modeled as a small sphere. Conclusions: Summing of counts after digitization may be a simpler alternative to summing of charge prior to digitization due to the relative complexity of analog circuit design. Over most conditions studied, it provides roughly half the benefit of ACS and may offer certain implementation advantages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Photon‐counting detectors using CdTe or CZT substrates are promising candidates for future CT systems but suffer from a number of nonidealities, including charge sharing and pulse pileup. By increasing the pixel size of the detector, the system can improve charge sharing characteristics at the expense of increasing pileup. The purpose of this work is to describe these considerations in the optimization of the detector pixel pitch. Methods: The transport of x rays through the CdTe substrate was simulated in a Monte Carlo fashion using GEANT4. Deposited energy was converted into charges distributed as a Gaussian function with size dependent on interaction depth to capture spreading from diffusion and Coulomb repulsion. The charges were then collected in a pixelated fashion. Pulse pileup was incorporated separately with Monte Carlo simulation. The Cramér–Rao lower bound (CRLB) of the measurement variance was numerically estimated for the basis material projections. Noise in these estimates was propagated into CT images. We simulated pixel pitches of 250, 350, and 450 microns and compared the results to a photon counting detector with pileup but otherwise ideal energy response and an ideal dual‐energy system (80/140 kVp with tin filtration). The modeled CdTe thickness was 2 mm, the incident spectrum was 140 kVp and 500 mA, and the effective dead time was 67 ns. Charge summing circuitry was not modeled. We restricted our simulations to objects of uniform thickness and did not consider the potential advantage of smaller pixels at high spatial frequencies. Results: At very high x‐ray flux, pulse pileup dominates and small pixel sizes perform best. At low flux or for thick objects, charge sharing dominates and large pixel sizes perform best. At low flux and depending on the beam hardness, the CRLB of variance in basis material projections tasks can be 32%–55% higher with a 250 micron pixel pitch compared to a 450 micron pixel pitch. However, both are about four times worse in variance than the ideal photon counting detector. The optimal pixel size depends on a number of factors such as x‐ray technique and object size. At high technique (140 kVp/500 mA), the ratio of variance for a 450 micron pixel compared to a 250 micron pixel size is 2126%, 200%, 97%, and 78% when imaging 10, 15, 20, and 25 cm of water, respectively. If 300 mg/cm2 of iodine is also added to the object, the variance ratio is 117%, 91%, 74%, and 72%, respectively. Nonspectral tasks, such as equivalent monoenergetic imaging, are less sensitive to spectral distortion. Conclusions: The detector pixel size is an important design consideration in CdTe detectors. Smaller pixels allow for improved capabilities at high flux but increase charge sharing, which in turn compromises spectral performance. The optimal pixel size will depend on the specific task and on the charge shaping time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]