Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom.

Z F Lu,E L Nickoloff,A K Dutta,J C So

doi:10.1120/jacmp.v4i1.2548

Z F Lu, E L Nickoloff + Show 2 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1120/jacmp.v4i1.2548

Copy DOI

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to compare computed radiography (Kodak CR 400) and film/screen combination (Speed 400) systems in regards of patient dose, technique settings, and contrast‐detail detectability. A special contrast‐detail phantom with drilled holes of varying diameter (detail) and varying depth (contrast) was utilized. Various thicknesses of the Lucite sheets were utilized to simulate scattering tissues. Images of the phantom were acquired using a range of 60–120 kVp for film/screen and CR with a conventional x‐ray tube and then for CR with additional 2 mm aluminum added filtration to the x‐ray beam. The patient entrance skin dose was measured while maintaining 1.6 o.d. for film/screen images and 1900 Exposure Index for CR images. CR phantom images were displayed on the diagnostic workstation for soft copy reading as well as printed on films for hard copy reading on viewbox. Four physicists evaluated the images by scoring the threshold target depth along the row of the same target diameter. Detection ratio was calculated by counting the number of detectable targets divided by the total number of targets in the phantom. The overall score was related to the patient entrance skin dose, kVp, and the thickness of the scattering material. The patient entrance skin dose was reduced as the additional aluminum filter was added to the x‐ray beam. Our findings suggested using a higher kVp setting and additional added filtration would reduce the patient entrance skin dose without compromising the contrast‐detail detectability, which was compensated by the contrast manipulation on soft‐copy display workstations. © 2003 American College of Medical Physics. PACS number(s): 87.57.–s, 87.62.+n

Highlights

During the past decade, computed radiographyCRhas gradually gained its widespread acceptance as an alternative method to replace the conventional film/screen combination for digital image acquisition
For certain clinical applications, such as musculoskeletal radiology, in which the image noise can be compromised, the radiation dose for CR images is lower than the dose needed for film/screen.[4,5]
The wide dynamic range of a CR system allows a high tolerance for variations in exposure techniques.[1,7]

Summary

Introduction

During the past decade, computed radiographyCRhas gradually gained its widespread acceptance as an alternative method to replace the conventional film/screen combination for digital image acquisition. For certain clinical applications, such as musculoskeletal radiology, in which the image noise can be compromised, the radiation dose for CR images is lower than the dose needed for film/screen.[4,5] for the majority of the clinical applications, the radiation dose for CR is greater than the dose for speed 400 film/screen.[3,6,7] uncertainties remain regarding the optimal exposure techniques for CR with the best possible image quality and the lowest possible patient radiation dose

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion