Evaluation of Radiation Dose Reduction and Its Effect on Image Quality for Different Flat-Panel Detectors

Overview

Journal J Med Phys

Date 2022 May 13

PMID 35548029

Authors

R Benedicta Pearlin

Roshan Samuel Livingstone

Anita Jasper

Shyam Kumar N Keshava

Gibikote Sridhar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the image quality of semi-anatomical chest radiographs acquired using low radiation doses from seven different flat-panel detector (FPD) systems.

Materials And Methods: Radiographs of a semi-anatomical chest phantom were acquired at 70 and 110 kVp using 7 different FPDs from 5 vendors. Radiation doses were measured using a dose-area-product (DAP) meter. To standardize measurements across all FPDs, DAP value of 51.05 μGym obtained at 70 kVp and 9.43 μGym at 110 kVp was used as reference in this study. Radiation doses were reduced by manually adjusting mAs for both tube potentials in all FPD systems to achieve acceptable image quality. Contrast-to-noise ratio, signal-to-noise ratio and figure of merit (FOM) in lung, heart, and diaphragm for all images were analyzed.

Results: In comparison with set standard protocol, radiation dose reduction of 20%, 21%, 21.6%, 59.5%, 60.7%, 62.2%, and 67.6% with optimal image quality was observed in Prognosys Prorad, GE Definium 8000, Siemens Fusion, Fujifilm FGX, Fujifilm FGXR, Philips Digital Diagnost and Siemens Aristos at 70 kVp. At 110 kVp, dose reduction of 15.7% and 34.8% was possible only for Philips Digital Diagnost and Siemens Aristos. FOM was high at 110 kVp even when radiation doses were reduced by a factor 2 when compared to 70 kVp in all digital radiography systems.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of using a semi-anatomical chest phantom in the optimization of radiation dose and image quality. The FOM was a good indicator in assessing image quality between different detectors.

Citing Articles

Development and clinical feasibility of a reduced-dose radiograph in children for feeding tube placement.

Kaplan S, Jalloul M, Akbari E, White A, Shumyatsky G, Flowers C Pediatr Radiol. 2023; 54(2):218-227.

PMID: 38141080 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-023-05829-w.

References

Willis C, Slovis T . The ALARA concept in pediatric CR and DR: dose reduction in pediatric radiographic exams--a white paper conference executive summary. Pediatr Radiol. 2004; 34 Suppl 3:S162-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-004-1264-y. View

Butler M, Rainford L, Last J, Brennan P . Are exposure index values consistent in clinical practice? A multi-manufacturer investigation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010; 139(1-3):371-4. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq094. View

Rong X, Shaw C, Liu X, Lemacks M, Thompson S . 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. Med Phys. 2002; 28(11):2328-35. DOI: 10.1118/1.1408620. View

Samei E, Flynn M . An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. Med Phys. 2003; 30(4):608-22. DOI: 10.1118/1.1561285. View

Chotas H, Floyd Jr C, Johnson G, Ravin C . Quality control phantom for digital chest radiography. Radiology. 1997; 202(1):111-6. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.1.8988199. View

Williams M, Krupinski E, Strauss K, Breeden 3rd W, Rzeszotarski M, Applegate K . Digital radiography image quality: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007; 4(6):371-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.02.002. View

Mothiram U, Brennan P, Lewis S, Moran B, Robinson J . Digital radiography exposure indices: A review. J Med Radiat Sci. 2015; 61(2):112-8. PMC: 4175837. DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.49. View

Doyle P, Martin C, Gentle D . Dose-image quality optimisation in digital chest radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005; 114(1-3):269-72. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nch546. View

Korner M, Weber C, Wirth S, Pfeifer K, Reiser M, Treitl M . Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview. Radiographics. 2007; 27(3):675-86. DOI: 10.1148/rg.273065075. View

10.

Busch H, Faulkner K . Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2006; 117(1-3):143-7. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nci728. View

11.

Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C . Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 72(2):202-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.060. View

12.

Metz S, Damoser P, Hollweck R, Roggel R, Engelke C, Woertler K . Chest radiography with a digital flat-panel detector: experimental receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology. 2005; 234(3):776-84. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2343031805. View

13.

Sonoda M, Takano M, Miyahara J, Kato H . Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiology. 1983; 148(3):833-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878707. View

14.

Borg M, Badr I, Royle G . The use of a figure-of-merit (FOM) for optimisation in digital mammography: a literature review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2012; 151(1):81-8. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncr465. View

15.

Yaffe M, Rowlands J . X-ray detectors for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol. 1997; 42(1):1-39. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/42/1/001. View

16.

Seibert J . Digital radiography: image quality and radiation dose. Health Phys. 2008; 95(5):586-98. DOI: 10.1097/01.HP.0000326338.14198.a2. View

17.

Baydush A, Ghem W, Floyd Jr C . Anthropomorphic versus geometric chest phantoms: a comparison of scatter properties. Med Phys. 2000; 27(5):894-7. DOI: 10.1118/1.598954. View

18.

Seibert J . Tradeoffs between image quality and dose. Pediatr Radiol. 2004; 34 Suppl 3:S183-95. DOI: 10.1007/s00247-004-1268-7. View

19.

Marshall N, MacKenzie A, Honey I . Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors. Phys Med Biol. 2011; 56(4):979-99. DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/56/4/007. View

20.

Seibert J, Shelton D, MOORE E . Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends. Acad Radiol. 1996; 3(4):313-8. DOI: 10.1016/s1076-6332(96)80247-9. View