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) 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 Kroft, L. J. M. Articles by de Roos, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kroft, L. J. M. Articles by de Roos, A.

Digital Slot-Scan Charge-coupled Device Radiography versus AMBER and Bucky Screen-Film Radiography for Detection of Simulated Nodules and Interstitial Disease in a Chest Phantom¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (L.J.M.K., J.G., W.J.H.V., H.M.Z., A.d.R.) and Medical Statistics (B.J.A.M.), C2-S, Leiden University Medical Center, C2S, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, the Netherlands. Received February 7, 2003; revision requested April 24; revision received June 13; accepted August 8. Address correspondence to L.J.M.K. (e-mail: l.j.m.kroft@lumc.nl).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of full-field slot-scan charge-coupled device (CCD)–based digital radiography in the detection of simulated chest diseases in clinical conditions versus that of two screen-film techniques: advanced multiple beam equalization radiography (AMBER) and Bucky radiography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Simulated nodules and interstitial nodular and interstitial linear lesions were attached onto an anthropomorphic chest phantom. One hundred sixty-eight lesions were distributed over 25 configurations. A posteroanterior chest radiograph of each configuration was obtained with each technique. The images were presented to six observers. Each lesion was assigned one of two outcome scores: "detected" or "not detected." False-positive readings were evaluated. Differences between the imaging methods were analyzed by using a semiparametric logistic regression model.

RESULTS: For simulated nodules and interstitial linear disease, no statistically significant difference was found in diagnostic performance between CCD digital radiography and AMBER. The detection of simulated interstitial nodular disease was better with CCD digital radiography than with AMBER: Sensitivity was 71% (77 of 108 interstitial nodular lesions) with CCD digital radiography but was 56% (60 of 108 lesions) with AMBER (P = .041). Better results for the detection of all lesion types in the mediastinum were observed with CCD digital radiography than with Bucky screen-film radiography: Sensitivity was 45% (227 of 504 total simulated lesions) with CCD digital radiography but was 24% (119 of 504 lesions) with Bucky radiography (P < .001). There were fewer false-positive observations with CCD digital radiography (35 [5.7%] of 609 observations) than with Bucky radiography (47 [9.5%] of 497 observations; P = .012).

CONCLUSION: Differences were in favor of the full-field slot-scan CCD digital radiographic technique. This technique provides a digital alternative to AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography.

© RSNA, 2004

Index terms: Dosimetry • Phantoms • Radiography, comparative studies, 68.11, 68.1215 • Radiography, digital, 68.1215 • Thorax, radiography, 68.11, 68.1215

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				L. J. M. Kroft, W. J. H. Veldkamp, B. J. A. Mertens, J. P. A. van Delft, and J. Geleijns Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: dose reduction at digital posteroanterior chest radiography. Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 392 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. J. M. Kroft, W. J. H. Veldkamp, B. J. A. Mertens, M. V. Boot, and J. Geleijns Comparison of Eight Different Digital Chest Radiography Systems: Variation in Detection of Simulated Chest Disease Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2005; 185(2): 339 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. J. H. Veldkamp, L. J. M. Kroft, B. J. A. Mertens, and J. Geleijns Digital Slot-Scan Charge-coupled Device Radiography versus AMBER and Bucky Screen-Film Radiography: Comparison of Image Quality in a Phantom Study Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 857 - 866. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]