Search

Photon counting detectors (PCDs) are classically described as being either paralyzable or nonparalyzable. When the PCD is paralyzed, it is no longer sensitive to the detection of additional flux. A recent strategy in PCD design has been to compensate for detector paralysis by embedding specialized paralysis compensation electronics into the application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC). One such compensation mechanism is the pileup trigger, which places an additional energy bin at very high energy that is triggered only during pileup. Another compensation mechanism is the retrigger architecture, which converts a paralyzable PCD into a nonparalyzable PCD. We propose a third mechanism that modifies the retrigger architecture using dedicated secondary counters. We studied the incremental benefit of these three paralysis compensation mechanisms in simulation. We modeled the spectral response using Monte Carlo simulations and then estimated the variance in basis material decomposition of a single pixel using the Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB). In the absence of paralysis compensation, noise in basis material images shows sharp increases at moderate flux (near the characteristic count rate) due to contrast inversion and again at high flux. The pileup trigger reduces noise at high flux but does not eliminate contrast inversion. The retrigger architecture eliminates contrast inversion but does not reduce noise at high flux. Our proposed retrigger architecture with dedicated secondary counters reduce noise at both moderate and high flux. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The performance of X-ray photon counting detectors (PCDs), especially on spectral tasks, is compromised by charge sharing. Existing mechanisms to compensate for charge sharing, such as charge summing circuitry or larger pixel sizes, increase and aggravate pileup effects. We propose a new mechanism, the coincidence counting bin (CCB), which does not increase pileup and which has implementation similarities to existing energy bins. The CCB is triggered by coincident events in adjacent pixels and provides an estimate of the double counts arising from charge sharing. Unlike charge summing, the CCB does not directly restore corrupted events. Nonetheless, knowledge of the number of coincident counts can be used by the estimator to reduce noise. We simulated a PCD with and without the CCB using Monte Carlo simulations, modeling PCD pixels as instantaneous charge collectors and X-ray energy deposition as producing a Gaussian charge cloud with 75 micron FWHM, independent of energy. With typical operating conditions and at low flux (120 kVp, incident count rate 1% of characteristic count rate, 30 cm object thickness, five energy bins, pixel pitch of 300 microns), the CCB improved dose efficiency of iodine and water basis material decomposition by 70% and 50%, respectively. An improvement of 20% was also seen in an iodine CNR task. These improvements are attenuated as incident flux increases and show moderate dependence on filtration and pixel size. At high flux, the CCB does not provide useful information and is discarded by the estimator. The CCB may be an effective and practical mechanism for charge sharing compensation in PCDs. [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]