An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.

The influence of two methods of an automatic exposure control (AEC) setup using a simple measure of detectability is examined as a function of x-ray beam quality for a computed radiography (CR) system and for an indirect conversion digital radiography (DR) system. The regimes assessed were constant air kerma at the detector and the constant contrast noise ratio (CNR). A low scatter geometry was employed with x-ray spectra varying from 60 kV and 1 mm Cu to 125 kV and 2 mm Cu. The CNR was measured using a 2 mm thick Al square of dimension 1 cm by 1 cm. Detectability was quantified via a nominal contrast for a fixed beam quality of 70 kV and 1 mm added Cu filtration, taken from c-d curves measured using the Leeds TO20 test object, for the four x-ray spectra. In addition, objective image quality parameters including modulation transfer function (MTF), noise power spectrum (NPS) and detective quantum efficiency (DQE) were also measured for both systems at the four different x-ray spectra. It was found that the constant air kerma strategy did not maintain threshold nominal contrast (simple detectability) constant as the x-ray beam mean energy increased, for either the CR system or the DR system. For the CR detector, the threshold nominal contrast for a 1 mm disc increased by a factor of 4.4 from 3.50% to 15.4% as the tube potential was raised from 60 kV to 125 kV, while for the DR detector, the threshold nominal contrast increased by a factor of 3.4, from 2.27% to 7.67% as the tube potential increased from 60 kV to 120 kV. The constant CNR method was more successful at maintaining constant detectability for the c-d discs. The threshold nominal contrast for the 1 mm disc changed by a factor of 1.2, from 4.80% to 5.70% for the CR system, as the spectrum changed from 60 kV to 125 kV. For the indirect conversion detector, the threshold nominal contrast increased from 2.27% to 5.66% (a factor of 1.4 increase). The constant CNR strategy required an increase in air kerma by factors of 14.5 and 4.5 for the CR and DR detectors, respectively. The Rose SNR was used to show that the air kerma at the detector should be modulated by the inverse of the measured contrast loss squared and by the inverse of the reduction in the low frequency DQE of the detector, in order to maintain the Rose SNR constant. Calculations of air kerma required for a constant Rose SNR, made using the measured contrast and the extrapolated DQE(0), were within 25% of the air kerma for the measured CNR method for both detectors. These results suggest that the constant CNR strategy keeps simple object detectability constant by increasing air kerma to overcome (a) the contrast loss and (b) the photon loss, due to a reduction in DQE as the mean energy is increased. AEC systems set up to hold air kerma constant or nearly constant at the x-ray detector will not maintain a constant level of contrast-detail detectability as x-ray energy changes. The constant CNR method is considerably more successful if fixed contrast-detail detectability is required for different x-ray beam qualities.

[1]  N W Marshall,et al.  A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography , 2004, European Radiology.

[3]  Ann-Katherine Carton,et al.  Validation of MTF measurement for digital mammography quality control. , 2005, Medical physics.

[4]  Wilkinson Le,et al.  Determination of correct AEC function with computed radiography cassettes. , 1997 .

[5]  H. Kundel,et al.  The influence of structured noise on the detection of radiologic abnormalities. , 1974, Investigative radiology.

[6]  K. Faulkner Book reviewsData for Estimating X-ray Tube Total Filtration (Institute of Physical Sciences in Medicine Report No. 64) By CranleyK, GilmoreB J and FogartyG W A (IPSM, York), £20.00. ISBN–0–904181–634 , 1993 .

[7]  D R Dance,et al.  Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[8]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Signal detectability in digital radiography: spatial domain figures of merit. , 2003, Medical physics.

[9]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Detector or system? Extending the concept of detective quantum efficiency to characterize the performance of digital radiographic imaging systems. , 2008, Radiology.

[10]  A set of X-ray test objects for quality control in television fluoroscopy. , 1985, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  F R Verdun,et al.  A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems. , 2007, Medical physics.

[12]  D R Dance,et al.  A search for improved technique factors in paediatric fluoroscopy. , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[13]  A Workman,et al.  A comparison of the imaging properties of CCD-based devices used for small field digital mammography. , 2002, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[15]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  SNR and DQE analysis of broad spectrum X-ray imaging , 1985 .

[16]  A R Cowen,et al.  A set of X-ray test objects for image quality control in digital subtraction fluorography. II: Application and interpretation of results. , 1987, The British journal of radiology.

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

[18]  Eric Clarkson,et al.  Efficiency of the human observer detecting random signals in random backgrounds. , 2005, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[19]  H. Chan,et al.  Phototimer setup for CR imaging. , 2000, Medical physics.

[20]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  The effect of background structure on the detection of low contrast objects in mammography. , 1998, The British journal of radiology.

[21]  D S Evans,et al.  Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film-screen and computed radiography. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[22]  Serge Muller,et al.  Tools and methods for exposure control optimization in digital mammography in presence of texture , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[23]  Thomas Mertelmeier,et al.  X-ray spectrum optimization of full-field digital mammography: simulation and phantom study. , 2006, Medical physics.

[24]  A E Burgess,et al.  The Rose model, revisited. , 1999, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[25]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Generalized DQE analysis of radiographic and dual-energy imaging using flat-panel detectors. , 2005, Medical physics.

[26]  N W Marshall,et al.  Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems , 2007, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  S. Evans Catalogue of Diagnostic X-Ray Spectra and Other Data , 1998 .

[28]  Rodney Shaw,et al.  Signal-to-noise optimization of medical imaging systems , 1999 .

[29]  A. Rose The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. , 1948, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[30]  D. Rimkus,et al.  Quantum noise in detectors. , 1983, Medical physics.

[31]  Ulrich Neitzel,et al.  Determination of the modulation transfer function using the edge method: influence of scattered radiation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[32]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Unified SNR analysis of medical imaging systems , 1985, Physics in medicine and biology.

[33]  James T. Dobbins Image Quality Metrics for Digital Systems , 2000 .

[34]  C J Martin,et al.  Calibrating automatic exposure control devices for digital radiography , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[35]  J Yorkston,et al.  Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology. , 1998, Medical physics.

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

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

[38]  Alistair Mackenzie Validation of correction methods for the non-linear response of digital radiography systems. , 2008, The British journal of radiology.

[39]  J C Heggie,et al.  Determination of correct AEC function with computed radiography cassettes. , 1997, Australasian physical & engineering sciences in medicine.

[40]  Alistair Mackenzie,et al.  Characterization of noise sources for two generations of computed radiography systems using powder and crystalline photostimulable phosphors. , 2007, Medical physics.

[41]  Michael J. Flynn,et al.  Optimal radiographic techniques for digital mammograms obtained with an amorphous selenium detector , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[42]  L. Wagner,et al.  Analysis of variations in contrast-detail experiments. , 1984, Medical physics.

[43]  Ying Chen,et al.  Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function. , 2006, Medical physics.

[44]  Ying Chen,et al.  Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II. Noise power spectrum. , 2006, Medical physics.

[45]  C J Martin,et al.  Application of contrast-to-noise ratio in optimizing beam quality for digital chest radiography: comparison of experimental measurements and theoretical simulations , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[46]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  A Practical Guide to Model Observers for Visual Detection in Synthetic and Natural Noisy Images , 2000 .

[47]  John M. Boone,et al.  X-Ray Production, Interaction, and Detection in Diagnostic Imaging , 2000 .

[48]  R. Jennings,et al.  A method for comparing beam-hardening filter materials for diagnostic radiology. , 1988, Medical physics.

[49]  N W Marshall Detective quantum efficiency measured as a function of energy for two full-field digital mammography systems. , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[50]  R. Aufrichtig,et al.  Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. , 1999, Medical physics.

[51]  E. Samei,et al.  Effects of Anatomical Structure on Signal Detection , 2000 .

[52]  C E Ravin,et al.  Digital chest radiography with photostimulable storage phosphors: signal-to-noise ratio as a function of kilovoltage with matched exposure risk. , 1993, Radiology.

[53]  R G Zamenhof,et al.  The optimization of signal detectability in digital fluoroscopy. , 1982, Medical physics.

[54]  D R Dance,et al.  A Monte Carlo program for the calculation of contrast, noise and absorbed dose in diagnostic radiology. , 1994, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.