Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography

被引:13
|
作者
Ludwig, K [1 ]
Henschel, A [1 ]
Bernhardt, TM [1 ]
Lenzen, H [1 ]
Wormanns, D [1 ]
Diederich, S [1 ]
Heindel, W [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Munster, Dept Clin Radiol, D-48129 Munster, Germany
关键词
flat-panel detector; digital radiography; skeletal imaging; ROC analysis;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-002-1763-x
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
The purpose of this study was to compare a large-area, direct-readout, flat-panel detector system with a conventional screen-film system, a storage-phosphor system, and a mammography screen-film system with regard to the detection of artificial bone erosions simulating rheumatoid disease, and to assess its diagnostic performance with decreasing exposure dose. Six hundred forty regions were defined in 160 metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joint specimens from 20 monkey paws (4 regions per joint). Artificial bone erosions were created in 320 of these 640 regions. Specimens were enclosed in containers filled with water to obtain absorption and scatter radiation conditions similar to those of a human hand. Imaging was performed using a flat-panel system, a speed class 200 screen-film system, a mammography screen-film system, and a storage-phosphor system under exactly matched conditions. Different exposure doses equivalent to speed classes of S=100, 200, 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-level confidence scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for a total of 21,120 observations (1920 for each imaging modality and exposure level) and diagnostic performance estimated by the area under the ROC curve (A(Z)). The significance of differences in diagnostic performance was tested with analysis of variance. The ROC analysis showed A(Z) values of 0.809 (S=200), 0.768 (S=400), 0.737 (S=800), 0.710 (S=1600), and 0.685 (S=3200) for the flat-panel system, 0.770 for the speed class 200 screen-film system, 0.781 (S=200), 0.739 (S=400), 0.724 (S=800), 0.680 (S=1600) for the storage-phosphor system, and 0.798 for the mammography screen-film system. Analysis of variance showed significant differences between different combinations of imaging modalities and exposure doses (p <0.05). The diagnostic performance of the flat-panel detector system is superior to that of a screen-film system and a storage-phosphor system for the detection of erosive lesions at clinical exposure settings (S=200). Using the flat-panel system the exposure dose can be reduced by 50% to obtain a diagnostic performance comparable to a speed class 200 screen-film system.
引用
收藏
页码:1316 / 1323
页数:8
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
    [J]. European Radiology, 2003, 13 : 1316 - 1323
  • [2] Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: Comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography
    Ludwig, K
    Lenzen, H
    Kamm, KF
    Link, TM
    Diederich, S
    Wormanns, D
    Heindel, W
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2002, 222 (02) : 453 - 459
  • [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
    [J]. 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
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2003, 229 (01) : 140 - 144
  • [5] 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
    [J]. MEDICAL IMAGING 2002: PHYSICS OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2002, 4682 : 423 - 426
  • [6] 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
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2002, 225 : 642 - 642
  • [7] 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
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2005, 78 (934): : 922 - 927
  • [8] 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
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1995, 195 (01) : 259 - 263
  • [9] Detection of subtle undisplaced rib fractures in a porcine model:: Radiation dose requirement -: Digital flat-panel versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems
    Ludwig, K
    Schülke, C
    Diederich, S
    Wormanns, D
    Lenzen, H
    Bernhardt, TM
    Brinckmann, P
    Heindel, W
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2003, 227 (01) : 163 - 168
  • [10] 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
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2003, 181 (01) : 171 - 176