Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems--a contrast-detail phantom study.

Flat-panel (FP) based digital radiography systems have recently been introduced as a new and improved digital radiography technology; it is important to evaluate and compare this new technology with currently widely used conventional screen/film (SF) and computed radiography (CR) techniques. In this study, the low-contrast performance of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide (aSi/Csl)-based flat-panel digital chest radiography system is compared to those of a screen/film and a computed radiography system by measuring their contrast-detail curves. Also studied were the effects of image enhancement in printing the digital images and dependence on kVp and incident exposure. It was found that the FP system demonstrated significantly better low-contrast performance than the SF or CR systems. It was estimated that a dose savings of 70%-90% could be achieved to match the low-contrast performance of the FP images to that of the SF images. This dose saving was also found to increase with the object size. No significant difference was observed in low-contrast performances between the SF and CR systems. The use of clinical enhancement protocols for printing digital images was found to be essential and result in better low-contrast performance. No significant effects were observed for different kVps. From the results of this contrast-detail phantom study, the aSi/CsI-based flat-panel digital chest system should perform better under clinical situations for detection of low-contrast objects such as lung nodules. However, proper processing prior to printing would be essential to realizing this better performance.

[1]  Larry E. Antonuk,et al.  Large-area flat-panel amorphous silicon imagers , 1995, Medical Imaging.

[2]  R Van Metter,et al.  Objective performance characteristics of a new asymmetric screen-film system. , 1994, Medical physics.

[3]  A R Cowen,et al.  A comparison of the physical imaging properties of Fuji ST-V, ST-VA, and ST-VN computed radiography image plates. , 1998, Medical physics.

[4]  C. J. Kotre,et al.  Analysis of variations in contrast-detail measurements performed on image intensifier-television systems , 1992 .

[5]  Chris C. Shaw,et al.  Comparison of a-Si:H/CsI flat-panel digital imaging systems with CR-and CCD-based systems: image quality measurements , 2001 .

[6]  Wei Zhao,et al.  Flat panel detector for digital radiology using active matrix readout of amorphous selenium , 1997, Medical Imaging.

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

[8]  Youming Li,et al.  High-resolution amorphous silicon image sensor , 1996, Medical Imaging.

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

[10]  Ping Xue,et al.  Low contrast detectability and dose savings with an amorphous silicon detector designed for x-ray radiography , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[11]  F. Mettler,et al.  ROC and contrast detail image evaluation tests compared. , 1985, Radiology.

[12]  G. Cohen,et al.  Contrast‐Detail‐Dose Analysis of Six Different Computed Tomographic Scanners , 1979, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[13]  H. Blume,et al.  DQE(f) of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices. , 1995, Medical physics.

[14]  K Faulkner,et al.  The contrast-detail behaviour of a photostimulable phosphor based computed radiography system. , 1994, Physics in medicine and biology.

[15]  J T Dobbins,et al.  Performance characteristics of a Kodak computed radiography system. , 1999, Medical physics.

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

[17]  J A Rowlands,et al.  X-ray imaging using amorphous selenium: feasibility of a flat panel self-scanned detector for digital radiology. , 1995, Medical physics.

[18]  Kunio Doi,et al.  An Empirical Investigation Of Variability In Contrast-Detail Diagram Measurements , 1983, Other Conferences.

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

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

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

[22]  Problems with contrast-detail curves for CT performance evaluation. , 1982, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  P C Bunch,et al.  Analysis of the detective quantum efficiency of a radiographic screen-film combination. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[24]  Janice C. Honeyman-Buck,et al.  How does observer training affect imaging performance in digital mammography? , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[25]  Thierry Ducourant,et al.  Amorphous silicon x-ray image sensor , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[26]  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.

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

[28]  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.

[29]  Brian G. Rodricks,et al.  Improved imaging performance of a 14"x17" direct radiography system using a Se/TFT detector , 1998, Medical Imaging.

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

[31]  Manabu Tanaka,et al.  Development of a selenium-based flat-panel detector for real-time radiography and fluoroscopy , 1998, Medical Imaging.

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

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

[34]  J H Siewerdsen,et al.  Strategies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat-panel imagers for diagnostic x-ray applications. , 2000, Medical physics.

[35]  K. Faulkner,et al.  Contrast-detail assessment of computed tomography scanners. , 1986, Physics in medicine and biology.

[36]  S. R. Amtey,et al.  Contrast-detail-dose and dose efficiency analysis of a scanning digital and a screen-film-grid radiographic system. , 1981, Medical physics.