Advertisement

Dose Optimization in Digital Radiography

  • Euclid Seeram
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explored the ICRP’s principle of optimization, optimization of the exposure technique factors [kilovolts (kV) and milliampere-seconds (mAs)] used in a digital radiography examination, including the exposure indicator (EI). Secondly, dose optimization tools for image quality assessment were outlined, specifically the method of visual grading of normal anatomy. Finally the chapter provides an example of a research study examining the optimization of the EI as a dose management strategy in digital radiography. The ICRP principle of optimization is intended to protect the patient from unnecessary radiation by using a dose that is as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The ultimate goal of optimization is to minimize stochastic effects and to prevent deterministic effects. Three dose optimization approaches were introduced and reviewed. These include optimization of the exposure techniques factor (kV and mAs) and the EI. The literature review on the use of these approaches in computed radiography (CR) found the EI as a dose control mechanism and as a “surrogate for dose management,” and the use of the EI has been viewed as an opportunity for dose optimization. Furthermore optimization research has focused mainly on optimizing the kV in CR imaging as a means of implementing the ALARA philosophy.

Generally, these studies have produced “conflicting results.” The fourth topic addressed in this chapter is image quality assessment of medical images. These include objective physical measures and observer performance methods such as the use of visual grading of normal anatomy and the various receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methods. One tool that is well established and makes use of the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images is visual grading analysis (VGA) procedure. This procedure is used to evaluate image quality based on the visualization and reproduction of defined anatomical structures in images and not on lesion detection. The final section of this chapter examined an empirical research study as an illustration of the use of the EI in the optimization of the radiation dose and image quality for a computed radiography system. Entrance skin doses were measured for phantom models of the pelvis and lumbar spine imaged using the vendor’s recommended exposure settings (i.e., the reference doses) as well as doses above and below the vendor’s recommended settings for both body parts. Images were assessed using visual grading analysis (VGA). While the dose measurement results revealed strong positive linear relationships between dose and milliampere-seconds (mAs), mAs and inverse exposure indicator (EI), and dose and inverse EI for both body parts, the VGA showed that optimized values of 16 mAs/EI = 136 for the anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and 32 mAs/EI = 139 for the AP lumbar spine did not compromise image quality. The conclusions drawn of this study suggest selecting that optimized mAs reduced dose by 36% compared with the vendor’s recommended mAs (dose) values, and optimizing the mAs and associated EIs can be an effective dose management strategy.

References

  1. 1.
    Gibson DJ, Davidson RA. Exposure creep in computed radiography: a longitudinal study. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(4):458–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Seibert JA, Morin RL. The standardized exposure index for digital radiography: an opportunity for optimization of radiation dose to the pediatric population. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(5):573–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen MD, Cooper ML, Piersall K, Apgar B. Quality assurance: using the exposure index and the deviation index to monitor radiation exposure for portable chest radiographs in neonates. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41:592–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Willis CE. Strategies for dose reduction in ordinary radiographic examinations using CR and DR. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34(Suppl 3):S196–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72(2):202–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP publication 93. New York: Elsevier; 2004. p. 1–73.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolbarst AB, Capasso P, Wyant AR. Medical imaging: essentials for physicians. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dauer LT, Brooks AL, Hoel DG, Morgan WF, Stram D, Tran P. Review and evaluation of updated research on health effects associated with low-dose ionizing radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;140(2):103–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bushong S. Radiologic science for technologists: physics, biology and protection. 11th ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby-Elsevier; 2017.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1–332.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ICRP publication 105. Radiological protection in medicine. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(6):1–63.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Radiological protection and safety in medicine. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication no. 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:2–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hricak H, Brenner DJ, Adelstein SJ, Frush DP, et al. Managing radiation use in medical imaging: a multifaceted challenge. Radiology. 2011;258(3):889–905.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matthews K, Brennan P. Optimization of x-ray examinations: general principles and an Irish perspective. Radiography. 2009;15:262–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reduction, optimization. Merriam-Webster dictionary. Online english language dictionary. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary. Accessed Mar 2018.
  16. 16.
    Moore CS, Saunderson JR, Beavis AW. Investigating the exposure class of a computed radiography system for optimisation of physical image quality for chest radiography. Br J Radiol. 2008;82(981):771–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goo HW. CT radiation dose optimization and estimation: an update for radiologists. Korean J Radiol. 2012;13(1):1–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seeram E, Davidson R, Bushong S, Swan H. Radiation dose optimization research: exposure technique approaches in CR imaging: a literature review. Radiography. 2013;19(4):331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fauber TL, Cohen TF, Dempsey MC. High kilovoltage digital exposure techniques and patient dosimetry. Radiol Technol. 2011;82(6):501–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sechopoulos I. In: Shaw CC, editor. Cone beam CT. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2014.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrmann TL, Fauber TL, Gill J, Hoffman C, Orth DK, Peterson PA, Prouty RR, Woodward AP, Odle TG. Best practices in digital radiography: white paper, ASRT. Albuquerque, NM: American Society of Radiologic Technologists. p. 2012.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marshall NW. Optimisation of dose per image in digital imaging. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2001;94(1e2):83–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seeram E. Optimization of the exposure indicator as a dose management strategy in computed radiography. PhD dissertation, NSW, Australia, 2014.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matthews K, Brennan PC. Optimisation of x-ray examinations: general principles and an Irish perspective. Radiography. 2009;15:262–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Månsson LG. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2000;90(1-2):89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Båth M. Evaluating imaging systems: practical applications. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2010;139(1-3):26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Martin CJ. Radiation dosimetry for diagnostic medical exposures. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2008;128(4):389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tingberg A, Sjöström D. Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;114(1-3):286–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sund P, Båth M, Kheddache S, Månsson LG. Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Euro Radiol. 2004;14(1):48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tapiovaara MJ. Review of relationships between physical measurements and user evaluation of image quality. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2008;129(1-3):244–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chakraborty DP, editor. Observer performance methods for diagnostic imaging: foundations, modelling, and applications with R-based examples. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2018.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smedby O, Fredrikson M. Visual grading regression: analysing data from visual grading experiments with regression models. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(993):767–75.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tesselaar E, Dahlström N, Sandborg M. Clinical audit of image quality in radiology using visual grading characteristics analysis. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2016;169(1-4):340–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Brussels: European Commission; 1996.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Seibert JA. Digital radiography: image quality and radiation dose. Health Phys. 2008;95(5):586–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Willis CE. Optimizing digital radiography of children. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72(2):266–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Seeram E, Davidson R, Bushong S, Swan H. Optimization of the exposure indicator as a dose management strategy in computed radiography. Radiol Technol. 2016;87(4):380–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lanhede B, Båth M, Kheddache S. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. Br J Radiol. 2002;75(889):38–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Båth M, Månsson LG. Visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol. 2007;80(951):169–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Geijer H, Persliden J. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;114(1-3):240–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tingberg AM. Quantifying the quality of medical X-ray images: an evaluation based on normal anatomy for lumbar spine and chest radiography [dissertation]. Lund: Lund University, Department of Radiation Physics; 2000.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mattsson E. Optimisation strategies in medical x-ray imaging. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2005;114:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tingberg A, Båth M, Håkansson M. Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA. Radiat Protect Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Seeram E. The new exposure indicator for digital radiography. J Med Imag Rad Sci. 2014;45:144–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Euclid Seeram
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Medical Radiation Sciences University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Adjunct Associate Professor, Medical Imaging and Radiation SciencesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  4. 4.Adjunct Professor, Faculty of ScienceCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  5. 5.Adjunct Associate Professor, Medical Radiation Sciences, Faculty of HealthUniversity of CanberraBruceAustralia

Personalised recommendations