Premium
SU‐E‐I‐51: Quantitative Assessment of X‐Ray Imaging Detector Performance in a Clinical Setting ‐ a Simple Approach Using a Commercial Instrument
Author(s) -
Sjoeberg J,
Bujila R,
Omar A,
Nowik P,
MobiniKesheh S,
Lindstroem J
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4924048
Subject(s) - detective quantum efficiency , detector , optics , optical transfer function , x ray detector , nuclear medicine , digital radiography , radiography , image quality , medical physics , physics , medicine , computer science , radiology , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics)
Purpose: To measure and compare the performance of X‐ray imaging detectors in a clinical setting using a dedicated instrument for the quantitative determination of detector performance. Methods: The DQEPro (DQE Instruments Inc., London, Ontario Canada) was used to determine the MTF, NPS and DQE using an IEC compliant methodology for three different imaging modalities: conventional radiography (CsI‐based detector), general‐purpose radioscopy (CsI‐based detector), and mammography (a‐Se based detector). The radiation qualities (IEC) RQA‐5 and RQA‐M‐2 were used for the CsI‐based and a‐Se‐based detectors, respectively. The DQEPro alleviates some of the difficulties associated with DQE measurements by automatically positioning test devices over the detector, guiding the user through the image acquisition process and providing software for calculations. Results: A comparison of the NPS showed that the image noise of the a‐Se detector was less correlated than the CsI detectors. A consistently higher performance was observed for the a‐Se detector at all spatial frequencies (MTF: 0.97@0.25 cy/mm, DQE: 0.72@0.25 cy/mm) and the DQE drops off slower than for the CsI detectors. The CsI detector used for conventional radiography displayed a higher performance at low spatial frequencies compared to the CsI detector used for radioscopy (DQE: 0.65 vs 0.60@0.25 cy/mm). However, at spatial frequencies above 1.3 cy/mm, the radioscopy detector displayed better performance than the conventional radiography detector (DQE: 0.35 vs 0.24@2.00 cy/mm). Conclusion: The difference in the MTF, NPS and DQE that was observed for the two different CsI detectors and the a‐Se detector reflect the imaging tasks that the different detector types are intended for. The DQEPro has made the determination and calculation of quantitative metrics of X‐ray imaging detector performance substantially more convenient and accessible to undertake in a clinical setting.