Abstract
A dedicated chest computed radiography (CR) system has an option of energy subtraction (ES) acquisition. Two imaging plates, rather than one, are separated by a copper filter to give a high-energy and low-energy image. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of conventional computed radiography to that of ES obtained with two radiographic techniques. One soft tissue only image was obtained at the conventional CR technique (s=254) and the second was obtained at twice the radiation exposure (s=131) to reduce noise. An anthropomorphic phantom with superimposed low-contrast lung nodules was imaged 53 times for each radiographic technique. Fifteen images had no nodules; 38 images had a total of 90 nodules placed on the phantom. Three chest radiologists read the three sets of images in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study. Significant differences in Az were only found between (1) the higher exposure energy subtracted images and the conventional dose energy subtracted images (P=.095, 90% confidence), and (2) the conventional CR and the energy subtracted image obtained at the same technique (P=.024, 98% confidence). As a result of this study, energy subtracted images cannot be substituted for conventional CR images when detecting low-contrast nodules, even when twice the exposure is used to obtain them.
Key Words: lung nodules, computerized radiography, energy subtraction, ROC
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.9 MB).
References
- 1.MacMahon H. Digital chest radiography at the University of Chicago: Present status and future plans. J Digit Imaging. 1995;8:11–14. doi: 10.1007/BF03168059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Freedman M, Stellar P, Jafroudi H, et al. Quality control of storage phosphor digital radiography systems. J Digit Imaging. 1995;8:67–74. doi: 10.1007/BF03168129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Chotas HG, Floyd CE, Raven CE. Technical evaluation of a digital chest radiography system that uses a selenium detector. Radiology. 1995;195:264–270. doi: 10.1148/radiology.195.1.7892483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Brody WR, Butt G, Hall A, et al. A method for selective tissue and bone visualization using dual energy scanned projection radiography. Med Phys. 1981;8:353–357. doi: 10.1118/1.594957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ishigaki T, Sakuma S, Ikeda M. One-shot dual-energy subtraction chest imaging with computed radiography: Clinical evaluation of film images. Radiology. 1988;168:67–72. doi: 10.1148/radiology.168.1.3289096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Stewart BK, Huang HK. Single-exposure dual-energy computed radiography. Med Phys. 1990;17:866–875. doi: 10.1118/1.596479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kimme-Smith C, Aberle DR, Sayre JW, et al. Effect of reduced exposure on computed radiography: Comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:269–273. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.2.7618538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kimme-Smith C, Hart E, Goldin J, et al. Detection of simulated lung nodules with computed radiography: Effects of nodule size, local optical density, global object thickness, and exposure. Acad Radiol. 1996;3:735–741. doi: 10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80412-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd: Fuji Computed Radiography Technical Review for FCR 9501 ES/FCR DX-A, 1996
- 10.Kundel HL, Revesz G. Lesion conspicuity structured noise and film reader error. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1976;126:1233–1238. doi: 10.2214/ajr.126.6.1233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Metz CE. Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest Radiol. 1988;24:234–245. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198903000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Dorfman DD, Alf E. Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals: Rating method data. J Math Psychology. 1969;6:487–496. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(69)90019-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Dorfman DD, Berbaum KS, Metz CE. Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis: Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method. Invest Radiol. 1992;27:723–731. doi: 10.1097/00004424-199209000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Niklason LT, Chan HP, Cascade PN, et al. Portable chest imaging: Comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film, and conventional screen film systems. Radiology. 1993;186:387–393. doi: 10.1148/radiology.186.2.8421740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Dobbins JT, Rice JJ, Beam CA, et al. Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: Implications for chest radiography. Radiology. 1992;183:179–187. doi: 10.1148/radiology.183.1.1549669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Leppert AGA, Prokup M, Schaefer-Prokop CM, et al. Detection of simulated chest lesions: comparison of a conventional screen-film combination, an asymmetric screen-film system and storage phosphor radiology. Radiology. 1995;195:259–263. doi: 10.1148/radiology.195.1.7892482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Alvarez RE, Siebert JA, Poage TF. Active dual energy x-ray detector: Experimental characterization. SPIE Med Imag. 1997;3032:419–426. doi: 10.1117/12.274011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hendee WR, Kelsey CA, Cohen G. Point/counterpoint: Medical technologies should pass performance and cost-effectiveness review in centers of excellence before being released for diffusion in the clinical community. Med Phys. 1998;25:1099–1101. doi: 10.1118/1.598301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]