Image Quality Parameter Measurements Using a New 0.95 MV X-Band Accelerator and a New High Energy DR Panel

Digital radiography continues to grow in use in both medical and industrial applications. However, the methods of characterizing the detectors seem to differ between the two fields. In medical imaging, it is important to achieve the highest possible contrast and the desired resolution with the lowest possible dose. As a result, the detector quantum efficiency (DQE) defines the detector performance. Industrial radiography often strives for characterization of the system’s ability to detect a feature through stacking of material. For industrial radiography this results in the use of line pair gauges, penetrometers, and other image quality indicators (IQIs) as the standard measurement of performance and capability. This paper presents the relationship between DQE, noise power spectrum (NPS), and modulation transfer function (MTF) typically used to characterize medical imaging detectors and will form the foundation of how this information can be used to predict a detector and source’s ability to resolve penetrometer features through a combination of measurements and calculations. This work was performed using a Varian 2530HE (new high energy panel), and NX1 (new 0.95 MV accelerator).

References
1. IEC 62220-1 ed 1.0, “Medical electrical equipment - Characteristics of digital X-ray imaging devices - Part 1: Determination of the detective quantum efficiency,” October 2003. 2. Dobbins III, J.T., E. Samei, N.T. Ranger, and Y. Chen. “Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. II,” Medical Physic, 33:1466. 2006. 3. Rogers, D.W.O. “Fluence to dose equivalent conversion factors calculated with EGS3 for electrons from 100 keV to 20 GeV and photons from ll keV to 20 GeV.,” Health Phys, 45:891--914. 1984. 4. Abel, E., M. Sun, D. Constanin, R. Fahrig and J. Star-Lack. “User-friendly, ultra-fast simulation of detector DQE (f)” In SPIE Medical Imaging (pp. 86683O-86683O), March 2013. 5. Lubberts, G. “Random noise produced by X-ray fluorescent screens,” JOSA, 58(11):1475-1482. 1968. 6. Swank, R.K. “Absorption and noise in X-ray phosphors,” Journal of Applied Physics, 44(9):4199-4203. 1973. 7. Fujita, H., D.Y. Tsai, T. Itoh, J. Morishita, K. Ueda and A. Ohtsuka, et al. “A simple method for determining the modulation transfer function in digital radiography,” Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions, 11(1):34-39. 1992. 8. Agostinelli, et al., “GEANT4: A simulation toolkit,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A506:250-303. 2003. 9. Blake, S.J., P. Vial, L. Holloway, P.B. Greer, A.L. McNamara and Z. Kuncic, “Characterization of optical transport effects on EPID dosimetry using GEANT4,” Medical Physics, 40:041708. 2013. 10. ASTM Designation: E2597 – 07, “Standard Practice for Manufacturing Characterization of Digital Detector Arrays,” ASTM Int’l, Current edition approved Dec. 1, 2007. Published January 2008. DOI: 10.1520/E2597-07E01. 11. ASTM Designation: E1025 – 11, “Standard Practice for Design, Manufacture, and Material Grouping Classification of Hole-Type Image Quality Indicators (IQI) Used for Radiology,” ASTM Int’l, Dec. 15, 2011, Published January 2012. Originally approved in 1984. Last previous edition approved in 2005 as E1025 - 05. DOI:10.1520/E1025-11.
Metrics
Usage Shares
Total Views
31 Page Views
Total Shares
0 Tweets
31
0 PDF Downloads
0
0 Facebook Shares
Total Usage
31