Comparison of Low-Contrast Detail Perception on Storage Phosphor Radiographs and Digital Flat Panel Detector Images

A contrast detail analysis was performed to compare perception of low-contrast details on X-ray images derived from digital storage phosphor radiography and from a flat panel detector system based on a cesium iodide/amorphous silicon matrix. The CDRAD 2.0 phantom was used to perform a comparative contrast detail analysis of a clinical storage phosphor radiography system and an indirect type digital flat panel detector unit. Images were acquired at exposure levels comparable to film speeds of 50/100/200/400 and 800. Four observers evaluated a total of 50 films with respect to the threshold contrast for each detail size. The numbers of correctly identified objects were determined for all image subsets. The overall results show that low-contrast detail perception with digital flat panel detector images is better than with state of the art storage phosphor screens. This is especially true for the low-exposure setting, where a nearly 10% higher correct observation ratio is reached. Given its high detective quantum efficiency the digital flat panel technology based on the cesium iodide scintillator/amorphous silicon matrix is best suited for detection of low-contrast detail structures, which shows its high potential for clinical imaging.

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

[2]  M J Tapiovaara.  Efficiency of low-contrast detail detectability in fluoroscopic imaging. , 1997, Medical physics.

[3]  M. Prokop,et al.  Storage phosphor radiography , 1997, European Radiology.

[4]  Ulrich Neitzel,et al.  Comparison of low-contrast detail detectability with five different conventional and digital radiographic imaging systems , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[5]  J Yorkston,et al.  A real-time, flat-panel, amorphous silicon, digital x-ray imager. , 1995, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[6]  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.

[7]  K. Reiff.  Flat panel detectors--closing the (digital) gap in chest and skeletal radiology. , 1999, European journal of radiology.

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

[9]  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.

[10]  A. Burgess.  Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. , 1995, Medical physics.

[11]  C E Ravin,et al.  Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics. , 1999, Radiology.

[12]  M. Völk,et al.  Clinical application of a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for radiation dose reduction in skeletal radiography. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  J. Launders,et al.  A comparison of the threshold detail detectability of a screen-film combination and computed radiology under conditions relevant to high-kVp chest radiography. , 1995, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  H L Kundel,et al.  Images, image quality and observer performance: new horizons in radiology lecture. , 1979, Radiology.

[15]  U. Neitzel.  Integrated digital radiography with a flat electronic detector , 1999 .