Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
and QC of Digital
Radiography Units
Douglas Pfeiffer, MS, DABR
Boulder Community Hospital
Outline
Status of Task Groups
Acceptance testing
Quality Control
Technologist
Physicist
Relevant Task Groups
TG 150
“Acceptance Testing and Quality Control of
Digital Radiographic Imaging Systems”
Physicist stuff
TG 151
“Radiographic System Quality Control”
Technologist stuff
TG 116
“DR Exposure Index Task Group”
Task Group Charges
TG 150: This group will outline a set of tests to be used in the
Acceptance Testing and Quality Control of Digital
Radiographic Imaging Systems.
TG 151: Task Group to recommend consistency tests (one or
more) designed to be performed by a Medical Physicist, or a
radiologic technologist under the direction of a medical
physicist, to identify problems with an imaging system that
need further evaluation by a medical physicist.
TG 116: To identify a method of providing feedback, in the
form of a standard index, to operators of DR systems, which
reflects the adequacy of the exposure that has reached the
image receptor (IR) after every exposure event.
TG 150 schedule
Should be competed in about 2 years
May have educational session
RSNA 2008
AAPM 2009
Preliminary guidelines may
be provided via MedPhys
TG 150
Working in concert with TG 151
Have sent to vendors a survey regarding the QC
recommendations for their systems
Comprehensive list of product specifications is
being developed (living)
Concern regarding access to “for processing” or
earlier images
TG 150
Determining what corrections are allowed
in a “for processing” image (IEC 62220-1)
Flat field
Geometric distortion
Reference list being compiled
TG 151
Pretty much the same schedule as TG150…
Compiling a summary of QC tools/programs
provided by manufacturers of radiographic
systems or by third parties
TG 116
Draft written 11/2007
The goal of TG 150 is to
0%
1. write code for the automated evaluation of digital
QC images
81%
2. establish standardized tests for digital imaging
equipment
6%
3. compel digital imaging system manufacturers to
implement standardized QC in their systems
4. validate the QC programs currently provided by
13%
digital imaging system manufacturers
5. define a technologist-level quality control
0%
program for digital imaging equipment
The goal of TG 150 is to
From:
TG116_v9c
Exposure Index Linearity
Should match manufacturer equation over
at least 3 orders of magnitude
Recommend 0.1 mR, 1 mR, 10 mR
Wait 10 minutes before processing CR
plates
Manufacturer-specific tolerances
Kodak: nominal EI ± 100
The exposure index
94% 1. Varies from manufacturer to manufacturer
0%
3. Is automatically flagged when an exposure is
out of range
0%
4. Allows a patient to see what his dose was
0%
5. Is prominent in the DICOM header
The exposure index
1. Varies from manufacturer to
manufacturer
2. Is required for FDA approval of a system
3. Is automatically flagged when an
exposure is out of range
4. Allows a patient to see what his dose
was
5. Is prominent in the DICOM header
100
-0.3311
y = 9.2215x
2
R = 0.9853
Noise (SD)
10
1
0.1 1 10
Exposure (mR)
Geometric Accuracy
Image should not be morphed in any way
Two radiopaque objects of known length (or one
2D object of known dimensions)
Measured should be
accurate to within 1%
(Never found a problem)
Nominal = 152.4 mm
Throughput
System may be bogged down due to faulty
controlling computer, hardware or
electronic malfunction
Multiple readouts in rapid succession
10 mR
Direct: 5 exposures
Single plate CR: 5 plates
Multiplate CT: max feed loading
Throughput
Measure time from beginning of first readout to
end of last readout
Direct: end of first exposure to able to make a sixth
exposure
CR: first plate into reader to last plate out of reader
Throughput (readouts/hour) = 60 x N / t
Should be within 10% of manufacturer
specification
Plate Erasure (CR)
Exposure IP of each size to 10 mR
Erase
Reprocess
Compare exposure index to manufacturer
specifications
Kodak: EI < 100
AEC Calibration
CR response is different from S-F
Energy dependence
Determines typical exposure index and
patient dose
Proper gain setting may take some time
Lowest possible for NOISE tolerance
AEC Calibration
Uniform phantom
2” – 12” equivalent
PMMA (oofdah!)
60 – 120 kVp
Cell selection
Cell balance
Artifacts
CR
Screens
Dust, etc in optical path
Mechanical motion of slow, fast scan mechanisms
Image processing glitches
Direct
Flat fielding errors
Detector faults
Image processing glitches
Use large SID to limit heel effect
Artifacts
Ghost!
Ghost image was left after one hearty
exposure
Imagine the result after generator testing
Always cover the detector with at least 0.5
mm lead (more is better)
Artifacts
Screen Cleaner!
Recommend against Kodak Pre-
moistened wipes
Clean only when needed
Use lint-free cloth, barely damp with water
(at least for Kodak)
Artifacts
EI = 250 EI = 430
2 days post-erasure 4 days post-erasure
Background Fog!
Natural background radiation is ~0.5
mR/day
(Plates not sensitive to much of this)
Typical diagnostic plate exposure ~ 1 mR
Recommend using or erasing cassettes
every 2-3 days
Clinical
Phantom image quality
DOSE
Exposure index ranges
Will take some time to develop
Exam-specific
Can use range of about factor of 1.75 (sort of
equivalent to the S-F ± 0.3 OD variation)
Phantom Image Quality
System performance
Clinical-esque
Anthropomorphic
Use your favorite
Clinical technique
Regarding comprehensive acceptance testing of
digital imaging systems, all of the following are true
EXEPT:
1. It is not needed due to the automatic
75%
calibration and self-monitoring of modern
systems
19% 2. It verifies correct installation and
calibration
3. It sets baseline values to be used for
0%
future testing
4. It provides an opportunity to train
6%
technologists in appropriate QC
5. It is the time when radiation shielding
0%
should be verified
Regarding comprehensive acceptance testing of
digital imaging systems, all of the following are true
EXEPT:
1. It is not needed due to the automatic
calibration and self-monitoring of
modern systems
2. It verifies correct installation and
calibration
3. It sets baseline values to be used for
future testing
4. It provides an opportunity to train
technologists in appropriate QC
5. It is the time when radiation shielding
should be verified
Williams, et al, Digital Radiography Image Quality: Image Acquisition, J
Am Coll Radiol 2007;4:371-388.
Quality Control
Technologist
TG 151
Physicist
TG 150
Technologist QC (TG 151)
Daily
Look for artifacts
Monthly
Laser printer sensitometry
Self-calibration module may fail!
Quarterly
Workstation QC (monthly?)
TG-18QC, SMPTE
Repeat analysis
Per manufacturer
Test object
Flat field
Repeat Analysis
Use ranges established at acceptance period
Most repeats should be positioning, motion, etc.
“Odd” images can often be saved with window
width / level or reprocessing
Check with radiologist if Exposure Index too low
NEVER repeat for Exposure Index too high
(unless saturated)
one facility had it as a policy!
Physicist (TG 150)
Laser printer – review QC
Workstation calibration
Beam characterization
Exposure index calibration
Exposure index linearity
Limiting resolution / MTF
Noise and low contrast
Physicist (TG 150)
Plate erasure (CR)
Artifacts
Phantom
Exposure Index review
Generator calibration?
Dose Creep
Not the guy who monitors the doses!
Recall that images just get better with
higher dose
“I’ll just up my mAs a bit to be sure”
AEC systems
calibration
check regularly
Monitor the indexes!
Generator Calibration?
Self-calibrating during the exposure
HVL change??
Anything funky will show up in dose
IMAGE QUALITY
DOSE
Dose creep, the gradual increase in patient doses,
17%
1. Was a problem with screen-film imaging
also
8%
2. Exists only in computed radiography
departments
75%
3. Is due to the decrease in noise with
increased detector exposure
0% 4. Is easily recognized by the radiologist
5. Is not impacted by the presence of
0%
technique charts
Dose creep, the gradual increase in patient doses,
mAs
too CV Signal
high
mAs Image
Processing
optimal
logE CV
mAs
too low
Above
optimal
exposure
Optimal
exposure
Below
optimal
exposure
Effects of Dose
on Digital Image Quality
Image brightness does not change
with dose: Double the mAs still gives
same brightness.
What DOES change with dose are
the noise properties of the image.
0.1 mR
0.3 mR
1.0 mR
Not Your Daddy’s S-F
Image brightness is always adequate,
regardless of dose.
Image brightness does not depend on mAs
(an mAs range over 100x greater than the
acceptable mAs range for film/screen).
Adequacy of dose manifests as adequacy
of image quality – dose does not manifest
as brightness.
The Answer My Friend
Film/screen was able to get by without
any dose parameter to accompany
each image, because film/screen was
a self-regulating system.
Digital is not self-regulating, and the
chance of missed diagnosis, or
excessive dose, is too great without
having a dose parameter
accompanying each image.
The Way We Were
Low
0.5 400 1700 1.9 -1
0.5x optimal
High
2 100 2300 2.5 +1
2x Optimal
AEC Calibration
200 speed appropriate?
Can modify for diagnostic requirements
Energy response is different from screen-
film
Each manufacturer has specific calibration
methods
Quality Control
Three levels of system performance quality control
1. Routine: Technologist
- no radiation measurements
Weekly / Biweekly
Calibrate monitors (SMPTE)
QC phantom test image performance
Check / clean PSP screens and cassettes
Quarterly
Review image retakes and exposures
Update QC log. Review out-of-tolerance issues
Periodic Quality Control
Annually (Physicist)
Perform linearity / sensitivity / uniformity
Inspect / evaluate image quality
Re-establish baseline values
Review retakes, service records
What is needed?
Computer friendly phantoms
Objective quantitative analysis methods
System performance tracking and database logs
Exposure monitoring tools with database
Quality Control
Tracking the indexes
Not “Too dark or too light?”
“Is the index appropriate?”
May shift techniques from what you’re used to
overall higher (200ish vs. 400ish)?
increase kVp?
Quality Control
Control Limits
Know what is appropriate for your facility
work with radiologists, RT’s, manufacturer
Know what a change in your index means
a change of 300 for Kodak is a factor of 2 in
exposure
Set appropriate limits
what’s a reasonable, acceptable variation?
what impacts the number (collimation, etc.)
DO NOT REPEAT IF THE DOSE IS TOO HIGH!!!
Quality Control
Repeat analysis
DO NOT REPEAT FOR HIGH DOSE (no dark
films)
Light films Low (or high) exposure index
Collimation
Positioning
Artifacts (junk on screen, mainly)
Frequency Components
sin(x)
sin(3x)
sin(5x)
sin(7x)
sin(9x)
sin(x)+sin(3x)
+sin(5x)
+sin(7x)
+sin(9x)
MTF Comparison
Image Quality Descriptors
“Resolution”
MTF
Noise
DQE
“Resolution”
Pixel size?
Misleading
MTF?
Better, but incomplete
Resolution and digital sampling
MTF of pixel (sampling) aperture
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
50 µ m
Modulation
0.6
0.5
100 µ m
0.4
0.3
0.2 200 µ m
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Frequency (lp/mm)
Cutoff frequency = 1 / ∆x
Detector Detector
pitch aperture
MTF of sampling aperture
a-Se
70 µm pixel
Subscan CsI
100 µm pixel
Microcalcifications??
Noise
mAs
Electronic
Putting It Together
Detective Quantum Efficiency
almost universally regarded as the best overall
indicator of the image quality of digital radiography
systems