Image quality for five modern chest radiography techniques: a modified FROC study with an anthropomorphic chest phantom

Abstract. The purpose of the study was to compare the image quality for one conventional and four digital chest radiography techniques. Three storage phosphor systems, one selenium drum system, and one film-screen system were compared using a modified receiver-operating-characteristics method. Simulated pathology was randomly positioned over the parenchymal regions and the mediastinum of an anthropomorphic phantom. Eight observers (four chest radiologists, one specialist in general radiology, one hospital physicist, and two radiographers) evaluated 60 images for each technique. The selenium drum system (Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) rated best for the detection of parenchymal nodules. Together with the storage phosphor system of generation IIIN (Philips/Fuji), the selenium drum system also rated best for detection of thin linear structures. The storage phosphor system of generation V (Fuji) rated best for the detection of mediastinal nodules. The first generation of the storage phosphor system from Agfa (Mortsel, Belgium) rated worst for the detection of parenchymal nodules and thin linear structures. These differences were significant (p < 0.0001). Averaging the results for all test objects, the selenium drum system and the storage phosphor system of generation V were significantly better than the other systems tested. The film/screen system performed significantly better than the first-generation storage phosphor system from Agfa, equal to the generation IIIN storage phosphor system (Philips/Fuji) and significantly worse than the selenium drum system (Philips) and the generation-V storage phosphor system (Fuji). The conclusion is therefore that the image quality of selenium-based digital technique and of the more recent generations of storage phosphor systems is superior to both conventional technique and storage phosphor systems using image plates of older types.

[1]  C M Schaefer,et al.  Mediastinal abnormalities: detection with storage phosphor digital radiography. , 1991, Radiology.

[2]  Richard L. Weisfield,et al.  Improved page-size 127-um-pixel amorphous-silicon image sensor for x-ray diagnostic medical imaging applications , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[3]  Denny L. Y. Lee,et al.  New digital detector for projection radiography , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[4]  J. Ikezoe,et al.  Interpretation of subtle interstitial lung abnormalities: conventional versus storage phosphor radiography. , 1993, Radiology.

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

[6]  W. Hillen,et al.  Imaging performance of a digital storage phosphor system. , 1987, Medical physics.

[7]  J E Angelhed,et al.  Effects of optimization and image processing in digital chest radiography: an ROC study with an anthropomorphic phantom. , 1991, European journal of radiology.

[8]  Rupert G. Miller.  Simultaneous Statistical Inference , 1966 .

[9]  W R Hendee,et al.  Detection of low-contrast signals. A comparison of observers with and without radiology training. , 1987, Investigative radiology.

[10]  C M Schaefer,et al.  Interstitial lung disease: impact of postprocessing in digital storage phosphor imaging. , 1991, Radiology.

[11]  L J Kool,et al.  AMBER: a scanning multiple-beam equalization system for chest radiography. , 1988, Radiology.

[12]  Richard L. Van Metter.  Describing the signal-transfer characteristics of asymmetrical radiographic screen-film systems. , 1992 .

[13]  B B Hobbs,et al.  Detection accuracy in chest radiography. , 1978, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Arnold R. Cowen,et al.  Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography , 1993 .

[15]  U Neitzel,et al.  Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. , 1996, Radiology.

[16]  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.

[17]  D. Chakraborty,et al.  Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. , 1990, Radiology.

[18]  C E Ravin,et al.  Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography. , 1992, Radiology.

[19]  U Neitzel,et al.  Image quality of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector. , 1994, Medical physics.

[20]  M. Prokop,et al.  Digital image processing , 1997, European Radiology.

[21]  Y. van der Graaf,et al.  Digital chest imaging with a selenium detector: comparison with conventional radiography for visualization of specific anatomic regions of the chest. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  D P Chakraborty,et al.  Maximum likelihood analysis of free-response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) data. , 1989, Medical physics.

[23]  Pieter Vuylsteke,et al.  Multiscale image contrast amplification (MUSICA) , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[24]  Clemens Herrmann,et al.  Quantenrauschen und visuelle Detailerkennbarkeit in medizinischen Röntgenaufnahmen , 1993, DAGM-Symposium.

[25]  G G Cox,et al.  Comparison of the low-contrast detectability of a screen-film system and third generation computed radiography. , 1994, Medical physics.