Utility of digital radiography for the screening of pneumoconiosis as compared to analog radiography: Radiation dose, image quality, and pneumoconiosis classification

Health Physics

Volumn 103, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 64-69

  Lee, Won Jeong ^a   Choi, Byung Soon ^a  

^a Occupational Lung Diseases Institute   (South Korea)

Author keywords

diagnostic radiology; dose assessment; lungs, human; radiation dose

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BODY MASS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PNEUMOCONIOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOGRAPHY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STANDARD;

ADULT; AGED; BODY MASS INDEX; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PNEUMOCONIOSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84862211787     PISSN: 00179078     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e318249ac5d     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, Hauwere AD, 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 181:923-929; 2003.
2. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Brussels, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Report EUR; 1996.
3. Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Noeldge G, Kampschulte A, Radeleff B, Hosch WP, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J. 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 178: 481-486; 2002.
4. Franzblau A, Kazerooni EA, Sen A, Goodsitt MM, Lee SY, Rosenman KD, Lockey JE, Meyer CA, GillespieBW, Petsonk EL, Wang ML. Comparison of digital radiographs with film radiographs for the classification of pneumoconiosis. Acad Radiol 16:669-677; 2009.
5. 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 181: 171-176; 2003.
6. Garmer M, Hennigs SP, Jäger HJ, Schrick F, van de Loo T, Jacobs A, Hanusch A, Christmann A, Mathias K. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging diagnostic performance of a large-area flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:75-80; 2000.
7. Hauwere AD, Bacher K, Smeets P, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging. Radiat Protect Dosim 117:174-177; 2005.
8. Hosch WP, Fink C, Radeleff B, Kampschulte A, KauffmannGW, Hansmann J. Radiation dose reduction in chest radiography using a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector. Clin Radiol 57:902-907; 2002.
9. International Labour Office. Guidelines for the use of ILO international classification of radiographs of pneumoconioses, revised edition 2000. Geneva: International Labour Office; 2002.
10. 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 185:339-346; 2005.
11. Laney AS, Petsonk EL, Wolfe AL, Attfield MD. Comparison of storage phosphor computed radiography with conventional film-screen radiography in the recognition of pneumoconiosis. Eur Respir J 36:122-127; 2010.
12. Lee WJ, Choi BS, Kim SJ, Park CK, Park JS, Tae S, Hering KG. Development of standard digital images for pneumoconiosis. J Korean Med Sci 26:1403-1408; 2011.
13. Mahesh M. MDCT physics: The basics: Technology, image quality and radiation dose. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
14. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute. Guideline of quality assurance for pneumoconiosis [online]. 2010. Available at http://oshri.kosha.or. kr/board?tc=RetrieveBoardViewCmd&boardType=A&contentId= 208741&pageNum=1&urlCode= T1|Y|404|371|||||/board&tabId. Accessed 2 June 2010.
15. Peters SE, Brennan PC. Digital radiography: Are the manufacturers'settings too high? Optimisation of the Kodak digital radiography system with aid of the computed radiography dose index. Eur Radiol 12:2381-2387; 2002.
16. Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Liu X, Lemacks MR, Thompson SK. Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography systems with screen/film and computed radiography systems: A contrast-detail phantom study. Med Phys 28:2328-2335; 2001.
17. Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, VenemaHW, Uffmann M, Prokop M. Digital chest radiography: An update on modern technology, dose containment and control of image quality. Eur Radiol 18:1818-1830; 2008.
18. Sen A, Lee SY, Gillespie BW, Kazerooni EA, Goodsitt MM, Rosenman KD, Lockey JE, Meyer CA, Petsonk EL, Wang ML, Franzblau A. Comparing film and digital radiographs for reliability of pneumoconiosis classifications: A modeling approach. Acad Radiol 17:511-519; 2010.
19. Sonoda M,Takano M, Miyahara J, Kato H. Computed radiography utilizing scanning laser stimulated luminescence. Radiol 148: 833-838; 1983.
20. TakashimaY, SuganumaN, SakurazawaH, ItohH, HiranoH, Shida H, Kusaka Y. A flat-panel detector digital radiography and a storage phosphor computed radiography: Screening for pneumoconiosis. J Occup Health 49:39-45; 2007.
21. Uffmann M, Neitzel U, Prokop M, Kabalan N, Weber M, Herold CJ, Schaefer-Prokop C. Flat-panel-detector chest radiography: Effect of tube voltage on image quality. Radiol 235:642-650; 2005.
22. van Heesewijk HP, Casparie HW, de Valois JC, van der Graaf Y. Effect of dose levels on the diagnostic performance of a seleniumbased digital chest system. Invest Radiol 36:455-459; 2001.
23. van Soldt RT, Zweers D, van den Berg L, Geleijns J, Jansen JT, Zoetelief J. Survey of posteroanterior chest radiography in The Netherlands: Patient dose and image quality. Br J Radiol 76: 398-405; 2003.