Imaging properties of digital magnification radiography.

Flat panel detectors exhibit improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and display capabilities compared to film. This improvement necessitates a new evaluation of optimal geometry for conventional projection imaging applications such as digital projection mammography as well as for advanced x-ray imaging applications including cone-beam computed tomography (CT), tomosynthesis, and mammotomography. Such an evaluation was undertaken in this study to examine the effects of x-ray source distribution, inherent detector resolution, magnification, scatter rejection, and noise characteristics including noise aliasing. A model for x-ray image acquisition was used to develop generic results applicable to flat panel detectors with similar x-ray absorption characteristics. The model assumed a Gaussian distribution for the focal spot and a rectangular distribution for a pixel. A generic model for the modulated transfer function (MTF) of indirect flat panel detectors was derived by a nonlinear fit of empirical receptor data to the Burgess model for phosphor MTFs. Noise characteristics were investigated using a generic noise power spectrum (NPS) model for indirect phosphor-based detectors. The detective quantum efficiency (DQE) was then calculated from the MTF and NPS models. The results were examined as a function of focal spot size (0.1, 0.3, and 0.6 mm) and pixel size (50, 100, 150, and 200 microm) for magnification ranges 1 to 3. Mammography, general radiography (also applicable to mammotomography), and chest radiography applications were explored using x-ray energies of 28, 74, and 120 kVp, respectively. Nodule detection was examined using the effective point source scatter model, effective DQE, and the Hotelling SNR2 efficiency. Results indicate that magnification can potentially improve the signal and noise performance of digital images. Results also show that a cross over point occurs in the spatial frequency above and below which the effects of magnification differ indicating that there are task dependent tradeoffs associated with magnification. The cross over point varies depending upon focal spot size, pixel size, x-ray energy, and source-to-image-distance (SID). For mammography, the cross over point occurs for a 0.3 mm focal spot while a 0.6 mm focal spot indicates that magnification does not improve image quality due to focal spot blurring. Thus, the benefit of magnification may be limited. For general radiography (as well as mammotomography), and chest radiography, the cross over point changes with SID. For a system with a 0.3 mm focal spot, 100 microm pixel size, a 2 m SID, and the applicable tissue thickness and scatter components, optimal magnification improved SNR2 by approximately 1.2 times for mammography and 1.5 times for general radiography (and mammotomography). These results indicate that the optimal geometry can improve image quality without changing patient dose or otherwise reduce dose without compromising image quality.

[1]  E. Muntz,et al.  Electronic grids for electrostatic imaging systems. , 1976, Radiology.

[2]  A E Burgess.  An empirical equation for screen MTFs. , 1978, Medical physics.

[3]  E. Muntz,et al.  Analysis of the significance of scattered radiation in reduced dose mammography, including magnification effects, scatter suppression, and focal spot and detector blurring. , 1979, Medical physics.

[4]  J A Sorenson,et al.  Scatter rejection by air gaps: an empirical model. , 1985, Medical physics.

[5]  S. C. Prasad,et al.  Scatter reduction in mammography with air gap. , 1996, Medical physics.

[6]  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.

[7]  Craig K. Abbey,et al.  Nodule detection in two-component noise: toward patient structure , 1997, Medical Imaging.

[8]  J Yorkston,et al.  Initial performance evaluation of an indirect-detection, active matrix flat-panel imager (AMFPI) prototype for megavoltage imaging. , 1998, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[9]  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.

[10]  E Samei,et al.  Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs. , 1999, Radiology.

[11]  J. Boone,et al.  Scatter/primary in mammography: comprehensive results. , 2000, Medical physics.

[12]  D. Jaffray,et al.  Optimization of x-ray imaging geometry (with specific application to flat-panel cone-beam computed tomography). , 2000, Medical physics.

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

[14]  S Suryanarayanan,et al.  Full breast digital mammography with an amorphous silicon-based flat panel detector: physical characteristics of a clinical prototype. , 2000, Medical physics.

[15]  Xinming Liu,et al.  Optimization of MTF and DQE in magnification radiography: a theoretical analysis , 2000, Medical Imaging.

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

[17]  A. Madan,et al.  Magnification Views of Mammography Decrease Biopsy Rates , 2001, The American surgeon.

[18]  J. Damilakis,et al.  Film-Screen Magnification Versus Electronic Magnification and Enhancement of Digitized Contact Mammograms in the Assessment of Subtle Microcalcifications , 2001, Investigative radiology.

[19]  E. Grabbe,et al.  Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications , 2002, European Radiology.

[20]  P Rogalla,et al.  [Comparing the visualization of microcalcifications with direct magnification in digital full-field mammography vs. film-screen mammography]. , 2002, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

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

[22]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  A method for modifying the image quality parameters of digital radiographic images. , 2003, Medical physics.

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

[24]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Determination of the detective quantum efficiency of a digital x-ray detector: comparison of three evaluations using a common image data set. , 2004, Medical physics.

[25]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Fundamental imaging characteristics of a slot-scan digital chest radiographic system. , 2004, Medical physics.

[26]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Simulation study of a quasi-monochromatic beam for x-ray computed mammotomography. , 2004, Medical physics.

[27]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Measurements of an optimized beam for x-ray computed mammotomography , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[28]  J. Law,et al.  Breast dose from magnification films in mammography. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[29]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Comparative scatter and dose performance of slot-scan and full-field digital chest radiography systems. , 2005, Radiology.