Digital radiography: optimization of image quality and dose using multi-frequency software
- 759 Downloads
New developments in processing of digital radiographs (DR), including multi-frequency processing (MFP), allow optimization of image quality and radiation dose. This is particularly promising in children as they are believed to be more sensitive to ionizing radiation than adults.
To examine whether the use of MFP software reduces the radiation dose without compromising quality at DR of the femur in 5-year-old-equivalent anthropomorphic and technical phantoms.
Materials and methods
A total of 110 images of an anthropomorphic phantom were imaged on a DR system (Canon DR with CXDI-50 C detector and MLT[S] software) and analyzed by three pediatric radiologists using Visual Grading Analysis. In addition, 3,500 images taken of a technical contrast-detail phantom (CDRAD 2.0) provide an objective image-quality assessment.
Optimal image-quality was maintained at a dose reduction of 61% with MLT(S) optimized images. Even for images of diagnostic quality, MLT(S) provided a dose reduction of 88% as compared to the reference image. Software impact on image quality was found significant for dose (mAs), dynamic range dark region and frequency band.
By optimizing image processing parameters, a significant dose reduction is possible without significant loss of image quality.
KeywordsDigital radiography Software optimization Multi-frequency processing Dose reduction
- 1.ICRP (2004) Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Ann. ICRP 34:1–73Google Scholar
- 3.Seeram E (2011) Digital radiography, an introduction. Delmar Cengage Learning, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 4.Gonzales RC, Woods RE (2008) Digital image processing. Prentice Hall (3), New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 5.Canon Inc. (2008) CXDI Image Processing Software MLT(S) User’s Manual. JapanGoogle Scholar
- 6.Beutel J, Sonka M, Fitzpatrick JM (2004) Handbook of medical imaging, vol. 2; Medical image processing and analysis. SPIE, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 7.Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM et al (2002) The essential physics of medical imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (2), PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hart D, Wall BF, Shrimpton PC et al (2000) Reference doses and patient size in pediatric radiology. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733786824
- 10.European Commission (1996) European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images in pediatrics. LuxemborgGoogle Scholar
- 11.Danish Society of Radiology (2006) Vejledning vedrørende Radiologiske ProcedureGoogle Scholar
- 16.Artinis (2006) Manual—contrast-detail phantom. Artinis CDRAD type 2.0, ZettenGoogle Scholar
- 17.International Commission on Radiation units and Measurements (1989) Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. ICRU Report 44, MarylandGoogle Scholar
- 18.National Board of Health (2006) Pediatric radiation doses at Radiology. Published at webpage: http://www.sst.dk/publ/Publ2006/SIS/Boernedoser/Boernedoser_radiologi.pdf assessed the 17 October 2011
- 21.Sund P, Båth M, Kheddache S et al (2004) Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 14(1):143–150Google Scholar
- 23.Bontrager KL (2002) Textbook of radiographic positioning and related anatomi. Bontrager Publishing (4), ArizonaGoogle Scholar
- 27.Larsen ALS (2006) Videnskab og forskning: en lærebog for professionsuddannelser. Gads Forlag (2):145Google Scholar
- 28.Polit DF, Beck CT (2008) Nursing research generating and assessing evidence for nurcing practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (8), PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 29.Norrman E (2007) Optimisation of radiographic imaging by means of factorial experiments. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Örebro, SwedenGoogle Scholar
- 32.Miller DP (2004) Obtain robust confidence intervals for any statistic. SAS Institute Inc. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual SAS (R) User Group International Conference. SAS Institute Inc, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
- 33.Canon Inc. (2008) Multiobjective frequency processing function manual—MLT(S) edition. JapanGoogle Scholar
- 34.Beutel J, Kundel HL, Van Metter RL (2000) Handbook of medical imaging, vol. 1; Physics and Psychophysics. SPIE, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- 36.Eubank RL (1999) Nonparametric regression and spline smoothing. CRC press, New YorkGoogle Scholar