CHARACTERISING THE EOS SLOT-SCANNING SYSTEM WITH THE EFFECTIVE DETECTIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY

Performance of automatic exposure control on dose and image quality: comparison between slot-scanning and flat-panel digital radiography systems

BACKGROUND

EOSedge™^* (EOS Imaging, Paris, France) is an X-ray imaging system using automatic exposure control (AEC) with tube current modulation, in order to optimize dose deposition in patients.

PURPOSE

This study aims at characterizing EOSedge organ dose deposition in comparison to a digital radiography (DR) system and the previous EOS system (EOS-1st generation), in relation to their respective image quality levels.

METHOD

Organ doses were measured in an anthropomorphic female adult phantom and a 5-year-old pediatric phantom using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters, which were carefully calibrated within the studied energy range. Organ doses were recorded on the EOSedge and the Fuji Visionary DRF (Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc, Lexington, MA). The resulting effective doses were compared to the EOS-1st-generation values present in the literature. Image quality assessment was carried out on end-user images. Quantitative image quality metrics were computed for all tested modalities on a quality assurance phantom. Qualitative assessment of EOSedge image quality was based on anthropomorphic phantom acquisitions against the EOS-1st-generation system, and on clinical images against the tested DR system.

RESULTS

For a full-spine exam, and on the female adult phantom (respectively, the pediatric phantom), an effective dose of 92 μSv (respectively, 32 μSv) was obtained on EOSedge, and 572 μSv (respectively, 179 μSv) on the DR system; these values were compared to effective dose values of 290 μSv (respectively, 200 μSv) from the literature on EOS-1st generation, leading to an effective dose reduction factor of 6 with respect to the DR system, and of 3-6 with respect to EOS-1st generation. EOSedge provides the best compromise between contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and dose, with more consistent CNR values than the other tested modalities, in a range of attenuation from 10 to 40 cm of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). Within this range, EOSedge is also comparable to DR for 10 and 20 cm of PMMA, and better than DR for 30 and 40 cm of PMMA, both in terms of spatial resolution and low-contrast detection. The anatomical landmarks of interest in the follow-up of spinal deformities can be detected in all tested modalities.

CONCLUSION

Results showed that EOSedge provides significant dose reduction factors for full spine imaging in both adults and children compared to the other tested modalities, without compromising image quality. We believe that this work could help raise awareness on the capabilities of modern X-ray systems, when equipped with appropriate AEC strategies, to perform ultra-low-dose, long-axis images.

Quantitative Image Quality Metrics of the Low-Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems

The aim of this study was to determine the quantitative image quality metrics of the low-dose 2D/3D EOS slot scanner X-ray imaging system (LDSS) compared with conventional digital radiography (DR) X-ray imaging systems. The effective detective quantum efficiency (eDQE) and effective noise quantum equivalent (eNEQ) were measured using chest and knee protocols.

METHODS

A Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends (NEXT) of a chest adult phantom and a PolyMethylmethacrylate (PMMA) phantom were used for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. Quantitative image quality metrics, including effective normalised noise power spectrum (eNNPS), effective modulation transfer function (eMTF), eDQE and eNEQ of the LDSS and DR imaging systems were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

In the chest acquisition, the LDSS imaging system achieved significantly higher eNEQ and eDQE than the DR imaging systems at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.044). For the knee acquisition, the LDSS imaging system also achieved significantly higher eNEQ and eDQE than the DR imaging systems at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.001 ≤ p ≤ 0.002). However, there was no significant difference in eNEQ and eDQE between DR systems 1 and 2 at lower and higher spatial frequencies (0.10 < p < 1.00) for either chest or knee protocols.

CONCLUSION

The LDSS imaging system performed well compared to the DR systems. Thus, we have demonstrated that the LDSS imaging system has the potential to be used for clinical diagnostic purposes.

Radiographic signs of acetabular retroversion using a low-dose slot-scanning radiographic system (EOS®)

INTRODUCTION

Acetabular retroversion is assessed using pelvic X-ray. Cross-over-sign (COS), posterior-wall-sign (PWS) and ischial-spine-sign (ISS) are important radiographic signs of the condition. The pelvic area is sensitive to radiation and thus, possibilities to reduce dose should be considered. The purpose was to compare radiographic signs of acetabular retroversion on conventional pelvic anteroposterior (AP) X-rays with a low-dose slot-scanning system (EOS) in a sample of patients with retroversion of the acetabulum and to compare the radiation doses.

METHODS

34 participants with radiographic signs of acetabular retroversion in one or both hips on conventional pelvic X-ray were consecutively recruited. Pelvic EOS-images were acquired in each patient and COS, PWS, ISS, COS-ratio and PWS-ratio was assessed. Radiation dose comparison of X-ray vs. EOS was performed using Dose-Area Products.

RESULTS

Retroversion was present in 57 out of 68 hips. The absolute agreement was 91%, 84% and 76% for COS, PWS and ISS, respectively. No statistically significant differences were present between COS-ratio and PWS-ratio in either modality and Bland-Altman limits of agreement were narrow. The mean radiation dose was 1053 mGy*cm² in X-ray and 593 mGy*cm² in EOS (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that pelvic EOS provides diagnostic qualities similar to conventional X-ray using 44% less radiation when radiographic signs of acetabular retroversion are assessed.