Optimal phosphor thickness for portal imaging.

A theoretical approach known as quantum accounting diagram (QAD) analysis has been used to calculate the spatial-frequency-dependent detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of two portal imaging systems: one based on a video camera and another based on an amorphous silicon array. The spatial frequency-dependent DQEs have then been used to determine indices of displayed and perceived image quality. These indices are figures of merit that can be used to optimize the design of linear imaging systems. We have used this approach to determine which of eight phosphor screen thicknesses (ranging between 67 and 947 mg/cm2) is optimal for the two designs of portal imaging systems. The physical characteristics (i.e., detection efficiencies, gains, and MTFs) of each of the eight x-ray detectors have been measured and combined with the physical characteristics of the remaining components to calculate the theoretical DQEs. In turn, the DQEs have been used to calculate theoretical indices of displayed and perceived image quality for two types of objects: a pelvis object and a pointlike object. The maximal indices of displayed and perceived image quality were obtained with screen thickness ranging between 358 and 947 mg/cm2, depending upon the imaging system design and the object being imaged. Importantly, the results showed that there is no single optimal screen thickness. The optimal thickness depended upon imaging task (e.g., detecting large, low-contrast structures, or detecting edges and small structures). Nevertheless, the results showed that there were only modest improvements in the indices of image quality for phosphor screens thicker than 350-400 mg/cm2.

[1]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Toward consensus on quantitative assessment of medical imaging systems. , 1995, Medical physics.

[2]  M L Giger,et al.  Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 3. Effect of pixel size on SNR and threshold contrast. , 1985, Medical physics.

[3]  P. Munro,et al.  A quantum accounting and detective quantum efficiency analysis for video-based portal imaging. , 1997, Medical physics.

[4]  G. J. Berzins,et al.  Characterization Of Fluorescent Screens For Imaging Applications With Mev Neutrons And Photons , 1983 .

[5]  S. Shalev,et al.  Monte Carlo optimization of metal/phosphor screens at megavoltage energies. , 1993, Medical physics.

[6]  Larry E. Antonuk,et al.  Evaluation of the MTF for a-Si:H imaging arrays , 1994, Medical Imaging.

[7]  P. Munro,et al.  Optimal radiographic magnification for portal imaging. , 1994, Medical physics.

[8]  R T Droege.  A megavoltage MTF measurement technique for metal screen-film detectors. , 1979, Medical physics.

[9]  J Yorkston,et al.  Demonstration of megavoltage and diagnostic x-ray imaging with hydrogenated amorphous silicon arrays. , 1992, Medical physics.

[10]  J Moseley,et al.  A semiautomatic method for registration of portal images. , 1994, Medical physics.

[11]  Philip F. Judy,et al.  Lesion detection and signal–to–noise ratio in CT images , 1981 .

[12]  A Fenster,et al.  Monte Carlo studies of x-ray energy absorption and quantum noise in megavoltage transmission radiography. , 1995, Medical physics.

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

[14]  D A Jaffray,et al.  Tests for evaluating laser film digitizers. , 1995, Medical physics.

[15]  K Doi,et al.  A comparison of physical image quality indices and observer performance in the radiographic detection of nylon beads. , 1984, Physics in medicine and biology.

[16]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.

[17]  Hans Roehrig,et al.  Real-time imaging detectors for portal imaging , 1993, Optics & Photonics.

[18]  A Fenster,et al.  A digital fluoroscopic imaging device for radiotherapy localization. , 1990, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[19]  P. Munro,et al.  Evaluation of a high-density scintillating glass for portal imaging. , 1996, Medical Physics (Lancaster).

[20]  A Fenster,et al.  Therapy imaging: a signal-to-noise analysis of a fluoroscopic imaging system for radiotherapy localization. , 1990, Medical physics.

[21]  C E Metz,et al.  Digital image processing: effect on detectability of simulated low-contrast radiographic patterns. , 1984, Radiology.

[22]  B R Paliwal,et al.  Monte Carlo and convolution dosimetry for stereotactic radiosurgery. , 1990, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[23]  Quantum Utilization in X-Ray Intensifying Screens , 1974 .

[24]  C E Metz,et al.  Transfer function analysis of radiographic imaging systems. , 1979, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  P. Munro,et al.  A review of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs). , 1992, Medical physics.

[26]  Majid Rabbani,et al.  Analysis of signal and noise propagation for several imaging mechanisms , 1989 .

[27]  K. Leszczynski,et al.  Optimization of metal/phosphor screens for on-line portal imaging. , 1994, Medical physics.

[28]  Gilbert Zweig,et al.  Radioluminescent Imaging: Factors Affecting Total Light Output , 1983, Other Conferences.

[29]  A Fenster,et al.  Therapy imaging: a signal-to-noise analysis of metal plate/film detectors. , 1987, Medical physics.

[30]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Absolute measures of physical image quality: measurement and application to radiographic magnification. , 1982, Medical physics.

[31]  A Fenster,et al.  A spatial-frequency dependent quantum accounting diagram and detective quantum efficiency model of signal and noise propagation in cascaded imaging systems. , 1994, Medical physics.

[32]  M. Rabbani,et al.  Detective quantum efficiency of imaging systems with amplifying and scattering mechanisms. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.