Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Comparison of a-Si:H CsI flat-panel digital imaging systems with a CCD-based system, CR systems, and conventional screen-film systems: a contrast-detail phantom study
Author(s): John X. Rong; Chris C. Shaw; Dennis A. Johnston; Michael R. Lemacks; Xinming Liu; Gary J. Whitman; Stephen K. Thompson; Kerry T. Krugh
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

Low-contrast detail detectability was evaluated and compared for a flat-panel digital chest system, a computed radiography (CR) system and a conventional screen/film (SF) system. Images of a contrast-detail phantom were acquired using these three systems under identical conditions. Additional images were acquired at varied exposures to study the potential for reduction of patient exposure using the flat-panel system. The results demonstrated that in chest imaging, the flat-panel system performed significantly better than the CR and the SF systems while the latter two performed about the same. Alternatively, an exposure reduction of at least 50% is possible if the same performance is maintained. For mammographic imaging, detectability for microcalcifications ((mu) Cs) was evaluated and compared for a flat-panel based full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system, a charge-coupled device (CCD) -based small-field system, a high resolution CR system and a conventional SF system. Images of simulated calcifications of three size ranges were acquired and evaluated by readers for detectability of the (mu) Cs. A Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis was also performed to compare the overall detection accuracy for these four mammographic imaging systems. Our results show that in both the detectability analysis and the ROC analysis, the flat-panel systems performed the best followed by the screen/film system. The CCD based system showed better detection accuracy compared to the CR system in the ROC analysis. However, there was no significant difference between the CCD and the CR systems in the detectability analysis.

Paper Details

Date Published: 28 June 2001
PDF: 8 pages
Proc. SPIE 4320, Medical Imaging 2001: Physics of Medical Imaging, (28 June 2001); doi: 10.1117/12.430950
Show Author Affiliations
John X. Rong, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)
Chris C. Shaw, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)
Dennis A. Johnston, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)
Michael R. Lemacks, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)
Xinming Liu, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)
Gary J. Whitman, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)
Stephen K. Thompson, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)
Kerry T. Krugh, Univ. of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 4320:
Medical Imaging 2001: Physics of Medical Imaging
Larry E. Antonuk; Martin Joel Yaffe, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top