A conceptual optimisation strategy for radiography in a digital environment.

Using a completely digital environment for the entire imaging process leads to new possibilities for optimisation of radiography since many restrictions of screen/film systems, such as the small dynamic range and the lack of possibilities for image processing, do not apply any longer. However, at the same time these new possibilities lead to a more complicated optimisation process, since more freedom is given to alter parameters. This paper focuses on describing an optimisation strategy that concentrates on taking advantage of the conceptual differences between digital systems and screen/film systems. The strategy can be summarised as: (a) always include the anatomical background during the optimisation, (b) perform all comparisons at a constant effective dose and (c) separate the image display stage from the image collection stage. A three-step process is proposed where the optimal setting of the technique parameters is determined at first, followed by an optimisation of the image processing. In the final step the optimal dose level-given the optimal settings of the image collection and image display stages-is determined.

[1]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  Comparison of model predictions of image quality with results of clinical trials in chest and lumbar spine screen-film imaging , 2000 .

[2]  D R Dance,et al.  Schemes for the optimization of chest radiography using a computer model of the patient and x-ray imaging system. , 2001, Medical physics.

[3]  F R Verdun,et al.  Estimation of the noisy component of anatomical backgrounds. , 1999, Medical physics.

[4]  R Speller,et al.  A multiparameter optimization of digital mammography. , 1995, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[7]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Chest radiography: optimization of X-ray spectrum for cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. , 2003, Radiology.

[8]  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.

[9]  D R Dance,et al.  Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography. , 2001, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  W Huda,et al.  Effective dose and energy imparted in diagnostic radiology. , 1997, Medical physics.

[11]  A J Wagner,et al.  Quantitative mammography contrast threshold test tool. , 1995, Medical physics.

[12]  S. Mattsson,et al.  Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[13]  B. Wall,et al.  Coefficients for estimating effective doses from paediatric x-ray examinations , 1996 .

[14]  Jan Persliden,et al.  A factorial experiment on image quality and radiation dose. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[15]  Michael Sandborg,et al.  Comparison of two methods for evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine radiographs , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: introduction to the RADIUS chest trial. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[17]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Mass discrimination in mammography , 2003 .

[18]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of system noise. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[19]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: summary of the RADIUS chest trial. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[20]  Lars Gunnar Månsson.  Evaluation of radiographic procedures : investigations related to chest imaging , 1994 .

[21]  M. Tapiovaara,et al.  PCXMC. A PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical x-ray examinations , 1997 .

[22]  Anders Tingberg.  Quantifying the quality of medical x-ray images. An evaluation based on normal anatomy for lumbar spine and chest radiography. , 2000 .

[23]  John Yorkston,et al.  Relative impact of detector noise and anatomical structure on lung nodule detection , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[24]  J. Lampinen,et al.  Computing patient doses of X-ray examinations using a patient size- and sex-adjustable phantom. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[25]  Jonny Hansson,et al.  An optimisation strategy in a digital environment applied to neonatal chest imaging. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[26]  Anders Tingberg,et al.  Search for optimal tube voltage for image plate radiography , 2003, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[27]  Håkan Geijer,et al.  Radiation dose and image quality in diagnostic radiology. Optimization of the dose-image quality relationship with clinical experience from scoliosis radiography, coronary intervention and a flat-panel digital detector. , 2002, Acta radiologica. Supplementum.

[28]  I. Cunningham.  Applied Linear-Systems Theory , 2000 .

[29]  Walter Huda,et al.  Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography. , 2002, Medical physics.

[30]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Priorities in optimisation of medical X-ray imaging--a contribution to the debate. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[32]  B. Wall,et al.  Estimation of effective dose in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface dose and dose-area product measurements , 1994 .

[33]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Comparison of two methods for evaluation of the image quality of lumbar spine radiographs , 2000 .

[34]  L. G. Månsson.  Methods for the Evaluation of Image Quality: A Review , 2000 .

[35]  David R. Dance,et al.  How do radiographic techniques affect mass lesion detection performance in digital mammography? , 2004, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[36]  Sören Mattsson,et al.  Relations Between Effective Dose, Effective Dose Equivalent, Area-Kerma Product, and Energy Imparted in Chest Radiography , 1993 .

[37]  A. Burgess,et al.  Human observer detection experiments with mammograms and power-law noise. , 2001, Medical physics.

[38]  D. Dance.  Monte Carlo calculation of conversion factors for the estimation of mean glandular breast dose. , 1990, Physics in medicine and biology.

[39]  Magnus Båth,et al.  Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: part of image background acting as pure noise. , 2005, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[40]  B Axelsson,et al.  Digital skeletal radiography: Reduction of absorbed dose by adaptation of exposure factors and image processing , 2001, Acta radiologica.