Optimization of Dose and Image Quality in Full-fiand Computed Radiography Systems for Common Digital Radiographic Examinations

Document Type : Original Paper


International Islamic University Malaysia


A fine balance of image quality and radiation dose can be achieved by optimization to minimize stochastic and deterministic effects. This study aimed in ensuring that images of acceptable quality for common radiographic examinations in digital imaging were produced without causing harmful effects.
Materials and Methods
The study was conducted in three phases. The pre-optimization involved ninety physically abled patients aged between 20 to 60 years and weighed between 60 and 80 kilograms for four common digital radiographic examinations. Kerma X_plus, DAP meter was utilized to measure the entrance surface dose (ESD) while effective dose (ED) was estimated using CALDose_X 5.0 Monte Carlo software. The second phase, an experimental study utilized an anthropomorphic phantom (PBU-50) and Leeds test object TOR CDR for relative comparison of image quality. For the optimization phase, the imaging parameters with acceptable image quality and lowest ESD from the experimental study was related to patient’s body thickness. Image quality were evaluated by two radiologists using the modified evaluation criteria score lists.
Significant differences were found for image quality for all examinations. However significant difference for ESD were found for PA chest and AP abdomen only. The ESD for three of the examinations were lower than all published data. Additionally, the ESD and ED obtained for all examinations were lower than that recommended by radiation regulatory bodies.
Optimization of image quality and dose was achieved by utilizing an appropriate tube potential, calibrated automatic exposure control and additional filtration of 0.2mm copper.


Main Subjects

  1. References


    1. International Atomic Energy Agency 2012. Proceedings series radiation protection in medicine: Setting the scene for the next decade proceedings of an international conference organized by IAEA. 3-7 December.
    2. International Commission on Radiological Protection 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21 (1-3).
    3. United Nations Scientific Committee 2000. The effects of atomic radiation: Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. Geneva: UNSCEAR.
    4. Vano E, Fernandez JM, Ten JI, Prieto C, Gonzalez L, Rodriquez R , et al. Transition from screen-film to digital radiography: Evolution of patient radiation doses at projection radiography. Radiology. 2007; 243(2): 461-6. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2432050930.
    5. Masoud OA, Muhogara WE , Msaki PK. Assessment of patient dose and optimization levels in chest and abdomen CR examinations at referral hospitals in Tanzania. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2015;16(5): 435-41. DOI: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5614.
    6. Ng KH. Ensuring safety in transition to digital radiography in practice. IAEA International Conference on radiation protection in medicine: Setting scene for the decade. 2013:223.
    7. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 93. Managing patient doses in digital radiology. Ann. ICRP 34 (1), 2004.
    8. International Atomic Energy Agency 1996. International basic safety standards against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. Vienna: IAEA.
    9. Seeram E, Davidson D, Bushong S and Swan H. Optimizing the exposure indicator as a dose management strategy in computed radiography. Radiologic Technology. 2016; 87(4): 380-91.
    10. Davies M, McCallum H, Whiter G, Brown J, Helm M. Patient dose audit in diagnostic radiography using custom designed software. Elsevier. 1997; 3(1): 17-25. DOI: 10.1016/S1078-8174(97)80021-1.
    11. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Luxembourg: European Commission; 1996. EUR 16260EN.
    12. Ching W, Robinson J , McEntee M. Patient based radiographic exposure factor selection: a systematic review. Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences. 2014; 61(3): 176-90.
    13. Asadinezhad M , Toosai MTB. Doses to patients in some routine diagnostic x-ray examinations in Iran: proposed the first Iranian diagnostic reference levels. Radiat prot dosimetry. 2008; 132(4): 409-14. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncn308.
    14. Abdullah MHRO, Kandaiya S, Lim TH , Chumiran SH. Preliminary study on the trend of patient dose arising from diagnostic x-ray examinations in Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 2010; 6(12): 2257-63.
    15. Hart D, Hillier M , Shrimpton P. HPA CRCE-034. Doses to patients from radiographic and fluoroscopic x-ray imaging procedures in the UK-2010 review.
    16. Osei EK & Darko J. A survey of organ equivalent and effective doses from diagnostic radiology procedures. ISRN Radiol. 2013; 204346. DOI: 10.5402/ 2013/ 204346.
    17. Aliasgharzadeh A, Mihandoost E, Masoumbeigi M, Salimian M , Mohseni M. Measurement of entrance skin dose and calculation of effective dose for common diagnostic x-ray examinations in Kashan, Iran. Global Journal of Health Science. 2015; 7(5): 202-7. DOI: 10.5539/gjhs.v7n5p202.
    18. International Atomic Energy Agency/Commission of the European Communities 1995. Radiation dose in diagnostic radiology and methods for dose reduction IAEA-TECDOC-796 (Brussels: CEC).
    19. Ng, KH, P Rassiah, HB Wang, AS Hambali, P Muthuvellu , HP Lee. Doses to patients in routine X-ray examinations in Malaysia. Br. J. Radiol. 1998; 71: 654-60.
    20. United Nations Scientific Committee Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with scientific annexes (Vol. 1). New York United Nations Publications.
    21. Muhogara WE, Ahmed NA, Almosabihi A, Alsuwaidi JS, Beganovic A, et al. Patient doses in radiographic examinations in 12 countries in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe: initial results from IAEA projects. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 190(6): 1453-61. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3039.
    22. Wall B, Haylock R, Jansen J, Hillier M, Hart D , Shrimpton P. Radiation risks from medical x-ray examinations as a function of the age and sex of the patient. Health Protection Agency Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards. 2011.
    23. Martin CJ. Optimization in general radiography. Biomed Imaging Interv. Journal. 2007; 3(2). DOI: 10.2349/biij.3.2.e18.
    24. Herrmann TL, Fauber TL, Gill J, Hoffman C, Orth DK, Peterson PA, et al. Best practices in digital radiography. Radiol Technol. 2012; 84:83–9.
    25. Martin CJ. The importance of radiation quality for optimization in radiology. Biomed Imaging Interv Journal. 2007; 3(2). DOI: 10.2349/biij.3.2.e38.