Development of Proton Computed Tomography Apparatus by INFN (RDH-WP3)

The Proton Computed Tomography
Apparatus developed by INFN (RDH-WP3)
M. Bruzzi
1,2
, D. Bonanno
3
, M. Brianzi
2
, M. Carpinelli
4,9
, G.A.P. Cirrone
5
,
C. Civinini
2
, G. Cuttone
5
, D. Lo Presti
3,8
,G. Maccioni
4
,
 S. Pallotta
2,7,8
,
N. Randazzo
3
, M. Scaringella
2
, F. Romano
5
, V. Sipala
4,9
, C. Talamonti
2,7,8
,
E. Vanzi
10
Prima – RDH Collaboration
1
Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
2
INFN - Florence Division, Florence, Italy
3
INFN - Catania Division, Catania, Italy
4
INFN Cagliari Division, Cagliari, Italy
5
INFN - Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, Catania, Italy
6
Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
7
Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
8
SOD Fisica Medica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy
9
Chemistry and Pharmacy Department, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
10
 Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy
RDH Meeting
Roma 01/02/2016
Introduction
Two pCT systems: 5x5cm
2
; 5x20cm
2
Analysis results from the small area system
Algebraic Reconstruction Technique
Uppsala June-2015 test 
 High energy Tomography
Large area apparatus status
Tracker
Calorimeter
200 MeV tests
Plans for 2016
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
2
PRIMA collaboration:
small area pCT apparatus
Four x-y silicon microstrip
based tracking planes
Yag:Ce calorimeter
Proton entry and exit
positions and directions
Proton residual energy
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
First test at INFN-LNS:
May 2011
High energy test at
TSL-Uppsala:
June 2015
3
Algebraic 
Reconstruction
 Techniques
The system could be solved using an iterative formula:
September 22nd 2015
C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015
4
S
k
 image vector at iteration k (stopping power)
w
i
 i
th
 track length in each pixel (vector) 
 
Tracker
p
i
 stopping power integral (number) 
 
Calorimeter
k
 relaxing factor (constant value or 
0 as ~k
-1
)
S
0
 initial image: {0} or approx (i.e., from FBP reconstruction).
Three algorithm variants (depends on the events in A
k
 set):
A
k
 = {1-event}
: ART 
 too much ‘salt-pepper’ noise
A
k
 = {full data set}
: SART (simultaneous ART) 
 better noise
A
k
 = {1/n of the full data set}
: BI-SART (n-Block iterative SART)
 good noise performance with faster convergence
Gordon, R; Bender, R; Herman, GT  
J. Theor. Biol. (1970) 
29
 (3): 471–81.
Most Likely Path in a pCT geometry
February 13th 2015
C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - Garching 2015
5
MLP example with 200MeV
kinetic energy protons in
20cm of water:
Entry: Y(0) = 0.2cm
 
   Y’(0) = -10mrad
Exit:  Y(20) = -0.1cm
 
Y’(20) = +10mrad
Silicon microstrip detectors:
 
320
m thick
 
200
m strip pitch
MLP error envelope plus
contributions from detector
position measurement error (~
pitch/√12) and MCS inside the
silicon sensors 
The sensor thickness contribution
affects only the MLP error at the
edge of the phantom
 ~ 150-250
m 
 
200MeV in
 
90MeV out
Starting from D.C. Williams Phys. Med. Biol. 
49 
(2004) and
R.W. Shulte 
at al. 
Med. Phys. 
35 (11) 
(2008)
 
5 cm of air have been inserted in front and behind the
20cm H
2
O phantom
Uppsala 2015 Test Beam
Performed at ‘The Svedberg Laboratory’ (TSL-Uppsala)
24 hours beam time (550 €/hour) + beam setup (2200€)
Beam energy at pCT detector (phantom): 172.5±0.9 MeV
Instantaneous beam intensity: 10kHz
Cyclotron duty cycle: 10%
Mean DAQ frequency: 1 kHz
Data sets:
Calorimeter calibration: 10
6
 events at  78, 121, 160 MeV (no phantom)
Tracker alignment: 3*10
6
 events at 173 MeV (no phantom)
40 angles (0
o
-351°): 1.5*10
6
 events per angle
Radiography: 1.5*10
6
 events
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
6
Uppsala set-up
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
7
Phantom mounted on pCT system
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
8
Uppsala test: phantom
Phantom dimensions limited by the system
field of view  (5cm)
To have a reasonable energy measurement
error the phantom material could not be
plastic-like: 
E
PMMA
(5cm)~22MeV (to be
compared with the calorimeter resolution at
200MeV 
E
calo
~4-5MeV)
We decide to use Aluminium for the phantom
body with Iron and Copper insert to simulate
high constrast material (e.g., muscle-bone
structure)
An empty hole and a uniform section have
been made to evaluate space resolution for
different constrast and density r.m.s.
measurement
During  data taking the phantom is rotated by
9° using a remotely controlled micro-step
motor (step angle = 1.8°)
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
9
 
45mm
 
φ
=4mm
 
φ
=2mm
 
φ
=6mm
 
φ
=3mm
Algebraic algorithm implementation
Iterative algebraic algorithms have a rather high computing cost
Using a sequential CPU, and moving a lot of computing from the
algorithm itself to the preprocessing phase, a 50-iterations
image takes about 3+3 hours to complete with little space for
improvement
Parallel computing on GPUs is a way to decrease the
computation time at the expense of a learning phase
Hardware: NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (not so expensive:
~1000 Euro, 12GB memory, 3072 Cuda cores, 24 Multi-
processors, 786432 parallel threads)
Software: Cuda on Visual Studio (Community edition, free)
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
10
GPU parallelism
All data (tracker coordinates and calorimeter energy) is copied from
disk to GPU memory once at the beginning of job (~2GB)
The Most Likely Path is recalculated at each iteration (GPU ‘general
rule’: faster to recompute than store on disk and recall)
Most of the algorithm operations are pixel-by-pixel: use one thread
per pixel (up to a maximum of 512x512 pixels)
Some calculations are independent: use the ‘stream’ on GPU to
further parallelize them (e.g., the MLP calculation is done on the
shadow of the BI-SART algorithm, so no computing cost for it)
Move the reconstructed images only from GPU to CPU to store
them on disk at the end of each iteration
The preprocessing phase takes about 1’-2’ for the whole dataset
One iteration on GPU now costs 
1’ 15" 
for a 512x512 pixels image
with 2x10
6
 events (128x128 pixels image is iterated in 
less than 10"
)
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
11
CUDA timeline
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
12
Kernel: some code executed on different threads (e.g., 1 thread per pixel)
Different kernels are executed in parallel on different streams
time
Group of 16 events
BI-SART reconstructed tomographies
Images shown here are obtained using a 4-blocks BI-SART
algorithm, with relaxation parameter (
k
) chosen to have the
density r.m.s. minimum around iteration 10
No a-priori knowledge of the phantom boundary is requested
(only an external larger container is known to the algorithm)
The proton tracks are calculated using the Most Likely Path
formulas (MLP operators, ~300MB, stored in GPU memory)
The phantom is divided into 5 slices, each vertically uniform
Slice thickness: 4-6mm
At the moment only a 2D reconstrution version is available 
vertically project  a slice onto a plane 
The color palette indicates the Stopping Power (at 175 MeV)
as it is calculated by the algorithm
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
13
BI-SART starting for empty picture
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
14
Iteration 11
Resolutions
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
15
0.96% at iteration 11
650
m at iteration 11
The edge resolution has been
obtained fitting the edge of the
tomography with an error function
and quoting the sigma
The density resolution is the r.m.s.
of the pixel stopping power
distribution taken in a uniform
fiducial region of the phantom
BI-SART (from {0}
BI-SART (from {0}
Insert resolution
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
16
960
m at iteration 11
The internal insert resolution has been obtained
fitting the edge of the 6mm diameter inserts with
an error function and quoting the sigma
BI-SART (from {0}
The Stopping Power values at iteration
50 are the following:
Aluminium: 
10.9 MeV/cm
 
(expect. 10.4 MeV/cm)
Iron: 
26.45 MeV/cm
 
(expect. 27.03 MeV/cm)
Copper: 
28.7 MeV/cm
 
(expect. 29.53 MeV/cm)
Comments
: probably the insert
tolerance w.r.t. the hole decreases the
measured SP, as a matter of fact for Fe
and Cu a 2÷3% underestimation is
observed);
The +5% overestimation observed for
the Aluminium could be ascribed to
the material used which is not pure Al
but anticorodal.
Filtered Back Projection reconstructed
tomographies
The Filter Back Projection algorithm
assume a parallel beam with
straigth tracks
This is not true for protons because
of multiple scattering
Nonetheless we apply the FBP
algorithm to reconstruct a pCT
image
This image could be eventually used
as a starting point (seed) for the
iterative algorithm
FBP edge resolution: 600
m
FBP density resultion: 1.8%
FBP internal insert resolution:
900
m
Same spatial resolutions of BI-SART
with a factor two worser density
resolution
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
17
400 
m pixel size, SP normalized to BI-SIRT image
FBP – hard filter
BI-SART starting from FBP
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
18
Starting from FBP
Much more uniform
Better spatial resolution
Starting from {0}
BI-SART starting from FBP
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
19
Starting from {0}
Starting from FBP
Better uniformity
0.96%
1.55%
BI-SART starting from FBP
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
20
Starting from FBP
Better spatial resolution
650
m at 11
400
m at 50
400
m at 11
340
m at 50
Starting from {0}
pCT upgrade (5x20cm
2
)
 
A system similar to the one already tested
Microstrip tracker
YAG:Ce calorimeter
But with a 
50 x 200 mm
2
 
field of view
On-line
 data aquisition
1 MHz 
capability
Rectangular aspect ratio to perform
tomographies in slices
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
21
Fully assembled Tracker plane
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
22
New tracker plane
New tracker front end chip
Better I2C functionality
Less threshold dispersion
New version of the printed board
FPGA programmability issues solved
New buffer chips
The new front-end chips have been delivered last november
The new printed board, delivered in november too, had mounting
problems (we should received it from last iteration this week)
In the meanwhile problems to the INFN-Florence bonding machine
(discontinued by Delvotech, repaired by our technician)
This week: test of the new front-end chip on the new tracker board
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
23
2016 High energy runs (200 MeV)
Need O(100kHz-1MHz) instantaneous intensity beam
Calorimeter/scintillator (preliminary)
Test of the extended view pCT system (Spring 2016)
One/two Tracker bords + Calorimeter integration
Noise performance
Rate capability
Data acquisition for tomography (second half of 2016)
Full pCT system with different phantoms
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
24
2016 pCT plan
Analysis
3D reconstruction, algebraic algorithm evolution,
reconstruction parameters optimization
Extended view pCT system
Validate the tracker plane, calorimeter and DAQ
integration
Test at LNS, April 2016
Production and assembly of the 4/5 final tracker
planes (PCB and front-end chips) by June 2016
Data taking with the full system during second half of
2016 (at least two runs)
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
25
Algebraic 
Reconstruction
 Techniques
Iterative algorithm to reconstruct tomographic images
(proton stopping power maps) from ‘projections’ (for
pCT set of single proton events)
Starting point (
S(x,y,E)
 stopping power):
Introducing the mass stopping power 
S/
:
E
0
 = a fixed energy (200 MeV or ... 60 MeV in our case)
September 22nd 2015
C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015
26
Algebraic 
Reconstruction
 Techniques
Dividing by 
S/
 at energy 
E
:
The left hand side 
doesn’t depend too much on the
material composition
 (~2-4*10
-3
) and could be
replaced by the one measured for liquid water (NIST
pstar tables - 
http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/PSTAR.html
)
:
September 22nd 2015
C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015
27
Algebraic 
Reconstruction
 Techniques
Integrating along the proton path:
E
in
 
is given by the accelerator, 
E
out
 by the calorimeter
and the ‘
path
’ by the tracker (Most Likely Path)
Subdividing  the object into a set of pixels, for the 
i
th
proton:
Where 
w
ij
 is the path length of proton 
i
 inside the pixel 
j
September 22nd 2015
C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015
28
Wang, Med.Phys. 
37(8), 2010: 4138
September 22nd 2015
C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015
29
Pixel 1
w
ij
Pixel j
Pixel 
N
Computational
challenge: find
the simplest
(fastest) way to
build the 
w
ij
matrix (could
have billions of
elements, most
of them equal to
zero)
p in
200 
MeV
p out 90 MeV
Phantom: 20
cm of water
Algebraic 
Reconstruction
 Techniques
The problem is then to solve, for 
S
j
, the following set of
equations:
N
 = number of pixels; 
M
 number of protons
In our case:
 
N
 = (250x250)=62500 pixels
M
 ~ 36(angles)*10
6
 events
September 22nd 2015
C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015
30
Read-out group
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
31
Silicon microstrip detectors
Power regulators
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
32
Calorimeter calibration and Tracker
alignment
Using four energy points in the range 78-172 MeV, the
calorimeter has been point-by-point calibrated (400 cells,
3x3mm
2
 each).
The tracker has been aligned using 2x10
6
 events taken without
phantom:
Plane no. 3 has been fixed (absolute reference frame)
Furthermore, for each of the other planes: out of 6 degrees of freedom 3
have been fixed (
z, 

, 

) and three free to vary (
x, 
y, 

);
Global minimization of the residuals has been done
x~(300÷500)±(40÷70)
m
 (horizontal position has no mechanical
constraint 
 
screw tolerance)
y ~(30÷90)±(40÷70)
m
 (vertical position easier to be mechanically
constrained)

 ~(1÷3)±(0.3÷0.7)
mrad
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
33
Data preprocessing
The ~6x10
7
 tomography events have been preprocessed in
order to remove three main source of background
1.
Multiple protons
2.
Nuclear interactions in the calorimeter
3.
Elastic nuclear interactions in the phantom/silicon sensors
Events of categories 1) and 2) are cut using an energy
compatibility criterion (-9+8MeV from the expected energy),
while events of category 3) are removed using the proton
scattering angle (more than 3 sigma away from expected
MCS)
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
34
New YAG:Ce calorimeter data
ADC counts
60 MeV
Double protons=120 MeV
Noise = 10 MeV
=3.9%
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
35
YAG:Ce calorimeter
February 1st 2016
Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze
36
2x7 YAG:Ce Crystals Array
Size: 3x3x10cm
3
CHASSIS NI PXIe-1071
RT Controller
NI PXI-8102
FlexRIO
NI PXIe-7962R
Ad.Mod.
NI-5751
14 Analog Channels
Tracker
7Dig I/O GEN
Dig. Trigger
Disable Trigger
Silicon Photodiodes 1.8x1.8cm
2
Fast Charge Amplifier + Shaper
x14
Data Acquisition System
Parallel read-out
Sampling: 5MS/s
24 Samples x event
Slide Note
Embed
Share

The Proton Computed Tomography Apparatus, developed by the INFN (RDH-WP3) collaboration, consists of two pCT systems for high-energy tomography. Various tests and analyses have been conducted, with plans for further testing in 2016. The system utilizes Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques and silicon microstrip detectors for accurate imaging of proton entry and exit positions. The collaboration's efforts aim to enhance the capabilities of proton imaging in the medical field.

  • Proton Imaging
  • INFN
  • Tomography
  • Medical Technology
  • Silicon Detectors

Uploaded on Sep 30, 2024 | 0 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Proton Computed Tomography Apparatus developed by INFN (RDH-WP3) M. Bruzzi1,2, D. Bonanno3, M. Brianzi2, M. Carpinelli4,9, G.A.P. Cirrone5, C. Civinini2, G. Cuttone5, D. Lo Presti3,8,G. Maccioni4, S. Pallotta2,7,8, N. Randazzo3, M. Scaringella2, F. Romano5, V. Sipala4,9, C. Talamonti2,7,8, E. Vanzi10 Prima RDH Collaboration 1Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Florence, Florence, Italy 2INFN - Florence Division, Florence, Italy 3INFN - Catania Division, Catania, Italy 4INFN Cagliari Division, Cagliari, Italy 5INFN - Laboratori Nazionali del Sud, Catania, Italy 6Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Catania, Catania, Italy 7Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University of Florence, Florence, Italy 8SOD Fisica Medica, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Firenze, Italy 9Chemistry and Pharmacy Department, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy 10Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Senese, Siena, Italy RDH Meeting Roma 01/02/2016

  2. Introduction Two pCT systems: 5x5cm2; 5x20cm2 Analysis results from the small area system Algebraic Reconstruction Technique Uppsala June-2015 test High energy Tomography Large area apparatus status Tracker Calorimeter 200 MeV tests Plans for 2016 February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 2

  3. PRIMA collaboration: small area pCT apparatus First test at INFN-LNS: May 2011 High energy test at TSL-Uppsala: June 2015 Proton entry and exit positions and directions Proton residual energy Four x-y silicon microstrip based tracking planes Yag:Ce calorimeter February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 3

  4. Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques The system could be solved using an iterative formula: Sk+1= Sk+ k ? ??{(pi- <wi,Sk>) wi} / wi 2 Gordon, R; Bender, R; Herman, GT J. Theor. Biol. (1970) 29 (3): 471 81. Skimage vector at iteration k (stopping power) wiithtrack length in each pixel (vector) Tracker pistopping power integral (number) Calorimeter krelaxing factor (constant value or 0 as ~k-1) S0initial image: {0} or approx (i.e., from FBP reconstruction). Three algorithm variants (depends on the events in Akset): Ak= {1-event}: ART too much salt-pepper noise Ak= {full data set}: SART (simultaneous ART) better noise Ak= {1/n of the full data set}: BI-SART (n-Block iterative SART) good noise performance with faster convergence September 22nd 2015 C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015 4

  5. Most Likely Path in a pCT geometry Starting from D.C. Williams Phys. Med. Biol. 49 (2004) and R.W. Shulte at al. Med. Phys. 35 (11) (2008) 5 cm of air have been inserted in front and behind the 20cm H2O phantom MLP example with 200MeV kinetic energy protons in 20cm of water: Entry: Y(0) = 0.2cm Y (0) = -10mrad Exit: Y(20) = -0.1cm Y (20) = +10mrad Silicon microstrip detectors: 320 m thick 200 m strip pitch MLP error envelope plus contributions from detector position measurement error (~ pitch/ 12) and MCS inside the silicon sensors The sensor thickness contribution affects only the MLP error at the edge of the phantom ~ 150-250 m 200MeV in 90MeV out February 13th 2015 C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - Garching 2015 5

  6. Uppsala 2015 Test Beam Performed at The Svedberg Laboratory (TSL-Uppsala) 24 hours beam time (550 /hour) + beam setup (2200 ) Beam energy at pCT detector (phantom): 172.5 0.9 MeV Instantaneous beam intensity: 10kHz Cyclotron duty cycle: 10% Mean DAQ frequency: 1 kHz Data sets: Calorimeter calibration: 106events at 78, 121, 160 MeV (no phantom) Tracker alignment: 3*106events at 173 MeV (no phantom) 40 angles (0o-351 ): 1.5*106events per angle Radiography: 1.5*106events February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 6

  7. Uppsala set-up February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 7

  8. Phantom mounted on pCT system February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 8

  9. Uppsala test: phantom Phantom dimensions limited by the system field of view (5cm) To have a reasonable energy measurement error the phantom material could not be plastic-like: EPMMA(5cm)~22MeV (to be compared with the calorimeter resolution at 200MeV Ecalo~4-5MeV) We decide to use Aluminium for the phantom body with Iron and Copper insert to simulate high constrast material (e.g., muscle-bone structure) An empty hole and a uniform section have been made to evaluate space resolution for different constrast and density r.m.s. measurement During data taking the phantom is rotated by 9 using a remotely controlled micro-step motor (step angle = 1.8 ) =4mm =3mm =2mm =6mm 45mm February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 9

  10. Algebraic algorithm implementation Iterative algebraic algorithms have a rather high computing cost Using a sequential CPU, and moving a lot of computing from the algorithm itself to the preprocessing phase, a 50-iterations image takes about 3+3 hours to complete with little space for improvement Parallel computing on GPUs is a way to decrease the computation time at the expense of a learning phase Hardware: NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (not so expensive: ~1000 Euro, 12GB memory, 3072 Cuda cores, 24 Multi- processors, 786432 parallel threads) Software: Cuda on Visual Studio (Community edition, free) February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 10

  11. GPU parallelism All data (tracker coordinates and calorimeter energy) is copied from disk to GPU memory once at the beginning of job (~2GB) The Most Likely Path is recalculated at each iteration (GPU general rule : faster to recompute than store on disk and recall) Most of the algorithm operations are pixel-by-pixel: use one thread per pixel (up to a maximum of 512x512 pixels) Some calculations are independent: use the stream on GPU to further parallelize them (e.g., the MLP calculation is done on the shadow of the BI-SART algorithm, so no computing cost for it) Move the reconstructed images only from GPU to CPU to store them on disk at the end of each iteration The preprocessing phase takes about 1 -2 for the whole dataset One iteration on GPU now costs 1 15" for a 512x512 pixels image with 2x106events (128x128 pixels image is iterated in less than 10") February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 11

  12. CUDA timeline Kernel: some code executed on different threads (e.g., 1 thread per pixel) time Different kernels are executed in parallel on different streams Group of 16 events February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 12

  13. BI-SART reconstructed tomographies Images shown here are obtained using a 4-blocks BI-SART algorithm, with relaxation parameter ( k) chosen to have the density r.m.s. minimum around iteration 10 No a-priori knowledge of the phantom boundary is requested (only an external larger container is known to the algorithm) The proton tracks are calculated using the Most Likely Path formulas (MLP operators, ~300MB, stored in GPU memory) The phantom is divided into 5 slices, each vertically uniform Slice thickness: 4-6mm At the moment only a 2D reconstrution version is available vertically project a slice onto a plane The color palette indicates the Stopping Power (at 175 MeV) as it is calculated by the algorithm February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 13

  14. BI-SART starting for empty picture Iteration 11 February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 14

  15. Resolutions BI-SART (from {0} BI-SART (from {0} 650 m at iteration 11 0.96% at iteration 11 The edge resolution has been obtained fitting the edge of the tomography with an error function and quoting the sigma The density resolution is the r.m.s. of the pixel stopping power distribution taken in a uniform fiducial region of the phantom February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 15

  16. Insert resolution BI-SART (from {0} The Stopping Power values at iteration 50 are the following: Aluminium: 10.9 MeV/cm (expect. 10.4 MeV/cm) Iron: 26.45 MeV/cm (expect. 27.03 MeV/cm) Copper: 28.7 MeV/cm (expect. 29.53 MeV/cm) 960 m at iteration 11 Comments: probably the insert tolerance w.r.t. the hole decreases the measured SP, as a matter of fact for Fe and Cu a 2 3% underestimation is observed); The +5% overestimation observed for the Aluminium could be ascribed to the material used which is not pure Al but anticorodal. The internal insert resolution has been obtained fitting the edge of the 6mm diameter inserts with an error function and quoting the sigma February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 16

  17. Filtered Back Projection reconstructed tomographies The Filter Back Projection algorithm assume a parallel beam with straigth tracks This is not true for protons because of multiple scattering Nonetheless we apply the FBP algorithm to reconstruct a pCT image This image could be eventually used as a starting point (seed) for the iterative algorithm FBP edge resolution: 600 m FBP density resultion: 1.8% FBP internal insert resolution: 900 m Same spatial resolutions of BI-SART with a factor two worser density resolution February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 400 m pixel size, SP normalized to BI-SIRT image FBP hard filter 17

  18. BI-SART starting from FBP Starting from {0} Starting from FBP Better spatial resolution Much more uniform February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 18

  19. BI-SART starting from FBP Starting from {0} Starting from FBP 0.96% 1.55% Better uniformity February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 19

  20. BI-SART starting from FBP Starting from FBP Starting from {0} 400 m at 11 340 m at 50 650 m at 11 400 m at 50 Better spatial resolution February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 20

  21. pCT upgrade (5x20cm2) A system similar to the one already tested Microstrip tracker YAG:Ce calorimeter But with a 50 x 200 mm2field of view On-line data aquisition 1 MHz capability Rectangular aspect ratio to perform tomographies in slices Phantom Beam pipe Tracker planes Silicon sensors Calorimeter February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 21

  22. Fully assembled Tracker plane Chip front-end Silicon strip Master FPGA Virtex6 Slave FPGAs February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 22

  23. New tracker plane New tracker front end chip Better I2C functionality Less threshold dispersion New version of the printed board FPGA programmability issues solved New buffer chips The new front-end chips have been delivered last november The new printed board, delivered in november too, had mounting problems (we should received it from last iteration this week) In the meanwhile problems to the INFN-Florence bonding machine (discontinued by Delvotech, repaired by our technician) This week: test of the new front-end chip on the new tracker board February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 23

  24. 2016 High energy runs (200 MeV) Need O(100kHz-1MHz) instantaneous intensity beam Calorimeter/scintillator (preliminary) Test of the extended view pCT system (Spring 2016) One/two Tracker bords + Calorimeter integration Noise performance Rate capability Data acquisition for tomography (second half of 2016) Full pCT system with different phantoms February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 24

  25. 2016 pCT plan Analysis 3D reconstruction, algebraic algorithm evolution, reconstruction parameters optimization Extended view pCT system Validate the tracker plane, calorimeter and DAQ integration Test at LNS, April 2016 Production and assembly of the 4/5 final tracker planes (PCB and front-end chips) by June 2016 Data taking with the full system during second half of 2016 (at least two runs) February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 25

  26. Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques Iterative algorithm to reconstruct tomographic images (proton stopping power maps) from projections (for pCT set of single proton events) Starting point (S(x,y,E) stopping power): Introducing the mass stopping power S/ : E0= a fixed energy (200 MeV or ... 60 MeV in our case) September 22nd 2015 C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015 26

  27. Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques Dividing by S/ at energy E: The left hand side doesn t depend too much on the material composition (~2-4*10-3) and could be replaced by the one measured for liquid water (NIST pstar tables - http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Star/Text/PSTAR.html): September 22nd 2015 C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015 27

  28. Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques Integrating along the proton path: Wang, Med.Phys. 37(8), 2010: 4138 Einis given by the accelerator, Eoutby the calorimeter and the path by the tracker (Most Likely Path) Subdividing the object into a set of pixels, for the ith proton: Where wijis the path length of proton i inside the pixel j September 22nd 2015 C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015 28

  29. Pixel 1 Pixel j p out 90 MeV Phantom: 20 cm of water Computational challenge: find the simplest (fastest) way to build the wij matrix (could have billions of elements, most of them equal to zero) p in 200 MeV wij Pixel N September 22nd 2015 C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015 29

  30. Algebraic Reconstruction Techniques The problem is then to solve, for Sj, the following set of equations: N = number of pixels; M number of protons In our case: N = (250x250)=62500 pixels M ~ 36(angles)*106events September 22nd 2015 C. Civinini - INFN Firenze - SIF 2015 30

  31. Read-out group Silicon microstrip detectors Front-end chips Power regulators FPGA slave February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 31

  32. February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 32

  33. Calorimeter calibration and Tracker alignment Using four energy points in the range 78-172 MeV, the calorimeter has been point-by-point calibrated (400 cells, 3x3mm2each). The tracker has been aligned using 2x106events taken without phantom: Plane no. 3 has been fixed (absolute reference frame) Furthermore, for each of the other planes: out of 6 degrees of freedom 3 have been fixed ( z, , ) and three free to vary ( x, y, ); Global minimization of the residuals has been done x~(300 500) (40 70) m (horizontal position has no mechanical constraint screw tolerance) y ~(30 90) (40 70) m (vertical position easier to be mechanically constrained) ~(1 3) (0.3 0.7)mrad February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 33

  34. Data preprocessing The ~6x107tomography events have been preprocessed in order to remove three main source of background 1. Multiple protons 2. Nuclear interactions in the calorimeter 3. Elastic nuclear interactions in the phantom/silicon sensors Events of categories 1) and 2) are cut using an energy compatibility criterion (-9+8MeV from the expected energy), while events of category 3) are removed using the proton scattering angle (more than 3 sigma away from expected MCS) February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 34

  35. New YAG:Ce calorimeter data 60 MeV =3.9% Double protons=120 MeV Noise = 10 MeV ADC counts February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 35

  36. YAG:Ce calorimeter Data Acquisition System 2x7 YAG:Ce Crystals Array Size: 3x3x10cm3 CHASSIS NI PXIe-1071 FlexRIO NI PXIe-7962R 14 Analog Channels Ad.Mod. NI-5751 Parallel read-out Sampling: 5MS/s 24 Samples x event 7Dig I/O GEN Disable Trigger Dig. Trigger RT Controller NI PXI-8102 Silicon Photodiodes 1.8x1.8cm2 Tracker x14 February 1st 2016 Carlo Civinini INFN-Firenze 36 Fast Charge Amplifier + Shaper

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#