HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2222010276v1 222/2/453    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ludwig, K. Articles by Heindel, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ludwig, K. Articles by Heindel, W.

Performance of a Flat-Panel Detector in Detecting Artificial Bone Lesions: Comparison with Conventional Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Radiography¹

¹ From the Department of Clinical Radiology, University of Muenster, Albert-Schweitzer-Strasse 33, D-48129 Muenster, Germany (K.L., H.L., T.M.L., S.D., D.W., W.H.); and Philips Medical Systems, Hamburg, Germany (K.F.K.). From the 2000 RSNA scientific assembly. Received January 11, 2001; revision requested February 26; final revision received August 6; accepted August 15. Address correspondence to K.L. (e-mail: lud@uni-muenster.de).

PURPOSE: To compare a large-area direct-readout flat-panel detector system with a conventional screen-film system and a storage-phosphor system in detecting small artificial osseous lesions simulating osteolytic disease and to assess diagnostic performance with decreasing exposure dose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial lesions (0.5–3.0 mm) were created in 100 of 200 predefined regions in 20 porcine femoral specimens. Specimens were enclosed in containers filled with water to create absorption and scatter radiation conditions comparable with those in a human extremity. Imaging was performed with a flat-panel detector system, a conventional screen-film system, and a storage-phosphor system. Levels of exposure equivalent to speed classes 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-point confidence scale. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for 4,800 observations (600 for each imaging modality and exposure level) and diagnostic performance estimated with the area under the ROC curve (A_z). The significance of differences in diagnostic performance was tested with analysis of variance.

RESULTS: ROC analysis showed A_z values of 0.820 (speed class 400), 0.780 (class 800), 0.758 (class 1600), and 0.676 (class 3200) for the flat-panel detector; 0.761 (class 400), 0.725 (class 800), and 0.662 (class 1600) for the storage-phosphor system; and 0.788 (class 400) for the conventional screen-film system. The A_z value for the flat-panel detector at speed class 400 was significantly higher than that for all other systems (P < .05). A_z values for the speed class 400 screen-film system and flat-panel detector system at speed class 800 were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION: The flat-panel detector has diagnostic performance superior to that of conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography for detecting small artificial osseous lesions at clinical exposure settings. With the flat-panel detector, exposure dose can be reduced by 50% to obtain diagnostic performance comparable with that of a conventional speed class 400 screen-film system.

Index terms: Bones, radiography, 444.121 • Radiography, digital, 444.121 • Radiography, flat panel, 444.121

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. L. Kleinman, D. Zurakowski, K. J. Strauss, R. H. Cleveland, J. M. Perez-Rosello, D. P. Nichols, K. H. Zou, and P. K. Kleinman Detection of Simulated Inflicted Metaphyseal Fractures in a Fetal Pig Model: Image Optimization and Dose Reduction with Computed Radiography Radiology, May 1, 2008; 247(2): 381 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Korner, C. H. Weber, S. Wirth, K.-J. Pfeifer, M. F. Reiser, and M. Treitl Advances in Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and System Overview RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 675 - 686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Hatakeyama, S. Kakeda, N. Ohnari, J. Moriya, N. Oda, K. Nishino, W. Miyamoto, and Y. Korogi Reduction of Radiation Dose for Cerebral Angiography Using Flat Panel Detector of Direct Conversion Type: A Vascular Phantom Study AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2007; 28(4): 645 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Uffmann, C. Schaefer-Prokop, U. Neitzel, M. Weber, C. J. Herold, and M. Prokop Skeletal Applications for Flat-Panel versus Storage-Phosphor Radiography: Effect of Exposure on Detection of Low-Contrast Details Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 506 - 514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Ludwig, K. Ahlers, D. Wormanns, M. Freund, T. M. Bernhardt, S. Diederich, and W. Heindel Lumbar Spine Radiography: Digital Flat-Panel Detector versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems in Monkeys as a Pediatric Model Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 140 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Ganten, B. Radeleff, A. Kampschulte, M. D. Daniels, G. W. Kauffmann, and J. Hansmann Comparing Image Quality of Flat-Panel Chest Radiography with Storage Phosphor Radiography and Film-Screen Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2003; 181(1): 171 - 176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Ludwig, C. Schulke, S. Diederich, D. Wormanns, H. Lenzen, T. M. Bernhardt, P. Brinckmann, and W. Heindel Detection of Subtle Undisplaced Rib Fractures in a Porcine Model: Radiation Dose Requirement--Digital Flat-Panel versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 163 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]