Literature DB >> 12764648

Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.

Karl Ludwig1, Andreas Henschel, Thomas M Bernhardt, Horst Lenzen, Dag Wormanns, Stefan Diederich, Walter Heindel.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare a large-area, direct-readout, flat-panel detector system with a conventional screen-film system, a storage-phosphor system, and a mammography screen-film system with regard to the detection of artificial bone erosions simulating rheumatoid disease, and to assess its diagnostic performance with decreasing exposure dose. Six hundred forty regions were defined in 160 metacarpophalangeal and proximal interphalangeal joint specimens from 20 monkey paws (4 regions per joint). Artificial bone erosions were created in 320 of these 640 regions. Specimens were enclosed in containers filled with water to obtain absorption and scatter radiation conditions similar to those of a human hand. Imaging was performed using a flat-panel system, a speed class 200 screen-film system, a mammography screen-film system, and a storage-phosphor system under exactly matched conditions. Different exposure doses equivalent to speed classes of S=100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200 were used. In all images the presence or absence of a lesion was assessed by three radiologists using a five-level confidence scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for a total of 21,120 observations (1920 for each imaging modality and exposure level) and diagnostic performance estimated by the area under the ROC curve (A(z)). The significance of differences in diagnostic performance was tested with analysis of variance. The ROC analysis showed A(z) values of 0.809 (S=200), 0.768 (S=400), 0.737 (S=800), 0.710 (S=1600), and 0.685 (S=3200) for the flat-panel system, 0.770 for the speed class 200 screen-film system, 0.781 (S=200), 0.739 (S=400), 0.724 (S=800), 0.680 (S=1600) for the storage-phosphor system, and 0.798 for the mammography screen-film system. Analysis of variance showed significant differences between different combinations of imaging modalities and exposure doses ( p<0.05). The diagnostic performance of the flat-panel detector system is superior to that of a screen-film system and a storage-phosphor system for the detection of erosive lesions at clinical exposure settings (S=200). Using the flat-panel system the exposure dose can be reduced by 50% to obtain a diagnostic performance comparable to a speed class 200 screen-film system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12764648     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-002-1763-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  14 in total

1.  Digital radiography with a large-area, amorphous-silicon, flat-panel X-ray detector system.

Authors:  M Spahn; M Strotzer; M Völk; S Böhm; B Geiger; G Hahm; S Feuerbach
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.016

2.  Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.

Authors:  M Strotzer; M Völk; T Wild; P von Landenberg; S Feuerbach
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography.

Authors:  C E Floyd; R J Warp; J T Dobbins; H G Chotas; A H Baydush; R Vargas-Voracek; C E Ravin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.

Authors:  Karl Ludwig; Horst Lenzen; Karl-Friedrich Kamm; Thomas M Link; Stefan Diederich; Dag Wormanns; Walter Heindel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs. screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics.

Authors:  S Hamers; J Freyschmidt; U Neitzel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Basic principles of ROC analysis.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Semin Nucl Med       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 4.446

7.  Signal, noise power spectrum, and detective quantum efficiency of indirect-detection flat-panel imagers for diagnostic radiology.

Authors:  J H Siewerdsen; L E Antonuk; Y el-Mohri; J Yorkston; W Huang; I A Cunningham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study.

Authors:  M Garmer; S P Hennigs; H J Jäger; F Schrick; T van de Loo; A Jacobs; A Hanusch; A Christmann; K Mathias
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

10.  Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus screen-film radiography: effect of dose reduction on the detectability of cortical bone defects and fractures.

Authors:  M Strotzer; J Gmeinwieser; M Spahn; M Völk; R Fründ; J Seitz; V Spies; J Alexander; S Feuerbach
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 6.016

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Dose reduction in skeletal and chest radiography using a large-area flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon and thallium-doped cesium iodide: technical background, basic image quality parameters, and review of the literature.

Authors:  Markus Völk; Okka W Hamer; Stefan Feuerbach; Michael Strotzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Flat-panel versus 64-channel computed tomography for in vivo quantitative characterization of aortic atherosclerotic plaques.

Authors:  Ibrahim Aboshady; Dianna D Cody; Evan M Johnson; Amir Gahremanpour; Deborah Vela; Kamal G Khalil; Herbert L Dupont; James T Willerson; L Maximilian Buja; Gregory W Gladish
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 4.164

3.  Flat panel computed tomography of human ex vivo heart and bone specimens: initial experience.

Authors:  Konstantin Nikolaou; Thomas Flohr; Karl Stierstorfer; Christoph R Becker; Maximilian F Reiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-11-20       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Flat detectors and their clinical applications.

Authors:  Martin Spahn
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-04-02       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  [Austrian expert opinion on the standard for expert assessment of course of illness in patients with chronic polyarthritis (rheumatoid arthritis)].

Authors:  Klaus P Machold; Hans Peter Brezinsek; Burkhard F Leeb; Stephan Pflugbeil; Franz Rainer; Franz Singer; Martin Skoumal; Tanja A Stamm; Manfred Herold
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.704

6.  Investigation of optimum anti-scatter grid selection for digital radiography: physical imaging properties and detectability of low-contrast signals.

Authors:  Nobukazu Tanaka; Kentaro Naka; Aya Saito; Junji Morishita; Fukai Toyofuku; Masafumi Ohki; Yoshiharu Higashida
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2012-08-08

Review 7.  Synovial and inflammatory diseases in childhood: role of new imaging modalities in the assessment of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Authors:  Maria Beatrice Damasio; Clara Malattia; Alberto Martini; Paolo Tomà
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2010-04-30

Review 8.  [Digital radiography of the chest in pediatric patients].

Authors:  S Puig
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 0.635

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.