skip to main content

SciTech ConnectSciTech Connect

Title: SU-D-204-07: Comparison of AAPM TG150 Draft Image Receptor Tests with Vendor Automated QC Tests for Five Mobile DR Units

Purpose: To determine the consistency of digital detector (DR) tests recommended by AAPM TG150 and tests provided by commercially available DirectView Total Quality Tool (TQT). Methods: The DR tests recommended by the TG150 Detector Subgroup[1] were performed on 4 new Carestream DRX-Revolution and one Carestream DRX1C retrofit of a GE AMX-4 that had been in service for three years. After detector calibration, flat-field images plus images of two bar patterns oriented parallel and perpendicular to the A-C axis, were acquired at conditions recommended by TG150. Raw images were harvested and then analyzed using a MATLAB software previously validated[2,3,4]. Data were analyzed using ROIs of two different dimensions: 1) 128 x 128 ROIs matching the detector electronics; and 2) 256 x 256 ROIs, each including 4 adjacent smaller ROIs. TG150 metrics from 128 x 128 ROIs were compared to TQT metrics, which are also obtained from 128 x 128 ROIs[5]. Results: The results show that both TG150 and TQT measurements were consistent among these detectors. Differences between TG150 and TQT values appear systematic. Compared with 128 x 128 ROIs, noise and SNR non-uniformity were lower with 256 x 256 ROIs, although signal non-uniformity was similar, indicating detectors were appropriately calibrated formore » gain and offset. MTF of the retrofit unit remained essentially the same between 2012 and 2015, but was inferior to the new units. The older generator focal spot is smaller (0.75mm vs. 1.2mm), and the SID for acquisition is 182cm as well, so focal spot dimensions cannot explain the difference. The difference in MTF may be secondary to differences in generator X-ray spectrum or by unannounced changes in detector architecture. Further investigation is needed. Conclusion: The study shows that both TG150 and TQT tests are consistent. The numerical value of some metrics are dependent on ROI size.« less
;  [1] ;  [2] ;  [3]
  1. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
  2. Radiation Services, Inc., Dover, FL (United States)
  3. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Bellaire, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 42; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2015 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States