Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two K versus 4 K storage phosphor chest radiography: detection performance and image quality

  • Chest
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of matrix size (4-K versus 2-K) in digital storage phosphor chest radiographs on image quality and on the detection of CT-proven thoracic abnormalities. In 85 patients who underwent a CT of the thorax, we obtained two additional posteroanterior storage phosphor chest radiographs, one with a matrix size of 3,520×4,280 (=4-K) and the other with a matrix size of 1,760×2,140 (=2-K). Acquisition, processing and presentation parameters were identical for all radiographs. Two radiologists evaluated the presence of mediastinal, pleural, and pulmonary abnormalities on hard copies of the radiographs, applying ROC analysis. In addition, four radiologists were asked to subjectively rank differences in image quality and to assess the demarcation of anatomic landmarks comparing the images in a blinded side-by-side manner. These data were analyzed using a two-sided binomial test with a significance level of P<0.05. Both tests, the ROC analysis of the detection performance and the binomial test of the subjective quality ratings, did not reveal significant differences between the two matrix sizes. Compared to 2-K radiographs, 4-K storage phosphor chest radiographs do not provide superior detection performance or image quality when evaluated in identical hard copy formats.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cowen A, Workman A, Price J (1993) Physical aspects of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography. Br Journ of Radiology 66:332–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Prokop M, Schaefer C, Oestmann JW, Galanski M (1993) Improved parameters for unsharp maskfiltering of digital chest radiographs. Radiology 187:521–526

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schaefer CM, Greene R, Llewellyn H et al (1991) Interstitial lung disease: Impact of postprocessing in digital storage phosphor imaging. Radiology 178:733–738

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kido S, Ikezoe J, Takeuchi N et al (1993) Interpretation of subtle interstital lung abnormalities: conventional versus storage phosphor radiography. Radiology 187:527–533

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schaefer CM, Greene R, Oestmann W et al (1990) Digital storage phosphor imaging versus conventional film radiography in CT-documented chest disease. Radiology 174:207–210

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lams PM, Cocklin ML (1986) Spatial resolution requirements for digital chest radiographs: an ROC-study of observer performance in selected cases. Radiology 158:11–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Seeley GW, Fisher HD, Stempski MO, Borgstrom M, Bjelland J, Capp MP (1987) Total digital radiology department: spatial resolution requirements. Am J Roentgenol 148:421–426

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schaefer CM, Greene R, Hall DA et al (1991) Mediastinal abnormalities: detection with storage phosphor digital radiography. Radiology 178:169–173

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Flynn MJ, Samei E (1999) Experimental comparison of noise and resolution for 2 K and 4 K storage phosphor radiography systems. Med Phys 26:1612–1623

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ishigaki T, Endo T, Ikeda M, Kono M et al (1996) Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography. Radiology 201:51–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LJ, Boot MV et al (2006) Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 16(2):333–341, Feb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Giger ML, Doi K (1984) Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 1. Modulation transfer function. Med Phys 11:287–295

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Giger ML, Doi K, Metz CE (1984) Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 2. Noise Wiener spectrum. Med Phys 11:797–805

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Giger ML, Doi K (1985) Investigation of basic imaging properties in digital radiography. 3. Effect of pixel size on SNR and threshold contrast. Med Phys 12:201–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schaefer CM, Prokop M, Oestmann JW et al (1992) Impact of hard-copy size on observer performance in digital chest radiography. Radiology 184:77–81

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. De Hauwere A, Bacher K, Smeets P, Koenraad V, Thierens H (2005) Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging. Rad Prot Dosim 117:174–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Good WF, Gur D, Feist JH et al (1994) Subjective and objective assessment of image quality- a comparison. J Digit Imaging 7(2):77–78

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Miro S, Leung A, Rubin G, Choi Y et al (2001) Digital storage phosphor chest radiography: An ROC study of the effect of 2 K versus 4 K matrix size on observer performance. Radiology 218:527–532

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fuhrman C, Gur D, Schaetzing R (1990) High-resolution digital imaging with storage phosphors. J Thorac Imag 5(1):21–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ueguchi T, Johkoh T, Tomiyama N et al (2005) Full-size digital storage phosphor chest radiography: effect of 4 K versus 2 K matrix size on observer performance in detection of subtle interstitial abnormalities. Radiat Med 23(3):170–174, May

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria

    Claus Koelblinger, Michael Weber, Johannes Sailer & Fabiola Cartes-Zumelzu

  2. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Mathias Prokop

  3. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop

Authors
  1. Claus Koelblinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mathias Prokop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johannes Sailer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fabiola Cartes-Zumelzu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claus Koelblinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koelblinger, C., Prokop, M., Weber, M. et al. Two K versus 4 K storage phosphor chest radiography: detection performance and image quality. Eur Radiol 17, 2934–2940 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0650-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-007-0650-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation