Image quality in two phosphor-based flat panel digital radiographic detectors.

Two general types of phosphor screens are currently used in indirect digital radiographic systems: structured phosphor screens and turbid phosphor screens. The purpose of the study was to experimentally compare the image quality characteristics of two flat-panel digital radiography detectors with similar electronics and pixel sizes (0.127 mm), but otherwise equipped with the two types of screens (0.6-mm-thick structured CsI and Lanex Regular). The presampled modulation transfer functions (MTFs) of the detectors were assessed using an edge method. The noise power spectra (NPS) were measured by two-dimensional Fourier analysis of uniformly-exposed radiographs at 50-100 kVp with 19 mm added Al filtration. The detective quantum efficiencies (DQEs) were assessed from the MTF, the NPS, and estimates of the ideal signal-to-noise ratio. The MTF measures of the two detectors were generally similar above a spatial frequency of 2 mm(-1), with approximately 2.5 and approximately 3.8 mm(-1) spatial frequencies corresponding to 0.2 MTF and 0.1 MTF, respectively. Below 2 mm(-1), the MTF for the CsI-based detector was slightly higher by an average of 0.07. At 70 kVp, the measured DQE values in the diagonal (and axial) direction(s) at spatial frequencies of 0.15 mm(-1) and 2.5 mm(-1) were 78% (78%) and 26% (20%) for the CsI-based detector, and 20% (20%) and 7% (6%) for the Lanex-based detector, respectively. The comparative findings experimentally confirm that in indirect flat-panel detectors, structured phosphor screens provide a more favorable tradeoff between resolution and noise compared to turbid-phosphor screens, effectively increasing the detection efficiency of the detector without a negative impact on the detector's spatial resolution response.

[1]  H. Blume,et al.  DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices. , 1995, Medical physics.

[2]  E. Samei,et al.  A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. , 1998, Medical physics.

[3]  J Yorkston,et al.  Empirical and theoretical investigation of the noise performance of indirect detection, active matrix flat-panel imagers (AMFPIs) for diagnostic radiology. , 1997, Medical physics.

[4]  J T Dobbins,et al.  Performance characteristics of a Kodak computed radiography system. , 1999, Medical physics.

[5]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray detectors for digital radiography. , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Jerzy Kanicki,et al.  Effect of secondary radiations on the performance of digital radiographic detectors , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[7]  Larry E. Antonuk,et al.  MTF measurements with high-resolution a-Si:H imaging arrays , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[8]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  DQE of direct and indirect digital radiography systems , 2001 .

[9]  Kenneth A Fetterly,et al.  Measurement of the presampled two-dimensional modulation transfer function of digital imaging systems. , 2002, Medical physics.

[10]  Thierry Ducourant,et al.  New CsI/a-Si 17" x 17" x-ray flat-panel detector provides superior detectivity and immediate direct digital output for general radiography systems , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[11]  N J Hangiandreou,et al.  Image quality evaluation of a desktop computed radiography system. , 2000, Medical physics.

[12]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. , 2003, Medical physics.

[13]  Brian G. Rodricks,et al.  Filtered gain calibration and its effect on DQE and image quality in digital imaging systems , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[14]  I. Blevis,et al.  Digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium: construction and evaluation of a prototype real-time detector. , 1997, Medical physics.

[15]  D. Hoeschen.  DQE of digital x-ray imaging systems: a challenge for standardization , 2001, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  N J Hangiandreou,et al.  Effects of x-ray spectra on the DQE of a computed radiography system. , 2001, Medical physics.

[17]  Isaias D. Job,et al.  40 x 30 cm flat-panel imager for angiography, R&F, and cone-beam CT applications , 2001 .

[18]  E. Samei,et al.  Experimental comparison of noise and resolution for 2k and 4k storage phosphor radiography systems. , 1999, Medical physics.

[19]  D. DeLong,et al.  Evaluation of a flat panel digital radiographic system for low-dose portable imaging of neonates. , 2003, Medical physics.

[20]  Brian G. Rodricks,et al.  Improved imaging performance of a 14"x17" direct radiography system using a Se/TFT detector , 1998, Medical Imaging.

[21]  Isaias D. Job,et al.  Characterization of a third-generation multimode sensor panel , 1999, Medical Imaging.

[22]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems. , 2002, Medical physics.

[23]  C E Ravin,et al.  Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography. , 2001, Radiology.

[24]  P. Granfors,et al.  Performance of a 41X41-cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. , 2000, Medical physics.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Chest radiography: optimization of X-ray spectrum for cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. , 2003, Radiology.

[26]  M. Sonoda,et al.  Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. , 1983, Radiology.