A comparison of digital radiography systems in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to compare digital radiography systems using the metric effective detective quantum efficiency (eDQE), which better reflects digital radiography imaging system performance under clinical operating conditions, in comparison with conventional metrics such as modulation transfer function (MTF), normalized noise power spectra (NNPS), and detective quantum efficiency (DQE). METHODS The eDQE was computed by the calculation of the MTF, the NNPS, the phantom attenuation and scatter, and estimation of x-ray flux. The physical characterization of the systems was obtained with the standard beam conditions RQA5 and RQA9, using the PA Chest phantom proposed by AAPM Report # 31 simulating the attenuation and scatter characteristics of the adult human thorax. The MTF (eMTF) was measured by using an edge test placed at the frontal surface of the phantom, the NNPS (eNNPS) was calculated from images of the phantom acquired at three different exposure levels covering the operating range of the system (E(0), which is the exposure at which a system is normally operated, 1/3 E(0), and 3 E0), and scatter measurements were assessed by using a beam-stop technique. The integral of DQE (IDQE) and eDQE (IeDQE) was calculated over the whole spatial frequency range. RESULTS The eMTF results demonstrate degradation due to magnification and the presence of scattered radiation. The eNNPS was influenced by the grid presence, and in some systems, it contained structured noise. At typical clinical exposure levels, the magnitude of eDQE(0) with respect to DQE(0) at RQA9 beam conditions was 13%, 17%, 16%, 36%, and 24%, respectively, for Carestream DRX-1, Carestream DRX-1C, Carestream Direct View CR975, Philips Digital Diagnost VM, and GE Revolution XR/d. These results were confirmed by the ratio of IeDQE and IDQE in the same conditions. CONCLUSIONS The authors confirm the robustness and reproducibility of the eDQE method. As expected, the DR systems performed better than the CR systems due to their superior signal-to-noise transfer characteristics. The results of this study suggest the eDQE method may provide an opportunity to more accurately assess the clinical performance of digital radiographic imaging systems by accounting for factors such as the presence of scatter, use of an antiscatter grid, and magnification and focal spot blurring effects, which are not reflected in conventional DQE measures.

[1]  N. Lanconelli,et al.  Comparison of different computed radiography systems: physical characterization and contrast detail analysis. , 2010, Medical physics.

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

[3]  A. Nitrosi,et al.  On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. , 2003, Medical physics.

[4]  Renato Campanini,et al.  Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis. , 2006, Medical physics.

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

[6]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Effective DQE (eDQE) and speed of digital radiographic systems: an experimental methodology. , 2009, Medical physics.

[7]  Stephen Rudin,et al.  Generalized performance evaluation of x-ray image intensifier compared with a microangiographic system , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[8]  Nico Lanconelli,et al.  A new clinical unit for digital radiography based on a thick amorphous selenium plate: physical and psychophysical characterization. , 2011, Medical physics.

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

[10]  Robert L. Williams,et al.  HRR ATR using eigen templates with noisy observations in unknown target scenario , 2000, SPIE Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[11]  F R Verdun,et al.  Performance comparison of an active matrix flat panel imager, computed radiography system, and a screen-film system at four standard radiation qualities. , 2005, Medical physics.

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

[13]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Effective dose efficiency: an application-specific metric of quality and dose for digital radiography , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[14]  I. Kandarakis,et al.  Light emission efficiency and imaging performance of Gd2O2S: Eu powder scintillator under x-ray radiography conditions. , 2010, Medical physics.

[15]  Stephen Rudin,et al.  Study of the generalized MTF and DQE for a new microangiographic system , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  Robert M. Nishikawa,et al.  Standardization of NPS measurement: interim report of AAPM TG16 , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[17]  K. Hoffmann,et al.  Generalizing the MTF and DQE to include x-ray scatter and focal spot unsharpness: application to a new microangiographic system. , 2005, Medical physics.

[18]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. , 2006, Medical physics.

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

[20]  Christoph Hoeschen,et al.  Measurement of the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of digital X-ray detectors according to the novel standard IEC 62220-1. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[21]  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.

[22]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Efficiency of the human observer compared to an ideal observer based on a generalized NEQ which incorporates scatter and geometric unsharpness: evaluation with a 2AFC experiment , 2005, SPIE Medical Imaging.