Image Quality and Radiation Dose on Digital Chest Imaging - AJR

5 downloads 0 Views 618KB Size Report
OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation dose in chest imaging using an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector system ...
Chest Imaging • Original Research

Bacher et al. Flat-Panel Systems for Digital Imaging of the Chest

A

C E N T U R Y

MEDICAL

O F

IMAGING

Klaus Bacher1 Peter Smeets2 Ludo Vereecken3 An De Hauwere1 Philippe Duyck2 Robert De Man3 Koenraad Verstraete2 Hubert Thierens1 Bacher K, Smeets P, Vereecken L, et al.

Keywords: chest imaging, digital imaging, radiation dose, radiography, X-ray technology DOI:10.2214/AJR.05.0400 Received March 7, 2005; accepted after revision July 20, 2005. 1Department of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection,

Ghent University, Proeftuinstraat 86, Gent B9000, Belgium. Address correspondence to K. Bacher ([email protected]). 2Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital, Gent,

Belgium. 3Department of Radiology, Heilig Hart Hospital, Roeselare,

Belgium. AJR 2006; 187:630–637 0361–803X/06/1873–630 © American Roentgen Ray Society

630

Image Quality and Radiation Dose on Digital Chest Imaging: Comparison of Amorphous Silicon and Amorphous Selenium Flat-Panel Systems OBJECTIVE. The aim of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation dose in chest imaging using an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector system and an amorphous selenium flat-panel detector system. In addition, the low-contrast performance of both systems with standard and low radiation doses was compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In two groups of 100 patients each, digital chest radiographs were acquired with either an amorphous silicon or an amorphous selenium flat-panel system. The effective dose of the examination was measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters placed in an anthropomorphic Rando phantom. The image quality of the digital chest radiographs was assessed by five experienced radiologists using the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images. In addition, a contrast–detail phantom study was set up to assess the low-contrast performance of both systems at different radiation dose levels. Differences between the two groups were tested for significance using the twotailed Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS. The amorphous silicon flat-panel system allowed an important and significant reduction in effective dose in comparison with the amorphous selenium flat-panel system (p < 0.0001) for both the posteroanterior and lateral views. In addition, clinical image quality analysis showed that the dose reduction was not detrimental to image quality. Compared with the amorphous selenium flat-panel detector system, the amorphous silicon flat-panel detector system performed significantly better in the low-contrast phantom study, with phantom entrance dose values of up to 135 µGy. CONCLUSION. Chest radiographs can be acquired with a significantly lower patient radiation dose using an amorphous silicon flat-panel system than using an amorphous selenium flat-panel system, thereby producing images that are equal or even superior in quality to those of the amorphous selenium flat-panel detector system. ecause computer technology and storage capacity have developed rapidly during the past years, PACS are gaining importance [1, 2]. Digital radiography techniques will play an important role in this evolution because conventional radiographs are the most frequently obtained medical images [3]. In general, digital radiography systems offer instant image display, wide dynamic range, and linear signal response [2, 4, 5]. Moreover, digital images are flexible in processing and archiving, thereby providing a solution to the major disadvantages of screen-film systems. Storage phosphor plates, introduced approximately 20 years ago [6], were the first step toward full digitization of the radiology department. Nowadays, these computed radiography (CR) systems are widely used due

B

to compatibility with existing radiographic equipment and they offer images comparable in quality to conventional screen-film combinations [1, 2]. Only recently, large-area full digital flatpanel radiography detectors that are based on active matrix thin-film transistor technology became commercially available. Depending on the detector type, conversion of X-rays into electric signals is either direct or indirect [1, 4, 5]. Direct X-ray conversion is performed in an amorphous selenium flat-panel system, whereas indirect conversion of Xrays is used in flat-panel detectors based on cesium iodide and amorphous silicon. Flatpanel systems combine all advantages of CR with a higher detective quantum efficiency (DQE) than both screen-film and CR systems [1, 4, 5]. In addition, these detectors allow an

AJR:187, September 2006

Flat-Panel Systems for Digital Imaging of the Chest TABLE 1: Overview of the Technical Characteristics of the Amorphous Silicon and Amorphous Selenium Systems Active Matrix Flat-Panel System Characteristic

Amorphous Silicon

Amorphous Selenium

Model (manufacturer)

Vertix FD (Siemens Medical Solutions)

EPEX (Hologic)

Detector (manufacturer)

Pixium 4600 (Trixell)

DirectRay DR 1000 (Direct Radiography Corporation)

X-ray detection

Indirect: cesium iodide (Tl)

Direct: amorphous selenium

Imaging area (cm²)

43 × 43

35 × 43

Matrix size (pixels)

3,001 × 3,001

2,560 × 3,072

Pixel size (µm)

143

139

Image depth (bit)

14

Antiscatter grid (ratio)

Stationary (15:1)

optimized working procedure because of instant image display and the elimination of the use of film cassettes. Only a few studies have compared amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium flat-panel systems in clinical settings. The published results are mainly based on the measurement of noise characteristics, modulation transfer function (MTF), and DQE, and do not take into account patient acquisitions [7, 8]. Because chest radiography is the most commonly applied diagnostic radiography procedure [9], the aim of the present study was to compare the image quality and the patient dose in clinical chest imaging using either an amorphous silicon or an amorphous selenium flat-panel detector. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of contrast–detail was performed to compare the low-contrast performance of both systems at different dose settings. Materials and Methods Image Acquisition and Viewing The physical characteristics of the two active matrix flat-panel systems used in this study are summarized in Table 1. The amorphous silicon flat-panel detector system (Vertix FD, Siemens Medical Solutions; and Pixium 4600, Trixell) consisted of a ceilingmounted X-ray tube (Opti 150/30/50 HC, Siemens; focal spot size, 0.6 mm), a high-voltage generator, and a motorized receptor wall stand with the flat-panel detector mounted behind a stationary antiscatter grid. In the amorphous silicon flat-panel detector, a needle-structured thalliumdoped cesium iodide scintillator was used to convert the X-rays into visible light, which was deposited directly on the 43 × 43 cm2 amorphous

AJR:187, September 2006

14 Moving (10:1)

silicon matrix. Subsequently, an amorphous silicon photodiode converted the light into electric charge, resulting in a 14-bit digital signal in a 3,001 × 3,001 pixel matrix. The amorphous selenium flat-panel detector (Epex, Hologic; and DirectRay DR 1000, Direct Radiography Corporation) was used in combination with a ceiling-mounted X-ray tube (A192, Varian; focal spot size, 0.6 mm) and a high-voltage generator. The flat-panel detector was mounted behind a moving antiscatter grid. A detailed description of the selenium-based flat-panel detector can be found elsewhere [1, 4, 5]. Briefly, free electrons are released by the interaction of X-rays with the amorphous selenium semiconductor layer. Due to the application of an electric field across the selenium layer, the electric charges are drawn directly to the charge-collecting electrodes. The latter operation results in a 14-bit image stored in a 2,560 × 3,072 pixel matrix. The automatic exposure control (AEC) of both flat-panel systems was used in the standard settings, as advised by the manufacturers. After acquisition, the digital data were sent to a PACS workstation (MasterPage, Eastman Kodak) for image quality assessment. All digital images were scored on a 21-inch (53-cm), high-contrast gray-scale monitor (MGD 2621P, Barco) with a resolution of 1,280 × 1,600 and a maximum luminance of 600 cd/m2. The DICOM header of all images was changed to remove system-specific information on the image display. In this way, no difference could be seen between the amorphous selenium and amorphous silicon soft-copy images, allowing a blind study.

Patient Study Study group—Two hundred patients were referred to the radiology department for both routine posteroanterior and lateral chest radiography. At

random, images were obtained with either the amorphous silicon or the amorphous selenium flat-panel detector system. Pneumonectomy patients, patients with extreme spinal deformity, and those who were unable to raise their arms for the lateral view were excluded. The exposure for such patients would be excessive and could therefore artificially increase the mean measured radiation dose of a patient group. The posteroanterior and lateral chest radiographs were obtained with the patients in an upright position at a focus-to-detector distance of 180 cm. All examinations were performed at 125 kVp using AEC. The displayed exposure values (in milliampere-seconds [mAs]) after each acquisition were recorded. Scoring of patient images—Five experienced chest radiologists assessed all soft-copy posteroanterior chest radiographs and scored the image quality using a method adopted from the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images [10]. In that document, image quality criteria refer to characteristic features of imaged anatomic structures with a specific degree of visibility. In the Guidelines [10], three levels of visibility are defined: visualization (an anatomic feature is detectable but details are not fully reproduced), reproduction (details of anatomic structures are visible but not necessary clearly defined), and visually sharp reproduction (anatomic details are clearly defined). The images of both systems were presented in random order, and all images were interpreted independently. The radiologists were allowed to adjust the image brightness and contrast and to magnify the images to full resolution. The five radiologists had to decide whether a certain criterion (visualization, reproduction, or visually sharp reproduction) was fulfilled (score 1) or not (score 0) in a total of seven anatomic structures and four image details (Table 2). For low-contrast details (2 mm), the visualization of the normal bronchovascular structures up to the parietal pleura was considered. These peripheral structures are always smaller than the mentioned criteria (< 2 mm)— that is, a score of 1 was given when visible. When these bronchovascular structures could not be followed all the way up to the visceral pleura, the diameter of the smallest visible structure was measured. For high-contrast details, small calcifications, surgical material, or electrode leads were measured systematically. For each region or detail, the scores of all 100 chest radiographs were summed. In this way, the percentage of images that fulfilled the specific image criterion was calculated. An average percentage, using the scores from all five observers, was used in the data analysis.

631

Bacher et al. TABLE 2: Summary of the Image Quality Scoring of the Amorphous Silicon and Amorphous Selenium Posteroanterior Chest Radiographs According to the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images Scores for Flat-Panel Detector System Image Quality Criteria

Amorphous Silicon

Amorphous Selenium

p

Anatomic regions Visualization of the retrocardiac lung and the mediastinum

94

88

0.2167

Visualization of the spine through the heart shadow

84

64

0.0022a

Reproduction of the whole rib cage above the diaphragm

95

97

0.7182

Visually sharp reproduction of the vascular pattern in the whole lung, particularly the peripheral vessels

99

93

0.0712

Visually sharp reproduction of the trachea and proximal bronchi

98

93

0.1724

Visually sharp reproduction of the borders of the heart and aorta

99

98

1.0000

Visually sharp reproduction of the diaphragm and lateral costophrenic angles

99

94

0.1238

0.7 mm, high contrast

92

98

0.1048

2 mm, low contrast

96

87

0.0425a

0.3 mm, high contrast

93

99

0.0712

2 mm, low contrast

99

88

0.0041a

Image details Small round details in the lung and retrocardiac areas

Linear and reticular details to the lung periphery

Note—The scoring results indicate the percentage of images for which the specific image criterion was fulfilled, averaged over all five observers. aSignificant, chi-square test.

Dose Measurements The effective dose (E), representative of the risk of late radiation-induced effects such as malignancies, is defined by the expression [11]:

E =

∑ wT HT

(1)

of the two patient groups, the mean equivalent organ doses (in microSieverts [µSv]) for both imaging systems were derived. By combining these results with the corresponding tissue-weighting factors, wT, in equation 1, the effective dose (in microSieverts) could be calculated.

T

where HT is the equivalent dose to tissue T and wT is the weighting factor representing the relative radiation sensitivity of tissue T. The equivalent organ doses HT were determined by placing 166 calibrated thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) in an anthropomorphic (average man) Rando phantom (The Phantom Laboratory) in positions representative for these organs and tissues. Distribution of bone marrow over the body was adopted from Christy [12]. The choice of the TLD locations was based on a complete CT scan of the phantom. Posteroanterior and lateral chest radiographs of the Rando phantom were obtained (125 kVp, 180-cm focus-to-detector distance) on both the amorphous silicon and the amorphous selenium systems. To obtain dose measurements well above the detection limit of the TLDs, the exposure was set to 300 mAs. After the reading-out procedure of the TLDs, mean equivalent organ doses per milliampere-second could be calculated. Multiplying these results by the mean registered milliampere-second values

632

Contrast–Detail Study Phantom acquisition—To achieve a more objective measure of image quality, a contrast–detail phantom study (CDRAD 2.0, Artinis Medical Systems) was set up [13, 14]. In this experiment, the CDRAD 2.0 phantom was exposed at different entrance dose values. The CDRAD 2.0 phantom consists of an acrylic plastic plate with a 15 × 15 array of 1.5 × 1.5 cm2 cell regions in which holes are drilled. The holes are logarithmically sized from 0.3 to 8.0 mm in both diameter and depth (Fig. 1). For objects 4 mm or smaller, the phantom contains an additional hole of matching diameter and depth placed at random in one of the four cell corners. The presence of these additional objects allows a four-alternative forced-choice experiment in which the observer must select the location of the lowcontrast objects among the four possible corners [15]. In this way, these extra holes help to minimize potential biases due to a priori knowledge of the presence of objects in every square region [16]. The phantom was used to assess the minimum contrast

required to visualize objects of different sizes above the noise threshold. The phantom was placed between two layers of 5-cm polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) to simulate patient scatter and to generate the same mean milliampere-second value in the AEC mode as obtained for the patient chest radiographs. For both radiography systems, three phantom images were acquired using AEC in the same conditions as used for patients. In addition, phantom images were taken with varying milliampere-second settings corresponding to equal phantom entrance doses on both systems (range, 22–435 µGy). For each phantom exposure, entrance doses were measured with a solid-state detector (R100, RTI Electronics). For each imaging technique and exposure setting, a set of three images was available for scoring. Image quality scoring of phantom images—As for the scoring of the patient images, the amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium images were displayed at random and analyzed by five independent observers. The observers were allowed to adjust the image brightness and contrast and to magnify the images to full resolution. The observers had to identify, in every square cell region, the locations of the corner holes. The results were entered on a score sheet for each image reviewed. After comparing the score forms to a reference

AJR:187, September 2006

Flat-Panel Systems for Digital Imaging of the Chest Fig. 1—Sample image acquisition of phantom (CDRAD 2.0, Artinis Medical Systems). Phantom contains circular holes logarithmically sized from 0.3 to 8.0 mm in both diameter and depth. For 4 mm or smaller holes, additional hole of matching diameter and depth is located at one of four corners. Presence of these additional holes allows four-alternative forced-choice experiment in which observer must select location of low-contrast objects among four possible corners.

form containing the correct locations of all corner holes, a correction scheme was used taking into account the nearest neighbors to get more accurate results [13–16]. Finally, for each different diameter (Di) the threshold contrast value (Ci,th) was determined as the minimum depth in regions of valid detection [16]. The obtained threshold contrast value results were averaged over 15 observations (3 images × 5 observers) and then plotted as the function of the object diameter to form the contrast–detail curves (Fig. 2). Holes above and to the right of this curve were visualized and holes below and to the left were not seen. The inverse image quality figure (IQFinv) was introduced for quantitative comparison of the phantom images [13]. The inverse image quality figure is defined as follows:

100 IQFinv = -------------------------------15

∑ Ci × Di ,th i=1

AJR:187, September 2006

(2)

where Ci represents the object depth in the contrast column i and Di,th denotes the corresponding smallest visible diameter (threshold diameter) in this column [13]: the higher the inverse image quality figure, the better the low-contrast visibility. The inverse image quality figure was calculated for all analyzed images, resulting in 15 inverse image quality figure values for each entrance dose setting and each digital flat-panel system. Afterward, the inverse image quality figure values were averaged and plotted as a function of the entrance dose (Fig. 3). Finally, the inverse image quality figure values of both systems were compared using nonparametric statistics.

the image quality evaluation by the five independent radiologists, we assessed the interobserver correlation by calculating Spearman’s rank correlation for all image quality criteria for all observer combinations. A significant correlation indicated that the scores of the observers could be combined into a mean score for the image quality parameters [2]. In all statistical calculations, a CI of 95% was applied. Calculations were performed by means of statistics software (MedCalc, version 4.07, MedCalc Software).

Statistical Analysis

Results For both the amorphous silicon and the amorphous selenium systems, 100 posteroanterior and lateral chest radiographs were acquired. The patient population who underwent imaging on the amorphous silicon system (54 men and 46 women) had a mean age of 58.8 years (range, 21–83 years). The mean age of the study group who underwent

Differences between the two groups were tested for significance using the two-tailed Mann-Whitney test. For comparison of the clinical image quality (expressed as a percentage) of the digital chest radiographs of the two imaging systems, the chi-square statistic was used. To check the reliability of

633

Bacher et al.

10

Depth (mm)

Depth (mm)

10

1

0.1 0.1

1

1

0.1 0.1

10

Diameter (mm)

10

1

Diameter (mm) A 10

Depth (mm)

Fig. 2—Average experimental contrast–detail curves. A–C, Amorphous silicon (■) and amorphous selenium (◊) images taken with phantom entrance dose of 54 µGy (A), with AEC (B), or with phantom entrance dose of 135 µGy (C). Data points were obtained by averaging responses of five radiologists who reviewed all images independently. Bars indicate SD of 15 image scorings (5 observers × 3 images).

B

1

0.1 0.1

1

10

Diameter (mm) A

4.5 4.0 3.5

IQFinv

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0

50

150

150

200

250

300

350

400

Phantom Entrance Dose (µGy)

imaging on the amorphous selenium system (56 men and 44 women) was 60.0 years (range, 18–82 years). There was no statistical difference in body mass index (p = 0.984) between the patient groups, guaranteeing that no bias was introduced because of differences between groups.

634

450

Fig. 3—Inverse image quality figure (IQFinv) of both amorphous silicon (■) and amorphous selenium (◊) derived from phantom images (CDRAD 2.0, Artinis Medical Systems), as function of phantom entrance dose value. Bars indicate SD of 15 image scores (5 observers × 3 images).

In Table 3, the results of the exposure and dose measurements are summarized. For the posteroanterior and the lateral acquisitions, a significantly lower exposure and effective dose could be achieved with the amorphous silicon system when using the AEC settings of the manufacturers. For

the posteroanterior view, the effective doses were 9.6 and 22.6 µSv for the amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium systems, respectively. For the lateral view, effective doses of 27.1 µSv (amorphous silicon) and 79.2 µSv (amorphous selenium) were obtained.

AJR:187, September 2006

Flat-Panel Systems for Digital Imaging of the Chest TABLE 3: Summary of the Mean Registered Exposure and Calculated Effective Dose for the Two Imaging Techniques After Posteroanterior and Lateral Chest Acquisitions

Factor

Posteroanterior View

Lateral View

Amorphous Amorphous Silicon Selenium System System

Amorphous Amorphous Silicon Selenium System System

p < 0.0001a

Exposure (mAs) Mean

1.25

3.07

Range

0.75–2.74

1.20–6.50

4.83

17.5

1.11–17.98

3.51–43.8

< 0.0001a

Effective dose (µSv)

p < 0.0001a

< 0.0001a

Mean

9.6

22.6

27.1

79.2

Range

5.7–21.0

8.9–47.9

6.2–101.0

15.9–198.2

aSignificant, two-tailed Mann-Whitney test.

For the image quality study, significant interobserver agreement was found (p ≤ 0.027), indicating that the individual scores of all observers could be combined in an averaged value. In Table 2, the mean scores for the seven anatomic regions and the four image details in both systems are indicated (maximum possible score, 100), together with the likelihood that both systems gave the same result. The image quality scores of Table 2 are based on posteroanterior chest radiographs acquired with AEC. In general, low-contrast anatomic structures were better visualized with the amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. This difference reached significance only for the thoracic spine (p = 0.0022). Low-contrast details were significantly better scored on the amorphous silicon system (small round details, p = 0.0425; linear and reticular details, p = 0.0041), whereas small high-contrast details were slightly better visualized on the amorphous selenium system. However, the latter difference was not significant. In Figure 2, average experimental contrast–detail curves of both flat-panel detectors are presented. In Figure 2A, the phantom images were obtained with an entrance dose of 54 µGy. Figures 2B and 2C indicate the results obtained with AEC and with a phantom entrance dose of 135 µGy, respectively. Figure 2A and Figure 2C clearly indicate a (significant) better low-contrast detectability of the amorphous silicon system, whereas the detection of small high-contrast regions is comparable for both detectors. The phantom images taken with AEC (Fig. 2B) reflect in very good agreement the results of the patient chest images (also taken with AEC), on which a difference between

AJR:187, September 2006

systems could be observed for only lowcontrast regions. Figure 3 presents the mean inverse image quality figure values obtained from the phantom images as a function of the applied entrance dose. Overall, the contrast–detail study showed a significantly better low-contrast performance of the amorphous silicon system compared with the amorphous selenium detector system for phantom entrance doses up to 135 µGy (p < 0.032). For entrance doses of 218 µGy or higher, no significant difference in low-contrast detectability was found. Discussion Conventional projection radiography is most frequently performed in diagnostic radiology. Therefore, digital radiography systems are playing an important role in the evolution toward a completely digital medical imaging environment. In particular, chest radiographs represent about 25% of all diagnostic radiography examinations [9]. Moreover, chest radiographs are often obtained repeatedly for the follow-up of patients. Most of the chest acquisitions are still performed with conventional screen-film or CR systems. With CR, the quality of the digital images produced is comparable to that with conventional screenfilm combinations [1, 2]. However, no significant dose reductions could be obtained in these systems due to the limited DQE [1, 5]. A few years ago, direct-readout radiography systems, based on active matrix thin-film transistor technology, became commercially available. These systems have a higher DQE compared with both CR and screen-film systems and have the additional advantage of an optimized working procedure because of instant image display and elimination of the use

of cassettes [1, 2, 5]. Depending on detector type, digital signals are generated either directly, using amorphous selenium, or indirectly, using a scintillator and an amorphous silicon photodiode [1, 4, 5]. Previous experimental and clinical studies showed excellent results concerning image quality of direct-readout detectors in thoracic radiography in comparison with conventional screen-film and CR systems [2, 3, 17–28]. Most of those studies, however, were performed with the amorphous silicon flat-panel detector type [2, 17–23] or refer to the selenium drum detector [24–27]. Only limited information about image quality can be found with respect to the amorphous selenium flat-panel detector [3, 28]. Moreover, only a very few studies have been performed to compare the diagnostic performance of direct (amorphous selenium) and indirect (amorphous silicon) flat-panel radiography units [7, 8]. The latter comparisons are mainly based on phantom measurements to compare noise characteristics, MTF, and DQE of both detector types. In our study, two commercially available flat-panel systems based on amorphous silicon or amorphous selenium were compared with respect to the image quality and radiation dose of digital chest acquisitions. Both systems were used as advised by the manufacturer, using a specific grid (Table 1) and the standard AEC settings. Analysis of all patient images showed that both flat-panel systems produced images that were excellent in quality using the AEC settings of the manufacturer. In general, low-contrast details, such as the thoracic spine through the heart shadow and the normal bronchovascular structures up to the parietal pleura, were assigned significantly better scores on the amorphous silicon system, whereas small high-contrast details were slightly better visualized on the amorphous selenium system. The latter observation is in accordance with the higher MTF value of the amorphous selenium system at high frequencies [7, 8]. Using the AEC, the chest radiographs of the amorphous silicon flat-panel system could be acquired with a significantly lower patient effective dose than those obtained with the amorphous selenium detector. For the combination of a posteroanterior and a lateral acquisition—as is mostly the case in clinical chest radiography—the amorphous silicon system showed a reduction in effective dose of about 60% compared with the direct flat-panel system when using the AEC set-

635

Bacher et al. tings of the manufacturers. Similar results were found by Fischbach et al. [29], who reported that low-dose amorphous silicon phantom images scored better than amorphous selenium drum images. Samei and Flynn [7] and Borasi et al. [8] calculated DQE values of both direct and indirect flat-panel types. In both studies, the DQE of the amorphous silicon detector was significantly higher than the value for the amorphous selenium detector, explaining the dose reduction obtained with the indirect flat-panel detector. Previous measurements already showed the dose-saving effect of using amorphous silicon flat-panel detectors in chest imaging compared with CR and film-screen radiography [2, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23]. However, no significant dose reductions were reported using an amorphous selenium flat-panel detector. Contrast–detail studies have been widely used for the objective analysis of the image quality performance of digital radiography systems [2, 8, 16, 19, 29]. The construction of the CDRAD 2.0 phantom allows a four-alternative forced-choice protocol for the analysis of contrast–detail perception [13, 15]. The latter procedure is more reliable and accurate than the image quality analysis with other contrast–detail objects without the four-alternative forced-choice possibility [15, 16]. The average experimental contrast–detail curves (Figs. 2A and 2C) of both flat-panel detectors clearly indicate low-contrast detectability is significantly better with the amorphous silicon system, whereas detection of small high-contrast regions is comparable for both detectors. This latter finding is in agreement with the contrast–detail curves calculated by Borasi et al. [8], in which no significant difference was observed in the detection of small objects. The phantom images obtained with AEC (Fig. 2B) reflect in very good agreement the results of the patient chest images on which a difference between the two systems could be proven only in lowcontrast regions. The overall contrast–detail performance (expressed in the quantity IQFinv [inverse image quality figure]) as a function of the radiation dose level showed a significantly better low-contrast performance with the amorphous silicon system than with the amorphous selenium detector for clinical exposure settings (entrance dose values up to 135 µGy). For entrance dose values of 218 µGy or higher, no significant difference in low-contrast detectability was found. Figure 3 illustrates that the entrance dose value for the

636

amorphous selenium should be about 135 µGy (3.10 mAs) to obtain an equal contrast–detail performance of an amorphous silicon flatpanel radiograph obtained at an entrance dose of 54 µGy (1.25 mAs). The latter situation reflects the clinical practice in excellent agreement (Table 3). In conclusion, chest radiographs can be acquired using a digital amorphous silicon flat-panel system with a significantly lower patient radiation dose than an amorphous selenium system, thereby producing image quality that is equal to or even superior to that of an amorphous selenium flat-panel detector system. Further research should reveal whether both systems provide the same diagnostic accuracy. Excellent agreement was obtained between the clinical image evaluation and the contrast–detail study, indicating the value of the CDRAD phantom as a tool for objective image quality analysis in digital radiography.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

References 1. Schaefer-Prokop C, Uffmann M, Eisenhuber E, Prokop M. Digital radiography of the chest: detector techniques and performance parameters. J Thorac Imaging 2003; 18:124–137 2. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. AJR 2003; 181:923–929 3. Goo JM, Im JG, Kim JH, et al. Digital chest radiography with a selenium-based flat-panel detector versus a storage phosphor system: comparison of soft-copy images. AJR 2000; 175:1013–1018 4. Chotas HG, Dobbins JT, Ravin CE. Principles of digital radiography with large-area electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics. Radiology 1999; 210:595–599 5. Kotter E, Langer M. Digital radiography with largearea flat-panel detectors. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2562–2570 6. Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyahara J, Kato H. Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiology 1983; 148:833–838 7. Samei E, Flynn MJ. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. Med Phys 2003; 30:608–622 8. Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P, Tassoni D. On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys 2003; 30:1719–1731 9. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). UNSCEAR re-

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

port 2000, vol I. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. New York, NY: United Nations, 2000 Commission of the European Communities (CEC). European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Brussels, Belgium: CEC, 1996: EUR 16260 International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). IRCP publication 60: 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1991 Christy M. Active bone marrow distribution as a function of age in humans. Phys Med Biol 1981; 26:389–400 Thijssen MAO, Thijssen HOM, Merx JL, Lindeijer JM, Bijkerk KR. A definition of image quality: the image quality figure. In: Moores BM, Wall BF, Eriskat H, Schibilla H, eds. BIR report 20: optimization of image quality and patient exposure in diagnostic radiology. London, UK: The British Institute of Radiology, 1989:29–34 Thijssen MAO, Bijkerk KR, van der Burght RJM. Manual: contrast-detail phantom Artinis CDRAD type 2.0. St. Radboud, The Netherlands: Project Quality Assurance in Radiology, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Nijmegen, 1998 Aufrichtig R, Xue P. Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45:2653–2669 Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Liu X, Lemacks MR, Thompson SK. Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems: a contrast-detail phantom study. Med Phys 2000; 28:2328–2335 Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, Voelk M, Fruend R, Setz J, Feuerbach S. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose: comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon. Invest Radiol 1998; 33:98–103 Garmer M, Hennigs SP, Jäger HJ, et al. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. AJR 2000; 174:75–80 Chotas HG, Ravin CE. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel X-ray detector: contrastdetail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy. Radiology 2001; 218:679–682 Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Noeldge G, et al. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography. AJR 2002; 178:481–486 Goo JM, Im JG, Lee HJ, et al. Detection of simulated chest lesions by using soft-copy reading: com-

AJR:187, September 2006

Flat-Panel Systems for Digital Imaging of the Chest parison of an amorphous silicon flat-panel-detector system and a storage-phosphor system. Radiology 2002; 224:242–246 22. Rapp-Bernhardt U, Roehl FW, Gibbs RC, Schmidl H, Krause UW, Bernhardt TM. Flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings. Radiology 2003; 227:484–492 23. Ganten M, Radeleff B, Kampschulte A, Daniels MD, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J. Comparing image quality of flat-panel chest radiography with storage phosphor radiography and film-screen radiography. AJR 2003; 181:171–176

AJR:187, September 2006

24. van Heesewijk HPM, van der Graaf Y, de Valois JC, Vos JA, Feldberg MAM. Chest imaging with a selenium detector versus conventional film radiography: a CT-controlled study. Radiology 1996; 200:687–690 25. Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Schmidt A, Neitzel U, Galanski M. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. Radiology 1996; 201:45–50 26. Bernhardt TM, Otto D, Reichel G, et al. Detection of simulated interstitial lung disease and catheters with selenium, storage phosphor, and film-based radiography. Radiology 1999; 213:445–454

27. Awai K, Komi M, Hori S. Selenium-based digital radiography versus high-resolution storage phosphor radiography in the detection of solitary pulmonary nodules without calcification: receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. AJR 2001; 177:1141–1144 28. Kim TS, Im JG, Goo JM, at al. Detection of pulmonary edema in pigs: storage phosphor versus amorphous selenium-based flat-panel-detector radiography. Radiology 2002; 223:695–701 29. Fischbach F, Freund T, Pech M, et al. Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a:Se digital radiography: an assessment of contrast and detail visualization. Acta Radiol 2003; 44:616–621

637