Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: Comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography

被引:30
|
作者
Ludwig, K
Lenzen, H
Kamm, KF
Link, TM
Diederich, S
Wormanns, D
Heindel, W
机构
[1] Univ Munster, Dept Clin Radiol, D-48129 Munster, Germany
[2] Philips Med Syst, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
bones; radiography; digital; flat panel;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2222010276
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
PURPOSE: To compare a large-area direct-readout flat-panel detector system with a conventional screen-film system and a storage-phosphor system in detecting small artificial osseous lesions simulating osteolytic disease and to assess diagnostic performance with decreasing exposure dose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial lesions (0.5-3.0 mm) were created in 100 of 200 predefined regions in 20 porcine femoral specimens. Specimens were enclosed in containers filled with water to create absorption and scatter radiation conditions comparable with those in a human extremity. Imaging was performed with a flat-panel detector system, a conventional screen-film system, and a storage-phosphor system. Levels of exposure equivalent to speed classes 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 were used. In all images, the presence or absence of a lesion was assessed by three radiologists using a five-point confidence scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for 4,800 observations (600 for each imaging modality and exposure level) and diagnostic performance estimated with the area under the ROC curve (A(z)). The significance of differences in diagnostic performance was tested with analysis of variance. RESULTS: ROC analysis showed A(z) values of 0.820 (speed class 400), 0.780 (class 800), 0.758 (class 1600), and 0.676 (class 3200) for the flat-panel detector; 0.761 (class 400), 0.725 (class 800), and 0.662 (class 1600) for the storage-phosphor system; and 0.788 (class 400) for the conventional screen-film system. The A(z) value for the flat-panel detector at speed class 400 was significantly higher than that for all other systems (P < .05). A(z) values for the speed class 400 screen-film system and flat-panel detector system at speed class 800 were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: The flat-panel detector has diagnostic performance superior to that of conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography for detecting small artificial osseous lesions at clinical exposure settings. With the flat-panel detector, exposure dose can be reduced by 50% to obtain diagnostic performance comparable with that of a conventional speed class 400 screen-film system.
引用
收藏
页码:453 / 459
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography
    Karl Ludwig
    Andreas Henschel
    Thomas M. Bernhardt
    Horst Lenzen
    Dag Wormanns
    Stefan Diederich
    Walter Heindel
    European Radiology, 2003, 13 : 1316 - 1323
  • [2] Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography
    Ludwig, K
    Henschel, A
    Bernhardt, TM
    Lenzen, H
    Wormanns, D
    Diederich, S
    Heindel, W
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2003, 13 (06) : 1316 - 1323
  • [3] Performance of a new digital flat panel detector in the detection of artificial bone lesions: A comparison with conventional screen-film radiography and phosphor-storage radiography
    Ludwig, K
    Lenzen, H
    Kamm, K
    Link, TM
    Diederich, S
    Wormanns, D
    RADIOLOGY, 2000, 217 : 517 - 517
  • [4] Lumbar spine radiography: Digital flat-panel detector versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in monkeys as a pediatric model
    Ludwig, K
    Ahlers, K
    Wormanns, D
    Freund, M
    Bernhardt, TM
    Diederich, S
    Heindel, W
    RADIOLOGY, 2003, 229 (01) : 140 - 144
  • [5] Performance of a flat-panel detector system in the depiction of anatomic details of the lumbar spine in Cynomolgus Monkeys: Comparison to a screen-film and a storage-phosphor system using different exposure doses
    Ludwig, K
    Ahlers, K
    Diederich, S
    Bernhardt, TM
    Freund, M
    Heindel, WL
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 642 - 642
  • [6] Comparison of a digital flat-panel versus screen-film, photofluorography and storage-phosphor systems by detection of simulated lung adenocarcinorna lesions using hard copy images
    Ono, K
    Yoshitake, T
    Akahane, K
    Yamada, Y
    Maeda, T
    Kai, M
    Kusama, T
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 78 (934): : 922 - 927
  • [7] DETECTION OF SIMULATED CHEST LESIONS - COMPARISON OF A CONVENTIONAL SCREEN-FILM COMBINATION, AN ASYMMETRIC SCREEN-FILM SYSTEM, AND STORAGE PHOSPHOR RADIOGRAPHY
    LEPPERT, AGA
    PROKOP, M
    SCHAEFERPROKOP, CM
    GALANSKI, M
    RADIOLOGY, 1995, 195 (01) : 259 - 263
  • [8] Performance of a new digital flat-panel detector system in the detection of simulated rheumathoid erosions: A comparison with a speed class 200 screen-film system, a mammography screen-film system and a storage-phosphor system at different levels of exposure
    Ludwig, K
    Henschel, A
    Bernhardt, T
    Lenzen, H
    Wormanns, D
    Diederich, S
    Heindel, W
    MEDICAL IMAGING 2002: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2002, 4682 : 423 - 426
  • [9] Comparing image quality of flat-panel chest radiography with storage phosphor radiography and film-screen radiography
    Ganten, M
    Radeleff, B
    Kampschulte, A
    Daniels, MD
    Kauffmann, GW
    Hansmann, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2003, 181 (01) : 171 - 176
  • [10] Digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector vs screen-film and storage phosphor systems in chest imaging: Comparison of the entrance skin dose
    Smeets, PV
    Bacher, K
    Duyck, P
    Verstraete, KL
    Thierens, H
    RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 382 - 382