The Image Quality of a Digital Chest X-Ray Radiography System: Comparison of Quantitative Image Quality Analysis and Radiologists' Visual Scoring

디지털 흉부 X선 촬영장치의 화질: 정량적 화질 평가와 영상의학과 의사의 육안 평가 간의 비교 연구

  • Jeon, Ho-Sang (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Nam, Ji-Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital) ;
  • Chung, Myung-Jin (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center) ;
  • Park, Darl (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Won-Taek (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Yong-Ho (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Ki, Yong-Kan (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Hyun (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Ju-Hye (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Dong-Won (Department of Radiation Oncology, Pusan National University Hospital)
  • 전호상 (양산부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 남지호 (양산부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 정명진 (삼성서울병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 박달 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김원택 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김용호 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 기용간 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김동현 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 이주혜 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과) ;
  • 김동원 (부산대학교병원 방사선종양학과)
  • Published : 2011.11.01

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of imaging devices, which should be periodically monitored to maintain high quality images to the radiologists. Additionally, this evaluation may prevent patients from radiation over-exposure. The most suitable engineering standard for imaging performance evaluation of digital X-ray thoracic imagers was determined. Materials and Methods: IEC 62220-1 standards were used to evaluate the performance of the imagers. In succession, the visibilities of overall image, pneumothorax, and humerus head in anthropomorphic thoracic phantom images were used to evaluate the image qualities by radiologists. Results: The rank correlation coefficient (p) of visual scoring by radiologists with system spatial resolution is not meaningful (p-value, p = 0.295), but is significant with image noise (p-value, p = -0.9267). Finally, the noise equivalent quanta (NEQ) presents a high rank correlation for visual scoring of radiologists (p-value, p = 0.9320). Conclusion: Image quality evaluation of radiologists were mainly affected by imaging noise. Hence, the engineered standard for evaluating image noise is the most important index to effectively monitor the performance of X-ray imagers. Additionally, the NEQ can be used to evaluate the performance of radiographic systems, because it theoretically corresponds to the synthetic image quality of systems.

목적: 디지털 X선 촬영을 이용한 흉부 진단은 각종 진단 목적으로 환자 및 일반인에 이르기까지 널리 사용 중인 기법이므로, 인체 피폭 최소화와 화질 유지를 위해서 촬영기기의 성능 관리가 중요하다. 본 연구에서는 공학적 인자들을 이용한 정량적 화질 평가 결과와 영상의학과 의사의 육안 화질 평가 결과를 비교 연구하여 가장 적합한 화질 평가 인자를 도출하였다. 대상과 방법: 3대의 디지털 X선 촬영기기들을 대상으로 정량적 화질 평가 및 흉부 팬텀 영상을 이용한 영상의학과 의사 평가를 각각 실시하고 Spearman의 순위상관계수를 이용하여 비교 평가하였다. 이 때 정량적 화질 평가는 IEC 62220-1에 따랐으며, 의사 평가는 영상잡음, 기흉 명시성, 그리고 상완골두 명시성의 세 가지 기준을 사용하였다. 결과: 의사의 화질 평가 결과는 촬영기기의 공간해상도와 유의한 순위상관관계가 발견되지 않았으나(p = 0.2952), 영상의 잡음도와 매우 유의한 순위상관관계(p = -0.9267)를 보였다. 또한 종합적인 영상화질을 나타내는 noise equivalent quanta (이하 NEQ)와도 유의한 순위상관관계를 나타내었다(p = 0.9320). 결론: 영상잡음도는 공간해상도에 비해 영상 판독에 큰 영향을 미치므로 X선 촬영기기의 잡음도 관리가 중요하다. 또한 NEQ값은 이론적으로 종합적인 화질을 의미하므로 디지털 X선 촬영장치의 성능을 효과적으로 감시할 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Stierstorfer K, Spahn M. Self-normalizing method to measure the detective quantum efficiency of a wide range of x-ray detectors. Med Phys 1999;26:1312-1319 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598626
  2. Hillen W, Schiebel U, Zaengel T. Imaging performance of a digital storage phosphor system. Med Phys 1987;14:744-751 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.596127
  3. Cunningham IA. Standard for measurement of noise power spectra. AAPM Report 1999
  4. Samei E, Flynn MJ, Reimann DA. A method for measuring the presampled MTF of digital radiographic systems using an edge test device. Med Phys 1998;25:102-113 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598165
  5. ICRU. Medical imaging - the assessment of image quality. ICRU Report 1996;54
  6. IEC. Medical electrical equipment - characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices - determination of the detective quantum efficiency. IEC 62220-1 2001
  7. Herrmann C, Sund P, Tingberg A, Almen A, Mattsson S, Keddache S, et al. Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs. Proc SPIE 2000; 251:3981-3981
  8. Sund P, Bath M, Kheddache S, Mansson LG. Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 2004;14:48-58 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1971-z
  9. Cunningham IA. Metrics of system performance. SPIE PRESS 2000;122-123
  10. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 1996;16260
  11. Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Ferrari P, Tassoni D. On site evaluation of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys 2003;30:1719-1731 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1569273
  12. Samei E, Flynn MJ. An experimental comparison of detector performance for direct and indirect digital radiography systems. Med Phys 2003;30:608-622 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1561285
  13. Ehsan S, Michael JF, Chotas HG, Dobbins JT. DQE of direct and indirect digital radiographic systems. Proc SPIE 2001; 189-197