Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: Dose reduction at digital posteroanterior chest radiography

Radiology

Volumn 241, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 392-398

  Kroft, Lucia J M ^a   Veldkamp, Wouter J H ^a   Mertens, Bart J A ^a   Van Delft, Jan Pieter A ^a   Geleijns, Jacob ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DEVICE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LUNG NODULE; MEDIASTINUM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DEPTH DOSE; SIMULATION; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

BAYES THEOREM; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; LUNG DISEASES; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 33750337562     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2412051326     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Noeldge G, et al. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:481-486.
2. Strotzer M, Völk M, Fründ R, Hamer O, Zorger N, Feuerbach S. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:169-171.
3. Ganten M, Radeleff B, Kampschulte A, Daniels MD, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J. Comparing image quality of flat-panel chest radiography with storage phosphor radiography and film-screen radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:171-176.
4. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hairwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:923-929.
5. Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Schmidt A, Neitzel U, Galanski M. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. Radiology 1996;201:45-50.
6. van Heesewijk HP, van der Graaf Y, de Valois JC, Feldberg MA. Effects of dose reduction on digital chest imaging using a selenium detector: a study of detecting simulated diffuse interstitial pulmonary disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:403-408.
7. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser JK, Volk M, Fründ R, Seitz J, Feuerbach S. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose. Invest Radiol 1998;33:98-103.
8. Rapp-Bernhardt U, Roehl FW, Gibbs RC, Schmidl H, Krause UW, Bernhardt TM. Flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings. Radiology 2003;227:484-492.
9. Kroft LJ, Geleijns J, Mertens BJ, Veldkamp WJ, Zonderland HM, de Roos A. Digital slot-scan charged coupled device chest radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: detection of simulated chest nodules and interstitial disease using a chest phantom. Radiology 2004;231:156-163.
10. Bernhardt TM, Otto D, Reichel G, et al. Detection of simulated interstitial lung disease and catheters with selenium, storage phosphor, and film-based radiography. Radiology 1999;213:445-454.
11. Metz S, Damoser P, Hollweck R, et al. Chest radiography with a digital flat-panel detector: experimental receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology 2005;234:776-784.
12. van Heesewijk HP, Casparie HW, de Valois JC, van der Graaf Y. Effect of dose levels on the diagnostic performance of a selenium-based digital chest system. Invest Radiol 2001;36:455-459.
13. Samei E, Saunders RS, Lo JY, et al. Fundamental imaging characteristics of a slot-scan digital chest radiographic system. Med Phys 2004;31:2687-2698.
14. Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LT, Mertens BJ, Geleijns J. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study, Radiology 2005;235:857-866.
15. Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ, Boot MV, Geleijns J. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:339-346.
16. te Brake GM, Karssemeijer N. Single and multiscale detection of masses in digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1999;18:628-639.
17. Veldkamp WJ, Kroft SJ, van Delft JP, Mertens BJ, Geleijns J. Techniques for feasibility of dose reduction with a digital chest radiography system. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2005;50(suppl):425-426.
18. Pepe MS. The receiver operating characteristic curve. In: Oxford Statistical Science Series: No. 3, The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2003:66-95.
19. Samei E, Flynn MJ, Eyler WR. Detection of subtle lung nodules: relative influence of quantum and anatomic noise on chest radiographs. Radiology 1999;213:727-734.
20. Samei E, Flynn MJ, Petersori E, Eyler WR. Subtle lung nodules: influence of local anatomic variations on detection. Radiology 2003;228:76-84.
21. Håkansson M, Båth M, Börjesson S, et al. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: summary of the RADIUS chest trial. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:114-120.
22. Garmer M, Hennigs SP, Jäger HJ, et al. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:75-80.
23. Båth M, Håkansson M, Börjesson S, et al. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: introduction to the RADIUS chest trial. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114:85-91.