Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2311030206
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kroft, L. J. M.
Right arrow Articles by de Roos, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kroft, L. J. M.
Right arrow Articles by de Roos, A.
(Radiology 2004;231:156-163.)
© RSNA, 2004

Experimental Studies

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

Lucia J. M. Kroft, MD, PhD, Jacob Geleijns, PhD, Bart J. A. Mertens, PhD, Wouter J. H. Veldkamp, PhD, Harmine M. Zonderland, MD, PhD and Albert de Roos, MD, PhD

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:


Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]