## Investigation of Novel Preclinical Total Body PET Designed With J-PET Technology: A Simulation Study

M. Dadgar , S. Parzych, F. Tayefi Ardebili, J. Baran, N. Chug, C. Curceanu, E. Czerwi ń ski, K. Dulski , K. Eliyan, A. Gajos , B. C. Hiesmayr , K. Kacprzak , Ł . Kap on , K. Klimaszewski , P. ł Konieczka, G. Korcyl , T. Kozik , W. Krzemien, D. Kumar, S. Niedzwiecki , D. Panek, E. Perez del Rio , L. Raczyn ski , S. Sharma , Shivani , R.Y. Shopa , M. Skurzok, K. Tayefi Ardebili, S. ́ Vandenberghe , W. Wislicki, E. Ł . Ste pien  , and P. Moskal ̧ ́

Abstract -The  growing  interest  in  human-grade  total  body  positron  emission  tomography  (PET) systems has also application in small animal research. Due to the existing limitations in human-based studies involving drug development and novel treatment monitoring, animal-based research became a necessary step for testing and protocol preparation. In this simulation-based study two unconventional, cost-effective small animal total body PET scanners (for mouse and rat studies) have been investigated in order to inspect their feasibility for preclinical research. They were designed with the  novel  technology  explored  by  the  Jagiellonian-PET  (J-PET)  Collaboration.  Two  main  PET characteristics: sensitivity and spatial resolution were mainly inspected to evaluate their performance. Moreover,  the  impact  of  the  scintillator  dimension  and  time-of-flight  on  the  latter  parameter  was examined in order to design the most efficient tomographs. The presented results show that for mouse TB J-PET the achievable system sensitivity is equal to 2.35% and volumetric spatial resolution to 9.46

- -0.54  mm 3 ,  while  for  rat  TB  J-PET  they  are  equal  to  2.6%  and  14.11 -0.80  mm 3 ,  respectively. Furthermore, it was shown that the designed tomographs are almost parallax-free systems, hence, they resolve  the  problem  of  the  acceptance  criterion  tradeoff  between  enhancing  spatial  resolution  and reducing sensitivity.

Index Terms -Geant4 application for tomographic emission (GATE) simulation, Jagiellonian-positron emission tomography (J-PET), small animal, total body PET.

## I. INTRODUCTION

Biomedical research on animals is an inherent preceding part of human-based studies. This fact is dictated by the  necessary  safety  restrictions  in  for  example  testing  phase  of  drug  development  or  novel  treatment monitoring [1]. Since rodents like mice and rats share with humans a large number of common diseases, these  small  animals  became  a  suitable  alternative  system  for  preclinical  research  [2].  Moreover,  the  high reproduction rates of rodents provide accessible experimental and control populations for statistical studies [3].

Positron emission tomography (PET) is a typical choice for medical research on small animals. It enables noninvasive imaging of the temporal and spatial distribution of the radiopharmaceutical in vivo, which found use in the early oncological diagnosis, physiological imaging, as well as treatment monitoring [3]. Due to the fact that rodent-based studies involve animals of sizes several times smaller than human scale, the humangrade PET systems are not adequate for them. The small sizes of anatomical structures force the utilization of dedicated  small  animal  PET  tomographs  characterized  by  the  higher  spatial  resolution  and  much  more compact dimensions.

Manuscript received 1 July 2022; revised 26 August 2022; accepted 19 September 2022. Date of publication 4 October 2022; date of current version 3 February 2023. This work was supported in part by the Foundation for Polish Science through TEAM POIR.04.04.00-00-4204/17; in part by the National Science Centre (NCN), Poland, under Grant 2021/42/A/ST2/00423; in part by PRELUDIUM 19 under Agreement UMO-2020/37/N/NZ7/04106; in part by the Ministry of Education and Science under Grant SPUB/SP/530054/2022; in part by the grant from the SciMat and qLife Priority Research Areas through the Strategic Programme Excellence Initiative at the Jagiellonian University; in part by the Jagiellonian University under Grant CRP/0641.221.2020; and in part by EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, STRONG- 2020 Project under Grant 824093. (Corresponding author: M. Dadgar.) This work did not involve human subjects or animals in its research. M. Dadgar, S. Parzych, F. Tayefi Ardebili, J. Baran, N. Chug, E. Czerwin ski, K. Dulski, K. Eliyan, A. Gajos, K. Kacprzak, ́ Ł . Kap on, G. Korcyl, T. Kozik, D. Kumar, S. Niedz wiecki, D. Panek, E. Perez ł ́ del Rio, S. Sharma, Shivani, M. Skurzok, K. Tayefi Ardebili, E. Ł . Ste pien , and P. Moskal are with the Faculty of Physics, Astronomy, and Applied Computer Science and Total Body Jagiellonian-̨ ́ PET Laboratory, Jagiellonian University, 31-007 Kraków, Poland (e-mail: meysam.dadgar@uj.edu.pl; p.moskal@uj.edu.pl).  C. Curceanu is with the Faculty of Physics, Astronomy, and Applied Computer Science and Total Body Jagiellonian-PET Laboratory, Jagiellonian University, 31-007 Kraków, Poland, and also with INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, 00044 Frascati, Italy. B. C. Hiesmayr is with the Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, 1010 Vienna, Austria. K. Klimaszewski, P. Konieczka, L. Raczyn ski, R.Y. Shopa, and W. Wis licki are with the Department of Complex ́ ́

Systems, National Centre for Nuclear Research, 05-400 Otwock-S   wierk, Poland.  W. Krzemien  is with High Energy Physics Division, National Centre for Nuclear Research, 05-400 Otwock-S ́ ́ ́ wierk, Poland.  S. Vandenberghe is with the Department of Electronics and Information Systems, MEDISIP, Ghent University-IBiTech, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.  Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at https://doi.org/10.1109/TRPMS.2022.3211780. Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TRPMS.2022.3211780

Fig. 1. (Left) Gamma  quanta from electron-positron annihilation  interact  with  plastic  scintillators (red). These interactions  produce  light  signals  which  can  be  detected  by SiPM  (blue)  located  at each  end  of the scintillator. By knowing  the  speed  of  light  signals  (v)  and  arrival  time difference to each SiPM, the interaction position along plastic strips  can  be  calculated  [19].  (Right)  Schematic  view  from detection of gamma  quanta caused by annihilation in traditional PET scans.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-56309f20-1af1-4dad-8351-e616ed640ac9.jpg)

Fig.  2.  Graphical  visualization  of  the  mouse TB J-PET (left) and  rat  TB  J-PET,  detection  units  called  panels  (red)  in  the form  of  the  two  detection  layers  with  5-mm  gaps  between them, coupled with SiPM at each end (blue). Each module is constructed of 32 × 32 × 1 array of EJ-230 plastic scintillators. To  enhance  axial  resolution,  among  every  two  modules  and right between layers the array of WLS strips perpendicular to the plastic scintillator has been located (green).

Despite the exceptional spatial resolution, small animal scanners suffer from poor sensitivity-another key characteristic  in  the  PET  performance. This  directly  transfers  to  the  lower  image  quality  and  necessity  of longer scans with higher administered radioactive doses. Since there are regulations and limits on the latter, there  is  a  demand  for  the  development  of  new  tomographs  able  to  perform  high-resolution  imaging  with substantial  sensitivity.  Recent  years,  in  the  field  of  PET,  are  characterized  by  the  investigations  and developments of new category of human- grade scanners, namely, the total body systems [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Their greater coverage over the human body with respect to the standard clinically available tomographs not only enhances the scanner's sensitivity but also enables the dynamic imaging [9]. The advantages of the total  body  systems  for  humans  brought  attention  and  interest  in  extending  of  the  field-  of-view  in  small animal PETs as well [10].

Nevertheless, the development of a total body PET comes with new challenges, mainly due to the multiplied number of utilized detectors and electronics [9]. One of the solu- tions for such design was presented by the Jagiellonian-PET  (J-PET)  Collaboration  from  Jagiellonian  University  in  Cracow,  Poland,  [11],  [12],  [13], [14], [15], [16]. Their novel approach to the tomograph construction based on the organic scintilla- tors was proven to be a viable, cost-effective alternative [17]. In oppose to the traditional use of crystal scintillators, the J-PET design utilizes axially oriented plastic scintillator strips arranged in the portable detection units with silicon photomultiplier readout situated on both ends (as shown in Fig. 1) [13], [18].

This simulation-based study is dedicated to checking the applicability of the organic plastic scintillators in the  PET  studies  on  small  animals,  especially  in  the  context  of  the  optimization  of  spatial  resolution  by varying scintillator cross section. Furthermore, the feasibility of the resulting small animal total body PET tomographs designed with the J-PET technology is investigated. For the evaluation of their performance, two of the main characteristics of scanners: sensitivity and spatial resolution have been investigated. Additionally, the influence of the angular acceptance criterion, which was shown to enhance the performance of humangrade total body systems has been examined [20].

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-d772dad2-45a8-482d-9632-96c6a52e5652.jpg)

Fig. 3. Four panel types constructed from scintillators of 1 mm × 1 mm (upper-left), 2 mm × 2 mm (upper-right), 3 mm × 3 mm (lower-left), and 4 mm × 4 mm (lower-right) cross sections.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-72b80e8d-8273-4cdf-ab20-70cab4b7a34d.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-cff4b038-bfa2-4f91-819f-37c72c41c2c7.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-992e7e7a-6831-436e-adbe-08388620b481.jpg)

## II. METHODS

In this study, a small animal total body system adjusted for the mice's anatomical size and designed with the J-PET technology was investigated (see Figs. 2 and 3 top-left). This 23-cm long tomograph with 11 cm of diameter will be from now on referred to as mouse TB J-PET. It is composed of axially arranged EJ-230 'Eljen Technology' plastic scintillation strips coupled on both ends with silicon photomultipliers (SiPMs) [21] and grouped into two layers of 33.5 mm × 33.5 mm × 230 mm modules. Two consecutive modules in a radial direction constitute a panel. In total, it consists of 12 panels. Moreover, in order to improve the axial resolution, a layer of wavelength shifting (WLS) strips arranged perpendicularly to the scintillator strips is incorporated into this TB J-PET [18], [22].

The  presented  research  has  been  carried  out  with  the  use  of  the  Geant4  Application  for  Tomographic Emission (GATE) software [23], [24], [25]. GATE is a validated open- source simulation toolkit dedicated to numerical simulations in nuclear medicine and imaging systems. The GATE software was used to simulate the  aforementioned  total  body  small  animal  J-PET  systems  proposed  by  the  J-PET  Collaboration.  The obtained hit-based results were further analyzed by the GOJA software, specifically, designed for J-PET-like geometries  [26].  Due  to  the  fact,  that  in  the  case  of  organic  scintillators,  the  Compton  scattering  is  the dominating channel for annihilation photons interaction, the traditional energy window is exchanged for the energy threshold of 200 keV [27]. Since the spatial resolution is closely related to the scintillator dimensions a  study  of  the  strips  cross  section  has  been  performed  taking  into  account  parameters,  such  as  sensitivity, spatial resolution, and time-of-flight (TOF) resolution. For that four cross sections were considered of one scintillator in a 33.5 mm × 33.5 mm quadratic array (as shown in Fig. 3): 1 mm × 1 mm, 2 mm × 2 mm, 3 mm   3 mm, and 4 mm × × 4 mm were evaluated.

The  sensitivity  of  scanners  represents  their  ability  for  photon  detection.  It  consists  of  many  factors  like geometrical coverage of detectors, their efficiency at 511 keV, etc., [28]. The system sensitivity is defined as a  fraction  of  detected  events  to  all  produced  ones  [29].  In  order  to  estimate  system  sensitivities  of  four inspected  mouse  TB  J-PET  tomographs,  a  370-kBq  back-to-back  point  source  without  any  surrounding phantom has been simulated in the axial and radial center. Moreover, for the sake of this and all subsequent simulations the energy threshold of 200 keV [18], [27] and coincidence window of 3 ns have been used.

The  reconstruction  of  simulated  data  was  performed  with  the  OSEM  iterative  algorithm  provided  by  the quantitative  emission  tomography  iterative  reconstruction  (QETIR)  software  [30],  [31].  The  images  were reconstructed  using  ten  iterations  with  two  subsets  each  while  taking  into  account  all  types  of  the coincidences. The sensitivity map has been generated by the QETIR software with 1mm × 1mm 1mm voxel × size.

Nowadays, the TOF technique is utilized to enhance the performance of tomographs. It allows for localizing annihilation points with more precision than in the case of non-TOF PET scanners and therefore improves the  spatial  resolution. To  investigate  the  effect  of  the  various TOF  resolutions  for  different  dimensions  of plastic scintillator, a 1-MBq back-to-back point source has been simulated at the center of the scanner.

The spatial resolution as one of the most important characteristics of PET scanners reflects the dimensions of distinguishable lesions, which is of special importance in the case of small animal studies [32]. Its quality was inspected  as  the  full  width  at  half  maximum  (FWHM)  of  the  reconstructed  centrally  located  1-MBq back-to-back point source without any surrounding phantom.

Furthermore,  after  estimating  the  best  performing  configuration  of  the  mouse  TB  J-PET,  a  more  detailed study  of  the  chosen  system  has  been  performed. Additionally,  a  second  small  animal  total  body  scanner dedicated to rat studies was designed in order to adjust to the anatomical size difference between mice and rats (see Fig. 2) [33]. It consists of 16 panels as defined for the previous tomograph (however with a 30-cm axial length) which provide 30 cm of axial-field- of-view (AFOV) and 16 cm of diameter. From now, on this system will be referred to as rat TB J-PET. A more detailed geometrical configuration can be found in Table I.

TABLE I GEOMETRICAL CONFIGURATIONS OF SMALL ANIMAL TB J-PET TOMOGRAPHS

TABLE I GEOMETRY-BASED CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL ANIMAL TB J-PET TOMOGRAPHS

| angle                      |       |       |
|----------------------------|-------|-------|
|                            |  0.96 |  0.96 |
| Geometric efficiency [rad] | 10.84 | 10.6  |

The geometric efficiency of the proposed tomographs were estimated according to the formula [34]

$$\Xi = \Omega \varphi$$

where ( ) is the overall solid angle coverage and ( φ ) is the packing fraction. They are calculated as Ω

$$\Omega = 4 \pi \sin \left | \tan ^ { - 1 } \left ( A / D \right ) \right |$$

where A is the axial length of the tomograph, D its diameter and

$$\varphi = \frac { \prod \prod } { \tau \dots + \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \dagger \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \ tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau\dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \delta \tau \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \tau \dots \sigma \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \tau \delta \tau \tau \tau \delta \tau \tau \delta \tau \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \ delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta \tau \delta$$

Packing fraction is a dimensionless parameter as shown in (3), where w is the width of the detector module, h is its axial height, and dw h , is the corresponding dead space. The obtained values are presented in Table II.

In order to evaluate the performance of the final two scanners more thorough studies of sensitivity, spatial resolution, and event selection have been performed [35], [36].

So as to estimate sensitivities possible to obtain within the whole inspected small animal TB tomographs, back-to-back point  sources  of  370-kBq  activity  each  and  without  any  surrounding  phantoms  have  been  simulated  with different axial and radial offsets (see Table III).

TABLE III POSITIONS OF POINT SOURCES FOR SENSITIVITY ESTIMATION

The spatial resolution was inspected along each of the radial, tangential, and axial directions [37]. For each TB tomograph, four back-to-back point sources without any surrounding phantoms and situated in the (1/2) and ∼ (1/4) of axial and radial directions have been simulated.

It  was  previously  shown [20] that human-grade total body PET scanners suffer from detection of oblique lines  of  responses  (LORs),  which  have  a  negative  influence  on  the  quality  of  the  reconstructed  image. Notably, the spatial  resolution  is  degrading  due  to  the  strong  photon  attenuation  in  the  body  and  parallax error [38]. A solution for that problem was presented by introducing an acceptance criterion [20], [39], [40], [41] during the event selection, which sets angular limits on the LORs taken into image reconstruction. For the human total body PET tomography, it was presented that the 45 ◦ acceptance angle cut can be the optimal selection  for  resolution  improvements  [20].  This  study  will  investigate  if  the  acceptance  parameter  is  as before a valid criterion for small animal total body scanners.

## III. RESULTS

In  order  to  design  a  novel  small  animal  total  body  PET  tomograph,  which  among  other  characteristics requires high spatial resolution, a detailed investigation of the effect of the plastic scintillator's transverse dimensions on the scanner's performance has been performed. For this test, the mouse TB J-PET has been chosen as a PET system. While keeping the geometrical configuration as previously described, only the cross section of the plastic strip was varied (see Fig. 3).

First, the influence on sensitivity was estimated based on a simulation of a centrally located point source. The obtained values were equal to 2.38%, 2.40%, 2.66%, and 2.45% for 1 mm, 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm versions, respectively. The slow growth in sensitivity between 1, 2, and 4 mm is caused by the reduction of the number of  in  between  scintillator  gaps.  The  deviating  result  for  the  3  mm × 3  mm  cross  section  comes  from  the additional 2-mm thickness of material in contrast to the rest of inspected types. Such addition was necessary due to the not natural division of the module into 3-mm sections. The results indicate that while keeping the same amount of scintillator material, there is almost no difference in sensitivity for various cross sections.

To assess the impact of TOF resolution on the spatial resolutions of each scintillator cross section, a centrally located point source was simulated (see Fig. 4). In the case of radial resolution for TOF above 100 ps, there is no significant difference, especially for smaller strip dimensions. However, this tendency is not repeated in axial  resolution  where  the  dependence  is  more  linear.  In  the  following  studies,  230-ps  FWHM  has  been chosen  as  TOF  resolution,  consistent  with  previous  work  [42].  To  evaluate  the  spatial  resolution,  a  point source at the center of the mouse TB J-PET scanner was simulated. Due to the central location of the source and symmetrical configuration of the tomograph, only radial and axial resolutions were investigated (see Fig. 5). There is a clear dependence of the transverse dimension of scintillator strips on the obtainable FWHM

values. The best achievable resolution in both axial and radial directions is provided by the smallest cross section. Moreover,  a  further  decrease  in  the  spatial  resolution  can  be  obtained  with  a  number  of reconstruction iterations. In the radial direction, the plateau is reached around 6th iteration, while in the axial direction around 8th.

The aforementioned results show that the 1 mm × 1 mm cross section of the plastic scintillator strip ensures the  best  performance  of  the  tomograph.  Based  on  it,  the  corresponding  rat  and  mouse  total  body  J-PET systems  have  been  taken  into  consideration  for  a  thorough  study  of  their  performance.  The  geometrical configuration of the two scanners can be found in Table I.

Fig. 4. Plots show the obtained FWHM for various dimensions of plastic scintillator for numerous values of the TOF resolutions. As shown in the plots, there is a visible dependence between achieved FWHM for different plastic scintillator dimensions and corresponding TOF resolution.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-c7cf7cbd-70fc-4b37-aafa-c1ba94d3d799.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-3b1bfab5-cdb2-4e85-9b4f-3f18962e096e.jpg)

Fig. 5. Achieved FWHM in radial (upper) and axial (lower) as function of number of the iteration for various dimension of plastic scintillator with a point sources at the center of the scanner.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-94ba8025-dd15-4a5d-819a-9ea21ab54213.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-c11054e4-dd68-434f-bdda-8802444fadb8.jpg)

In order to calculate the sensitivity of mouse and rat TB J-PET, a group of point sources (see Table III) was simulated. The obtained values are presented in Fig. 6. In both cases, the central area of the field-of-view is the most  sensitive  with  2.35%  and  2.6%  system  sensitivity  for  mouse  and  rat  tomographs,  respectively.  While moving to the furthest point in the axial direction there is a total decrease by factors of 2.3 and 3.7. The reason for  this  discrepancy  between  scanners  lies  in  the  difference  in  their  diameters,  which  directly  corresponds  to their solid angle coverage over the outermost source.

The  spatial  resolution  of  the  tomographs  has  been  evaluated  as  the  FWHM  of  multiple  point  sources reconstructed with the OSEM algorithm in radial, tangential, and axial directions. Additionally, the effect of the number of the iteration has been estimated. For both investigated systems by increasing the number of iterations, it was possible to reduce resolutions and find their minimal achievable values (see Figs. 7 and 8). In  most  cases,  the  plateau  region  or  the  local  minimum  was  reached  between  6th  and  8th  iteration.  The volumetric resolution refers to the multiplication of spatial resolution values in radial, tangential, and axial directions. For the calculation of the volumetric resolution, the 6th iteration of the centrally located source was chosen (see Table IV). Obtained values were equal to 9.46 - 0.54 mm 3 and 14.11 - 0.80 mm 3 ,  for mouse and rat TB J-PET, respectively.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-69ce22bc-15aa-45f3-8f57-8032ac164971.jpg)

Fig. 6. Absolute sensitivity of mouse TB J-PET (up) and rat TB J-PET (down) as a function of radial and axial offset of sources. Due to  the  symmetrical  configuration  of  scanners  54  and  65,  point  sources  are  able  to  map  the  sensitivity  of  all  parts  of  scanners, respectively.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-c65923e9-92af-4a09-bc15-33005aeaec09.jpg)

Alongside  offering  many  advantages  utilization  of  the  large  AFOV  in  total  body  tomographs  have  a degradable influence on the spatial resolution.  It  is  caused  by  the  contribution  of  oblique  LORs  in  image reconstruction. In order to solve this problem, an acceptance criterion is being used. Based on the simulation of  the  centrally  located  point  source  of  1-MBq  activity,  the  effect  of  45 ◦ acceptance  angle  cut  on  radial, tangential, and axial resolution was estimated (see Table IV). For the calculation of the FWHM-s, the 6th iteration has been used. As can be seen in Table IV, the effect of applying the acceptance angle criterion is negligible. In view of that fact, the acceptance parameter seems to be neutral for both mouse and rat TB JPET systems.

TABLE IV SPATIAL RESOLUTION OF SMALL ANIMAL TB-JPET SCANNERS WITH AND WITHOUT ACCEPTANCE CRITERION

| TB J-PET                  | Mouse       | Mouse       | Rat          | Rat          |
|---------------------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|--------------|
| Acceptance cur            | None        | 45          | None         |              |
| Radial FWHM [mm]          |             | 1.65 + 0.02 | 2.05 + 0,.10 | 1,93 + 0.02  |
| Tangential FWHM [mm]      | 1.70 4 0.02 | 1.65 4 0.02 | 2.08 4 0.04  | 1.96 4 0.02  |
| Axial FWHM [mm]           | 3.09 + 0.03 |             | 3.31 + 0.07  | 3.16 + 0.02  |
| Volumetric Resolution (mm | 9.46 + 0.54 | 8.03 + 0.18 |              | 11.95 4 0.19 |

The neutrality of this characteristic in oppose to its impact on human-grade total body scanners can originate from the novel geometrical configuration of plastic scintillator strips. Multiple layers of fine strips in a radial direction within each detection module as shown in Fig. 3 allow for more precise localization of annihilation photon's interactions in the transverse plane, which minimizes the impact of the parallax error.

Fig. 7. Plots show the obtained FWHM values for mouse TB  J-PET  in  radial,  tangential,  and  axial  axes  as  the function of the iteration number.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-f89bfe42-b633-4034-ab82-d4b3ab2731fd.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-60b40903-16e7-4ace-a72b-4f6411f5f30b.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-4de84318-6bec-4b2e-942c-1fb910ff0e46.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-7ae30d41-77b7-4ea5-89c4-886fb304bc82.jpg)

Fig. 8. FWHM values of the reconstructed images of point sources  in  rat  TB  J-PET  in  radial,  tangential,  and  axial axes.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-6031da3d-2d28-4e3c-a5db-27e61d33ebe2.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-5789cae7-e7aa-4c43-9158-309cb9ed1ff0.jpg)

## IV. CONCLUSION

The  development  of  total  body  PET  technology  is  currently  one  of  the  main  directions  in  the  medical imaging  field.  While  being  mostly  pursued  in  the  human-grade  tomographs,  such  technology  has  great application in small animal studies as well. The main aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of the  small  animal  total  body  systems  designed  with  the  J-PET  technology  and  based  on  the  simulation performed with GATE software.

Since the scintillator dimension has a direct influence on the spatial resolution, which is the key parameter in rodent studies, its optimal size was investigated. For that four mouse TB J-PETs constructed from scintillator strips of different cross sections were simulated. The presented results show that when it comes to the system

sensitivity  there  is  no  significant  change  with  varying  strip  dimensions  as  long  as  the  total  amount  of scintillator material remains constant (see Fig. 3). However, as expected, there is an evident impact of the strips dimensions on the spatial resolution. In that case, the best performing cross section is the smallest one, 1 mm × 1 mm.

Fig. 9. Comparison of sensitivity and volumetric resolution of preclinical PET systems. TB J-PET solutions are indicated in red (21 for  mouse) and (23 for rat). Dashed lines indicate values for preclinical TB J-PET. Numbers indicate results for PET systems as explained in the legend in the right panel of the figure. The size of symbols is proportional to the AFOV of the scanner.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-fd677ccb-c8b2-47b7-b095-2987e413f457.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00574v2-figure-6adc69cc-4014-4a0c-8585-4b9bbbef399b.jpg)

|    | MicroPETII    |       | 18   | Bela Cube [9]     |   130 |
|----|---------------|-------|------|-------------------|-------|
|    | Clio-on [48]  | 50.4  | 19   | Albira PET [59]|  |   150 |
|    | F120 [49]     | 76    | 20   | ClairvivoPeT [60] |   151 |
|    | ranoScar [50] |       |      | Mouse TB J-PET    |   230 |
| 10 | nanoPET [51]  | 95    | 22   | [61]              |   280 |
|    |               | 95.05 | 23   | Rat IB ]-PET      |   300 |

By considering the similarity in the obtained sensitivity, this dimension was chosen for the final design and further study of mouse and rat TB J-PET tomographs.

In  order  to  investigate  their  performance  in  detail,  mainly  the  sensitivity  and  spatial  resolution  have  been used. For the proposed scanners 2.35% and 2.6% of the system, sensitivity is achievable for mouse and rat

TB  J-PET,  respectively.  In  the  same  order,  they  provide  9.46  -  0.54  mm 3 and  14.11  -  0.80  mm 3 of volumetric resolution. Moreover, the impact of the angular acceptance criterion, which is a commonly used parameter  to  enhance  the  scanner's  resolution,  was  estimated.  The  acceptance  cut  was  shown  to  have  a negligible  influence  on  the  spatial  resolution.  This  result  comes  from  the  unique  configuration  of  the proposed  small  animal  TB  J-PETs,  mainly  the  multilayer  division  of  fine  scintillator  strips  in  the  radial direction within a detection module. Therefore, the designed total body tomographs are almost parallax-free systems.

Finally, the extended AFOV of investigated J-PET scanners not only provides a larger detection area but also the possibility of performing single bed position scans of full, larger size animals. In order to compare the obtained  small  animal  PET  tomograph's  performance,  a  comparison  plot  to  some  currently  available scanners is shown in Fig. 9. This plot is an updated version of the one presented by Lai et al. [63]. Presented results in Fig. 9 come from both iterative and analytic algorithms of image reconstruction. While having the comparable performance, the proposed total body tomographs based on the J-PET technology are able to provide  the  largest  AFOV  among  all  inspected  scanners.  Alongside  cost-effectiveness,  this  solution  is  a feasible choice for preclinical studies on small animals.

## REFERENCES

[1] W. McDougald et al., 'Standardization of preclinical PET/CT imaging to improve quantitative accuracy, precision, and reproducibility: A multicenter study,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 461-468, 2019.

- [2] T. Vandamme, 'Use of rodents as models of human diseases,' J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 2-9, 2014.
- [3] C. Vanhove, J. Bankstahl, S. Krämer, E. Visser, N. Belcari, and S. Vandenberghe, 'Accurate molecular imaging of small animals taking into account animal models, handling, anaesthesia, quality control and imaging system performance,' EJNMMI Phys. , vol. 2, no. 31, pp. 1-25, 2015.
- [4] S. Vandenberghe, P. Moskal, and J. Karp, 'State of the art in total body PET,' EJNMMI Phys. , vol. 7, no. 35, pp. 1-33, 2020.
- [5] P. Moskal and E. Ł . Ste pien , 'Positronium as a biomarker of hypoxia,' ̧ ́ Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst. , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 311-319, 2021.
- [6] A. Alavi, T. J. Werner, E. Ł . Ste pien , and P. Moskal, 'Unparalleled and revolutionary impact of PET ̧ ́ imaging on research and day to day practice of medicine,' Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst. , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 203212, 2021.
- [7] S. Vandenberghe, 'Progress and perspectives in total body PET systems instrumentation,' Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst. , vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 265-267, 2021.
- [8] S. Surti, A. Pantel, and J. Karp 'Total body PET: Why, how, what for?' Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst. , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 283-292, 2020.
- [9] S. R. Cherry, T. Jones, J. S. Karp, J. Qi, W. W. Moses, and R. D. Badawi, 'Total body PET: Maximizing sensitivity to create new opportunities for clinical research and patient care,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 312, 2018.
- [10] S. Krishnamoorthy, E. Blankemeyer, P. Mollet, S. Surti, R. Van Holen, and J. S. Karp, 'Performance evaluation of the MOLECUBES β -CUBE- a high spatial resolution and high sensitivity small animal PET scanner utilizing monolithic LYSO scintillation detectors,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 63, no. 15, 2018, Art. no. 155013.
- [11] P.MoskalandE. Ł .Ste pien ,'Prospectsandclinicalperspectivesoftotal body PET imaging using plastic ̧ ́ scintillators,' PET Clin. , vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 439-452, 2020.
- [12] Ł . Kap on, 'Technical attenuation length measurement of plastic scintillator strips for the total-body J-PET ł scanner,' IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 2286-2289, Oct. 2020.
- [13] P. Moskal et al., 'Simulating NEMA characteristics of the modular Total Body J-PET scanner-an economic Total Body PET from plastic scintillators,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 66, no. 17, 2021, Art. no. 175015.
- [14] P. Moskal et al., 'Positronium imaging with the novel multiphoton PET scanner,' Sci. Adv. , vol. 7, no. 42, 2021, Art. no. eabh4394.
- [15] P. Moskal et al., 'Testing CPT symmetry in ortho-positronium decays with positronium annihilation tomography,' Nat. Commun. , vol. 12, no. 1, p. 5658, 2021.
- [16] S. Sharma et al., 'Estimating relationship between the time over threshold and energy loss by photons in plastic scintillators used in the J-PET scanner,' EJNMMI Phys. , vol. 7, no. 39, pp. 1-15, 2020.
- [17] P. Moskal et al., 'Feasibility study of the positronium imaging with the J-PET tomograph,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 64, no. 5, 2019, Art. no. 55017.
- [18]  P. Kowalski et al., 'Estimating the NEMA characteristics of the J-PET tomograph using the GATE package,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 63, no. 16, 2018, Art. no. 165008.

- [19]  P. Moskal et al., 'Test of a single module of the J-PET scanner based on plastic scintillators,' Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors Assoc. Equip. , vol. 764, pp. 317-321, Nov. 2014.
- [20]  M. Dadgar, S. Parzych, and F. Tayefi, 'A simulation study to estimate optimum LOR angular acceptance for the image reconstruction with the total body J-PET,' in Proc. MIUA , Oxford, U.K., 2021, pp. 189-200.
- [21]  P. Kowalski et al., 'Multiple scattering and accidental coincidences in the J-PET detector simulated using GATE package,' in Proc. II Symp. Positron Emission Tomogr. , Krakow, Poland, 2014, pp. 1505-1512.
- [22]  J. Smyrski et al., 'Measurement of gamma quantum interaction point in plastic scintillator with WLS strips,' Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors Assoc. Equip. , vol. 851, pp. 39-42, Apr. 2017.
- [23]  S. Jan et al., 'GATE-Geant4 application for tomographic emission: A simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 49, no. 19, pp. 4543-4561, 2004.
- [24]  P. Kowalski et al., 'Determination of the map of efficiency of the jagiellonian positron emission tomograph (J-PET) detector with the GATE package,' Bio-Algorithms Med-Syst. , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 85-90, 2014.
- [25]  D. Sarrut et al., 'Advanced Monte Carlo simulations of emission tomography imaging systems with GATE,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 66, no. 10, 2021, Art. no. 10TR03.
- [26]  M. Dadgar and P. Kowalski, 'Gate simulation study of the 24-module J-PET scanner: Data analysis and image reconstruction,' Acta Physica Polonica B , vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 309-315, 2020.
- [27]  P. Moskal et al., 'Performance assessment of the 2 γ positronium imaging with the total body PET scanners,' EJNMMI Phys. , vol. 7, no. 44, pp. 1-17, 2020.
- [28]  T. Beyer, D. W. Townsend, J. Czernin, and L. S. Freudenberg, 'The future of hybrid imaging-Part 2: PET/CT,' Insights Imag. , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 225-234, 2011.
- [29]  R. Yao, R. Lecomte, and E. S. Crawford, 'Small-animal PET: What is it, and why do we need it?' J. Nucl. Med. Technol. , vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 157-165, 2012.
- [30]  W. Krzemien, A. Gajos, K. Kacprzak, K. Rakoczy, and G. Korcyl, 'J-PET Framework: Software platform for PET tomography data reconstruction and analysis,' SoftwareX , vol. 11, Jan.-Jun. 2020, Art. no. 100487.
- [31]  E. D'Hoe. 'PET image reconstruction software QETIR.' 2013. [Online]. Available: https://ugent.be/ea/ ibitech/en/research/medisip/software- lab/ software- lab13.htm

- [32]  K. Gong, S. R. Cherry, and J. Qi, 'On the assessment of spatial reso- lution of PET systems with iterative image reconstruction,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 193-202, 2020.
- [33]  J. Frohlich, 'Rats and Mice,' in Ferrets, Rabbits, and Rodents . St. Louis, MO, USA: Elsevier, 2020.
- [34]  S. R. Cherry and M. Dahlbom, Data Collection and PET System Configurations . New York, NY, USA: Springer, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/0- 387- 34946- 4
- [35]  A. Sanaat, M. S. Zafarghandi, and M. R. Ay, 'Design and performance evaluation of high resolution small animal PET scanner based on mono- lithic crystal: A simulation study,' J. Instrum. , vol. 14, no. 1, 2019, Art. no. P01005.
- [36]  E. Visser et al., 'Spatial resolution and sensitivity of the Inveon small- animal PET scanner,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 139-147, 2009.
- [37]  T. Murata et al., 'Evaluation of spatial dependence of point spread function-based PET reconstruction using a traceable point-like 22Na source,' EJNMMI Phys. , vol. 3, no. 26, pp. 1-10, 2016.
- [38]  J. P. Schmall, J. S. Karp, M. Werner, and S. Surti1i, 'Parallax error in long axial field of view PET scanners -A simulation study,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 61, no. 14, pp. 5443-5455, 2016.
- [39]  B. A. Spencer et al., 'Performance evaluation of the uEXPLORER total body PET/CT scanner based on NEMA NU 2-2018 with additional tests to characterize long axial field-of-view PET scanners,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 861-870, 2021.
- [40]  I. Alberts et al., 'Clinical performance of long axial field of view PET/CT: A head-to-head intra-individual comparison of the biograph vision quadra with the biograph vision PET/CT,' Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imag. , vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2395-2404, Jul. 2021.
- [41] X. Zhang et al., 'Total body dynamic reconstruction and paramet- ric imaging on the uEXPLORER,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 285-291, 2021.
- [42] L. Raczyn ski et al., '3D TOF-PET image reconstruction using total vari- ation regularization,' ́ Physica Medica , vol. 80, pp. 230-242, Dec. 2020. [43] Y. Yang et al., 'A high resolution prototype small-animal PET scan- ner dedicated to mouse brain imaging,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 1130-1135, 2016.
- [44] S. R. Cherry et al., 'MicroPET: A high resolution PET scanner for imaging small animals,' IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1161-1166, Jun. 1997.
- [45] K. Ishii et al., 'First achievement of less than 1mm FWHM resolu- tion in practical semiconductor animal PET scanner,' Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors Assoc. Equip., vol. 576, no. 2-3, pp. 435-440, 2007.

- [46] S. España, R. Marcinkowski, V. Keereman, S. Vandenberghe, and R. Van Holen, 'DigiPET: Sub-millimeter spatial resolution small-animal PET imaging using thin monolithic scintillators,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 59, no. 13, pp. 3405-3420, 2014.
- [47] Y. Wang, J. Seidel, B. M. W. Tsui, J. J. Vaquero, and M. G. Pomper, 'Performance evaluation of the GE healthcare explore VISTA dual- ring small-animal PET scanner,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 1891-1900, 2006.
- [48] Y. Yang et al., 'Optimization and performance evaluation of the microPET II scanner for in vivo smallanimal imaging,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 2527-2545, 2004.
- [49] J. M. Vrigneaud et al., 'Initial performance evaluation of a preclinical PET scanner available as a clip-on assembly in a sequential PET/MRI system,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 63, no. 12, 2018, Art. no. 125007.
- [50] R. Laforest et al., 'Performance evaluation of the microPET-focus- F120,' IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 2965-2969, Sep. 2007. [51] K. Nagy et al., 'Performance evaluation of the small-animal nanoScan PET/MRI system,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 1825-1832, 2013. [52] I. Szanda et al., 'National electrical manufacturers association NU-4 performance evaluation of the PET component of the NanoPET/CT pre- clinical PET/CT scanner,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1741-1747, 2011.
- [53] Z. Gu et al., 'NEMA NU-4 performance evaluation of PETbox4, a high sensitivity dedicated PET preclinical tomograph,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 3791-3814, 2013.
- [54] Z. Gu, R. Taschereau, N. T. Vu, D. L. Prout, J. Lee, and A. F. Chatziioannou, 'Performance evaluation of HiPET, a high sensi- tivity and high resolution preclinical PET tomograph,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 65, no. 4, Art. no. 45009, 2020.
- [55] Z. Kuang et al., 'Design and performance of SIAT aPET: A uniform high-resolution small animal PET scanner using dual-ended readout detectors,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 65, no. 23, 2020, Art. no. 235013.
- [56] M. Cañadas, M. Embid, E. Lage, M. Desco, J. J. Vaquero, and J. M. Pérez, 'NEMA NU 4-2008 performance measurements of two commercial small-animal PET scanners: ClearPET and rPET-1,' IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. , vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 58-65, Feb. 2011.
- [57] M. Bergeron et al., 'Imaging performance of LabPET APD-based digital PET scanners for preclinical research,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 661-678, Feb. 2014.
- [58] S. Surti et al., 'Imaging performance of A-PET: A small animal PET camera,' IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. , vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 844-852, Jul. 2005. [59] Q. Bao, D. Newport, M. Chen, D. B. Stout, and A. F. Chatziioannou, 'Performance evaluation of the inveon dedicated PET preclinical tomo- graph based on the NEMA-NU4 standards,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 401-408, 2009.
- [60] W. Gsell et al., 'Characterization of a preclinical PET insert in a 7 tesla MRI scanner: Beyond NEMA testing,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 65, no. 24, 2020, Art. no. 245016.
- [61] K. Sato et al., 'Performance evaluation of the small-animal PET scanner ClairvivoPET using NEMA NU4-2008 standards,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 696-711, 2016.
- [62] K. P. Schäfers, A. J. Reader, M. Kriens, C. Knoess, O. Schober, and M. Schäfers, 'Performance evaluation of the 32-module quadHIDAC small-animal PET scanner,' J. Nucl. Med. , vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 996-1004, 2005.

[63] Y. Lai et al., 'H 2 RSPET: A 0.5 mm resolution high-sensitivity small- animal PET scanner, a simulation study,' Phys. Med. Biol. , vol. 65, no. 23, 2020, Art. no. 65016.
M. Dadgar S. Parzych F. Tayefi Ardebili J. Baran N. Chug C. Curceanu E. Czerwinski K. Dulski K. Eliyan A. Gajos B. C. Hiesmayr K. Kacprzak L. Kaplon K. Klimaszewski P. Konieczka G. Korcyl T. Kozik W. Krzemien D. Kumar S. Niedzwiecki D. Panek E. Perez del Rio L. Raczynski S. Sharma Shivani R. Y. Shopa M. Skurzok K. Tayefi Ardebili S. Vandenberghe W. Wislicki E. Stepien P. Moskal
Investigation of Novel Preclinical Total Body PET Designed With J-PET Technology:A Simulation Study
The growing interest in human-grade total body positron emission tomography
(PET) systems has also application in small animal research. Due to the
existing limitations in human-based studies involving drug development and
novel treatment monitoring, animal-based research became a necessary step for
testing and protocol preparation. In this simulation-based study two
unconventional, cost-effective small animal total body PET scanners (for mouse
and rat studies) have been investigated in order to inspect their feasibility
for preclinical research. They were designed with the novel technology explored
by the Jagiellonian-PET (J-PET) Collaboration. Two main PET characteristics:
sensitivity and spatial resolution were mainly inspected to evaluate their
performance. Moreover, the impact of the scintillator dimension and
time-of-flight on the latter parameter was examined in order to design the most
efficient tomographs. The presented results show that for mouse TB J-PET the
achievable system sensitivity is equal to 2.35% and volumetric spatial
resolution to 9.46 +- 0.54 mm3, while for rat TB J-PET they are equal to 2.6%
and 14.11 +- 0.80 mm3, respectively. Furthermore, it was shown that the
designed tomographs are almost parallax-free systems, hence, they resolve the
problem of the acceptance criterion tradeoff between enhancing spatial
resolution and reducing sensitivity.