J Korean Soc Radiol.  2012 Mar;66(3):255-262. 10.3348/jksr.2012.66.3.255.

Relationship of Image Quality and Radiation Dose for Chest Radiography in the Medical Institutions for Pneumoconiosis: A Comparison to the Korean Diagnostic Reference Level

• Lee WJ
• Kim SJ
• Park JS
• Seon JR

• KMID: 1439422
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2012.66.3.255

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the relationship of image quality to the measurement of radiation dose for chest radiography in the medical institutions for pneumoconiosis (MIPs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Film-screen radiography (FSR) (n = 24) and digital radiography (DR) (n = 5) were used as chest radiography modalities. The entrance surface dose (ESD) was measured from the exposure conditions routinely used for chest radiography using an ionization chamber dosimeter. All images were randomly selected for evaluating image quality from each of the MIPs, and independently rated by two experienced radiologists using a 3-point scale.
RESULTS
ESD of DR was higher than FSR, excluding flat panel. However, image quality of DR was significantly higher than that of FSR, especially in flat panel and the charge-coupled device. ESD and tube voltage were not significantly correlated with image quality. DR more frequently exceeded the Korean diagnostic reference level for ESD than FSR (41.7% vs. 20.0%), though the difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
DR used a higher radiation dose than FSR; however, there was a possibility of a radiation dose reduction in relation to image quality. We suggest that the MIPs transfer to a flat panel with automatic exposure control for a more effective radiation dose management.

MeSH Terms

Pneumoconiosis
Radiation Dosage
Radiographic Image Enhancement
Thorax

Reference

1. Lee WJ, Park JS, Kim SJ, Ko KS, Chu SD, Park SY, et al. The first report on evaluating the thoracic radiology of the medical institutions for pneumoconiosis in Korea. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2010. 63:431–438.

2. Launders JH, Cowen AR, Bury RF, Hawkridge P. Towards image quality, beam energy and effective dose optimisation in digital thoracic radiography. Eur Radiol. 2001. 11:870–875.

3. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 181:923–929.

4. Ganten M, Radeleff B, Kampschulte A, Daniels MD, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J. Comparing image quality of flat-panel chest radiography with storage phosphor radiography and film-screen radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 181:171–176.

5. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP publication 93. 2003.

6. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol. 2009. 72:202–208.

7. Park B, Sung DW. A comparative study of image quality and radiation dose with changes in tube voltage and current for a digital chest radiography. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2010. 62:131–137.

8. Redlich U, Hoeschen C, Doehring W. Assessment and optimisation of the image quality of chest-radiography systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005. 114:264–268.

9. van Soldt RT, Zweers D, van den Berg L, Geleijns J, Jansen JT, Zoetelief J. Survey of posteroanterior chest radiography in The Netherlands: patient dose and image quality. Br J Radiol. 2003. 76:398–405.

10. Chung MJ, Lee KY, Lee BY, Kim HJ, Lim HK. Diagnostic reference level of patient dose during a plain chest radiography examination in Korea. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2010. 62:523–528.

11. Radiobiology. 2011. 205–251.

12. Schuncke A, Neitzel U. Retrospective patient dose analysis of a digital radiography system in routine clinical use. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005. 114:131–134.

13. Norelli LJ, Coates AD, Kovasznay BM. Cancer risk from diagnostic radiology in a deliberate self-harm patient. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2010. 122:427–430.

14. 2010 Quality Control Program [Internet]. cited: Mar 10, 2010. Incheon: Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency;Available from: http://oshri.kosha.or.kr/board?tc=RetrieveBoardViewCmd&boardType=A&contentId=208741&pageNum=1&urlCode=T1|Y|404|371|||||/board&tabId.

15. Guidelines for Radiation Dose Measurement [Internet]. cited: Sep 1, 2010. Osong: Korea Food & Drug Administration;Available from: http://md.kfda.go.kr/pds/pds_view.jsp?skey=&intIdx=157&intCategory=7.

16. Uffmann M, Neitzel U, Prokop M, Kabalan N, Weber M, Herold CJ, et al. Flat-panel-detector chest radiography: effect of tube voltage on image quality. Radiology. 2005. 235:642–650.

17. Garmer M, Hennigs SP, Jäger HJ, Schrick F, van de Loo T, Jacobs A, et al. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000. 174:75–80.

18. Metz S, Damoser P, Hollweck R, Roggel R, Engelke C, Woertler K, et al. Chest radiography with a digital flat-panel detector: experimental receiver operating characteristic analysis. Radiology. 2005. 234:776–784.