Comparison of a digital flat-panel versus screen–film, photofluorography and storage-phosphor systems by detection of simulated lung adenocarcinoma lesions using hard copy images

Common positioning errors in panoramic radiography: A review

Professionals performing radiographic examinations are responsible for maintaining optimal image quality for accurate diagnoses. These professionals must competently execute techniques such as film manipulation and processing to minimize patient exposure to radiation. Improper performance by the professional and/or patient may result in a radiographic image of unsatisfactory quality that can also lead to a misdiagnosis and the development of an inadequate treatment plan. Currently, the most commonly performed extraoral examination is panoramic radiography. The invention of panoramic radiography has resulted in improvements in image quality with decreased exposure to radiation and at a low cost. However, this technique requires careful, accurate positioning of the patient's teeth and surrounding maxillofacial bone structure within the focal trough. Therefore, we reviewed the literature for the most common types of positioning errors in panoramic radiography to suggest the correct techniques. We would also discuss how to determine if the most common positioning errors occurred in panoramic radiography, such as in the positioning of the patient's head, tongue, chin, or body.

Low-dose CT scan screening for lung cancer: comparison of images and radiation doses between low-dose CT and follow-up standard diagnostic CT

OBJECTIVES

This study aim to compare image quality and radiation doses between low-dose CT and follow-up standard diagnostic CT for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

In a single medical institution, 19 subjects who had been screened for lung cancer by low-dose CT before going through follow-up standard diagnostic CT were randomly selected. Both CT image sets for all subjects were independently evaluated by five specialized physicians.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between low-dose CT screening and follow-up standard diagnostic CT for lung cancer screening in all 11 criteria. The concordance rate for the diagnoses was approximately 80% (p < 0.001) for all categories. Agreement of the evaluation of all categories in the final diagnosis exceeded 94% (p < 0.001). Five physicians detecting and characterizing the pulmonary nodules did not recognized the difference between low-dose CT screening and follow-up standard diagnostic CT. With low-dose CT, the effective dose ranged between 1.3 and 3.4 mSv, whereas in the follow-up diagnostic CT, the effective dose ranged between 8.5 and 14.0 mSv.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that low-dose CT can be effectively used as a follow-up standard diagnostic CT in place of standard-dose CT in order to reduce the radiation dose.

Advances in Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and System Overview

During the past two decades, digital radiography has supplanted screen-film radiography in many radiology departments. Today, manufacturers provide a variety of digital imaging solutions based on various detector and readout technologies. Digital detectors allow implementation of a fully digital picture archiving and communication system, in which images are stored digitally and are available anytime. Image distribution in hospitals can now be achieved electronically by means of web-based technology with no risk of losing images. Other advantages of digital radiography include higher patient throughput, increased dose efficiency, and the greater dynamic range of digital detectors with possible reduction of radiation exposure to the patient. The future of radiography will be digital, and it behooves radiologists to be familiar with the technical principles, image quality criteria, and radiation exposure issues associated with the various digital radiography systems that are currently available.

Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the low-contrast performance of a newly developed needle image plate/line scanner (NIP) computed radiography system in comparison with a standard powder image plate/flying-spot scanner (PIP) system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 36 images of a CDRAD phantom, simulating low-contrast structures with different drill holes of different diameters, were obtained with both imaging systems using 9 different exposure variables. All images had window and level set to generate consistent density and contrast. In addition, multiscale contrast-dependent contrast amplification was applied to some of the images. All images obtained were printed and presented to a total of 10 observers (5 radiologists, 5 engineers/physicists), who were blinded to both the image plate and parameter setting used. The smallest detectable drill hole depth (= contrast) correctly identified was recorded for each diameter. The median values observed were calculated and tested for statistical differences between PIP and NIP using Student t test for matched pairs (level of significance P < or = 0.05).

RESULTS

At all but 2 settings of the variables, NIP images depicted significantly lower contrast levels (= lower depth of drill holes) compared with PIP images. The 2 settings also showed a trend towards better low contrast depiction with NIP. In no case was low contrast performance better using PIP images.

CONCLUSION

Images obtained with needle image plate/line scanner provide superior low contrast performance compared with the images obtained with powder image plate/flying-spot scanner.