Evaluation of the dose reduction capabilities in digital radiography of the chest using contrast-detail phantom

Assessment of the quality of the images obtained using optimized (low-dose) protocols is the inherent part of the optimization in X-ray diagnostics. To perform the objective quantitative image quality assessment one can use dedicated test-objects, including several components for the simultaneous measurement of the different physical image characteristics (contrast and spatial resolution). The use of such test objects allows estimating and assessing the relations between the patient dose, parameter of the X-ray examination and image quality. That is especially important for the optimization of the digital radiographic examinations performed with automated exposure control. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the possibilities of the patient dose reduction using “contrast-detail” test-object for the digital radiography of the chest in posterior-anterior projection performed with automated exposure control. The study was performed in St-Petersburg Mariinsky hospital on a digital X-ray unit “ARC-Electron” with a flat-panel detector. The combination of a test-object and a tissue-equivalent phantom were imaged on a range of chest X-ray protocols: on a 60–150 kV tube voltage range with automated exposure control; and using fixed 90 kV tube voltage on a range of 2–100 mAs tube current-exposure time product. Dose-area product (cGy×cm2) was measured for each exposure; effective dose (mSv) was estimated for each exposure based on dose-area product. A dedicated software was developed for the automated image quality assessment. The results of the study indicate that the use of a high tube voltage (140–150 kV) with current automated exposure control settings would lead to 60% and 95% reduction of the dose-area product and effective dose, respectively, compared to the standard protocol. The adjustment of the current automated exposure control settings with the reduction of the tube current-exposure time product from 11,2 mAs to the 4,2 mAs for the tube voltage of 90 kV would lead to the reduction of both the dose-area product and effective dose up to a factor of three, compared to the standard protocol. For both scenarios image quality characteristics decreased by less than 15%. The proposed low-dose protocols are under the clinical approbation at Mariinsky hospital. The proposed method of image quality assessment and development of low-dose protocols is recommended for inclusion in the quality assurance program for the radiography examinations.

1. Vodovatov A.V. Practical implementation of the diagnostic reference levels concept for the common radiographic examinations. Radiatsionnaya Gygiena = Radiation Hygiene. 2017;10(1):47-55. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.21514/1998-426X-2017-10-1-47-55

2. Vodovatov A.V., Drozdov A.A., Telnova A.Yu., Bernhardsson C. Management of patient doses from digital X-ray chest screening examinations. Rad. Prot. Dosim., 2016, Vol. 169, № 1-4, pp. 232-239.

3. Kamyshanskaya I.G., Cheremisin V.M., Vodovatov A.V. Prospects for lowering doses during preventive digital chest radiography. Vestnik rentgenologii i radiologii = Journal of radiology and nuclear medicine. 2018;99(1):30-42. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.20862/0042-4676-2018-99-1-30-42

4. ICRU Publication 54. Medical imaging – the assessment of image quality. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Bethesda, 1995, 88 p.

5. ICRU Publication 70. Image quality in chest radiography. Journal of ICRU. – Nuclear Technology Publishing, Ashford, 2003, 129 p.

6. Vodovatov A.V., Kamyshanskaya I.G., Drozdov A.A., Bernhardsson C. Quality assessment of digital X-ray chest images using an anthropomorphic chest phantom. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2017, Vol. 808, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/808/1/012009

7. Good W.F., Gur D., Feist J.H., Thaete F.L., [et. al.] Subjective and objective assessment of image quality – a comparison. J. Digit. Imaging, 1994, Vol. 7, № 2, pp. 77–78.

8. Aichinger H. Radiation exposure and image quality in x-ray diagnostic radiology: physical principles and clinical applications. Heidelberg ; New York: Springer, 2012. 2nd ed – XIV, 307 p.

9. DeWerd L.A., Kissick M. The phantoms of medical and health physics: devices for research and development. New York: Springer, 2014, 286 p.

10. Contrast-detail phantom ARTINIS CDRAD type 2.0. Manual. – Available on: https://www.radiograf.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumenter/Bacheloropgaver/Billedkvalitet_ved_CR_og_DR_-_et_fantomforsoeg/CR_og_DR_Bilag_C.pdf (Accessed: 20.01.2019).

11. CDMAM 4.0. – Available on: https://www.artinis.com/cdmam-40/ (Accessed: 20.01.2019).

12. ACR CT Accreditation phantom 464. – Available on: https://www.sunnuclear.com/documents/datasheets/gammex/gammex_list/ACR_464_D062615.pdf (Accessed: 20.01.2019).

13. Dance D.R., Chrostofides S., Maidment A.D.A., McJean I.D., Ng K.H. Diagnostic radiology physics: A Handbook for teachers and students. Techn. Ed. Vienna, IAEA, 2014.

14. Tapiovaara M., Siiskonen T. PCXMC 2.0. User’s Guide. Säteilyturvakeskus. Tekniset raportit. STUK–TR 7. Helsinki 2008, 24 p.

15. ICRP Publication 103. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection: translation from English. Edited by M.F. Kiselev, N.K. Shandala. Мoscow, «Alana», 2009, 312 p. (In Russian)

16. National Institute of Health. ImageJ – image processing and analysis in Java. – Available on: http://www.rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/ (Accessed: 20.01.2019).

17. Potemkin V.G. Mathlab handbook. Moscow, Internet, 2012, 675 p. (In Russian).

18. lrvine M.A. Image Quality and Radiation Dose Comparison of a Computed Radiography System and an Amorphous Silicon Flat Panel System in Paediatric Radiography: A Phantom Study. Master thesis. – Available on: https://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv/rmit:7880/Irvine.pdf (Accessed: 20.01.2019).

19. Uffman M., Neitzel U., Prokop M. [et. al.] Flat-Panel-detector chest radiography: effect of tube voltage on image quality. Radiology, 2005, Vol. 235, pp. 642-650.

20. Shrimpton P.C., Jones D.G., Wall B.F. The influence of tube filtration and potential on patient dose during x-ray examinations. Phys. Med. Biol., 1988, Vol. 33, № 10, pp. 1205–1212.

21. Jones A.K. Calibrating automatic exposure control for digital radiography. AAPM, 2009.

22. Jones A.K., Anderso M.D. Using automatic exposure control in digital radiography. AAPM Meeting, 2008, 10 p.

23. Doyle P., Martin C.J. Calibrating automatic exposure control devices for digital radiography. Phys. Med. Biol., 2006, Vol. 51, № 21, pp. 5475–5485.

24. Al-Murshedi, S., Hogg, P., & England, A. An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography. Brit. Journ. of Rad., 2018 doi:10.1259/bjr.20180317

25. Marshall N.W. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems. Phys. Med. Biol., 2009, Vol. 54, № 15, pp. 4645–4670.