Clinical application of the optimized X-ray parameter model through analysis of disease risk and image quality when combining the ion chamber of automatic exposure control of digital radiography

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Hwang, Jun-Ho^a | Kim, Sung-Bum^{a; b} | Choi, Man-Kyu^{a; b} | Lee, Kyung-Bae^c | Park, Chang-Kyu^{a; b; *}

Affiliations: [a] Department of Neurosurgery, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea | [b] Department of Neurosurgery, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea | [c] Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: [*] .Corresponding author: Chang-Kyu Park, Department Neurosurgery, Kyunghee University College of Medicine, 23 Kyuhgheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 02447, Korea. Tel.: +82 2 958 8385; Fax: +82 2 958 8380; E-mail: changchaz@naver.com.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE:To present an optimized examination model by analyzing the risk of disease and image quality according to the combination of the ion chamber of automatic exposure control (AEC) with digital radiography (DR). METHODS:The X-ray quality was analyzed by first calculating the percentage average error (PAE) of DR. After that, when using AEC, the combination of the ion chambers was the same as the left and centre and right, right and centre, left and centre, centre, right, and left, for a total of six. Accordingly, the entrance surface dose (ESD), risk of disease, and image quality were evaluated. ESD was obtained by attaching a semiconductor dosimeter to the L4 level of the lumbar spine, and then irradiating X-rays to dosimeter centre through average and standard deviation of radiation dose. The calculated ESD was input into the PCXMC 2.0 programme to evaluate disease risk caused by radiation. Meanwhile, image quality according to chamber combination was quantified as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) through Image J. RESULTS:X-ray quality of DR used in the experiment was within the normal range of±10. ESD of six ion chamber combinations was 1.363mGy, 0.964mGy, 0.946mGy, 0.866mGy, 0.748mGy, 0.726mGy for lumbar anteroposterior (AP), and the lumbar lateral values were 1.126mGy, 0.209mGy, 0.830mGy, 0.662mGy, 0.111mGy, and 0.250mGy, respectively. Meanwhile, disease risk analyzed through PCXMC 2.0 was bone marrow, colon, liver, lung, stomach, urinary and other tissue cancer, and disease risk showed a tendency to increase in proportion to ESD. SNR and CNR recorded the lowest values when three chambers were combined and did not show proportionality with dose, while showed the highest values when two chambers were combined. CONCLUSION:In this study, combination of three ion chambers showed the highest disease risk and lowest image quality. Using one ion chamber showed the lowest disease risk, but lower image quality than two ion chambers. Therefore, if considering all above factors, combination of two ion chambers can optimally maintain the disease risk and image quality. Thus, it is considered an optimal X-ray examination parameter.

Keywords: Digital radiography (DR), Automatic exposure control (AEC), Ion chamber, Disease risk, Image quality

DOI: 10.3233/XST-221254

Journal: Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1099-1114, 2022