Current state of practice regarding digital radiography exposure indicators and deviation indices: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 232.

Beginning with the advent of digital radiography systems in 1981, manufacturers of these systems provided indicators of detector exposure. These indicators were manufacturer-specific, and users in facilities with equipment from multiple manufacturers found it a challenge to monitor and manage variations in indicated exposure in routine clinical use. In 2008, a common definition of exposure index (EI) was realized in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) International Standard 62494-1 Ed. 1, which also introduced and defined the deviation index (DI), a number quantifying the difference between the detector EI for a given radiograph and the target exposure index (EIT ). An exposure index that differed by a constant from that established by the IEC and the concept of the deviation index also appear in American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report No. 116 published in 2009. The AAPM Report No. 116 went beyond the IEC standard in supplying a table (Table II in the report of TG-116) titled "Exposure Indicator DI Control Limits for Clinical Images," which listed suggested DI ranges and actions to be considered for each range. As the IEC EI was implemented and clinical DI data were gathered, concerns were voiced that the DI control limits published in the report of TG-116 were too strict and did not accurately reflect clinical practice. The charge of task group 232 (TG-232) and the objective of this final report was to investigate the current state of the practice for CR/DR Exposure and Deviation Indices based on AAPM TG 116 and IEC-62494, for the purpose of establishing achievable goals (reference levels) and action levels in digital radiography. Data corresponding to EI and DI were collected from a range of practice settings for a number of body parts and views (adults and pediatric radiographs) and analyzed in aggregate and separately. A subset of radiographs was also evaluated by radiologists based on criteria adapted from the European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images from the European Commission. Analysis revealed that typical DI distribution was characterized by a standard deviation (SD) of 1.3-3.6 with mean DI values substantially different from 0.0, and less than 50% of DI values fell within the significant action limits proposed by AAPM TG-116 (-1.0 ≤ DI ≤ 1.0). Recommendations stemming from this analysis include targeting a mean DI value of 0.0 and action limits at ±1 and ±2 SD of the DI based on actual DI data of an individual site. EIT values, DI values, and associated action limits should be reviewed on an ongoing basis and optimization of DI values should be a process of continuous quality improvement with a goal of reducing practice variation.

Accuracy and calibration of integrated radiation output indicators in diagnostic radiology: A report of the AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 190.

Due to the proliferation of disciplines employing fluoroscopy as their primary imaging tool and the prolonged extensive use of fluoroscopy in interventional and cardiovascular angiography procedures, "dose-area-product" (DAP) meters were installed to monitor and record the radiation dose delivered to patients. In some cases, the radiation dose or the output value is calculated, rather than measured, using the pertinent radiological parameters and geometrical information. The AAPM Task Group 190 (TG-190) was established to evaluate the accuracy of the DAP meter in 2008. Since then, the term "DAP-meter" has been revised to air kerma-area product (KAP) meter. The charge of TG 190 (Accuracy and Calibration of Integrated Radiation Output Indicators in Diagnostic Radiology) has also been realigned to investigate the "Accuracy and Calibration of Integrated Radiation Output Indicators" which is reflected in the title of the task group, to include situations where the KAP may be acquired with or without the presence of a physical "meter." To accomplish this goal, validation test protocols were developed to compare the displayed radiation output value to an external measurement. These test protocols were applied to a number of clinical systems to collect information on the accuracy of dose display values in the field.

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 3.a: Levels of supervision for medical physicists in clinical training.

The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science, education and professional practice of medical physics. The AAPM has more than 8,000 members and is the principal organization of medical physicists in the United States.The AAPM will periodically define new practice guidelines for medical physics practice to help advance the science of medical physics and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing medical physics practice guidelines will be reviewed for the purpose of revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner.Each medical physics practice guideline represents a policy statement by the AAPM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review, and requires the approval of the Professional Council. The medical physics practice guidelines recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guidelines and technical standards by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.The following terms are used in the AAPM practice guidelines:Must and Must Not: Used to indicate that adherence to the recommendation is considered necessary to conform to this practice guideline.Should and Should Not: Used to indicate a prudent practice to which exceptions may occasionally be made in appropriate circumstances.

One year's results from a server-based system for performing reject analysis and exposure analysis in computed radiography.

Rejected images represent both unnecessary radiation exposure to patients and inefficiency in the imaging operation. Rejected images are inherent to projection radiography, where patient positioning and alignment are integral components of image quality. Patient motion and artifacts unique to digital image receptor technology can result in rejected images also. We present a centralized, server-based solution for the collection, archival, and distribution of rejected image and exposure indicator data that automates the data collection process. Reject analysis program (RAP) and exposure indicator data were collected and analyzed during a 1-year period. RAP data were sorted both by reason for repetition and body part examined. Data were also stratified by clinical area for further investigation. The monthly composite reject rate for our institution fluctuated between 8% and 10%. Positioning errors were the main cause of repeated images (77.3%). Stratification of data by clinical area revealed that areas where computed radiography (CR) is seldom used suffer from higher reject rates than areas where it is used frequently. S values were log-normally distributed for examinations performed under either manual or automatic exposure control. The distributions were positively skewed and leptokurtic. S value decreases due to radiologic technology student rotations, and CR plate reader calibrations were observed. Our data demonstrate that reject analysis is still necessary and useful in the era of digital imaging. It is vital though that analysis be combined with exposure indicator analysis, as digital radiography is not self-policing in terms of exposure. When combined, the two programs are a powerful tool for quality assurance.

An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (executive summary).

Digital radiographic imaging systems, such as those using photostimulable storage phosphor, amorphous selenium, amorphous silicon, CCD, and MOSFET technology, can produce adequate image quality over a much broader range of exposure levels than that of screen/film imaging systems. In screen/film imaging, the final image brightness and contrast are indicative of over- and underexposure. In digital imaging, brightness and contrast are often determined entirely by digital postprocessing of the acquired image data. Overexposure and underexposures are not readily recognizable. As a result, patient dose has a tendency to gradually increase over time after a department converts from screen/film-based imaging to digital radiographic imaging. The purpose of this report is to recommend a standard indicator which reflects the radiation exposure that is incident on a detector after every exposure event and that reflects the noise levels present in the image data. The intent is to facilitate the production of consistent, high quality digital radiographic images at acceptable patient doses. This should be based not on image optical density or brightness but on feedback regarding the detector exposure provided and actively monitored by the imaging system. A standard beam calibration condition is recommended that is based on RQA5 but uses filtration materials that are commonly available and simple to use. Recommendations on clinical implementation of the indices to control image quality and patient dose are derived from historical tolerance limits and presented as guidelines.

Measurement of CT radiation profile width using CR imaging plates.

This paper describes the procedure for using a Fuji computed radiography (CR) imaging plate (IP) for the measurement of computed tomography (CT) radiation profiles. Two sources of saturation in the data from the IP, signal and quantization, were characterized to establish appropriate exposure and processing conditions for accurate measurements. The IP generated similar profiles compared to those obtained from digitized ready-pack films, except at the profile edges, where the exposure level is low. However, when IP pixel values are converted to exposure, CR and digitized film profiles are in agreement. The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the CT radiation profile was determined from the relationship between pixel value and exposure and compared to FWHM of the digitized optical density profile from film. To estimate the effect of scattering by the cassette material, radiation profiles were acquired from IPs enclosed in a cassette or in a paper envelope. The presence of the cassette made no difference in the value determined for FWHM. With proper exposure and processing conditions, the FWHM of 5, 10, and 15 mm collimated beams were measured using IPs to be 7.1, 11.9, and 17.0 mm and using film to be 7.2, 12.2, and 16.8 mm, respectively. Our results suggest that, under appropriate conditions, the estimation of the width of the CT radiation profile using Fuji CR is comparable to the measurement from film density described in American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Report No. 39. Although our experiment was conducted using Fuji CR, we anticipate that CR plates from other vendors could be successfully used to measure CT beam profiles because of similar empirical relationships between pixel value and exposure.

Measurement of focal spot size with slit camera using computed radiography and flat-panel based digital detectors.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of digital x-ray imaging detectors for the measurement of diagnostic x-ray tube focal spot size using a slit camera. Slit camera images of two focal spots for a radiographic x-ray tube were acquired with direct-exposure film (DF) (as specified by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association [NEMA] Standards Publication No. XR 5, 1992), computed radiography (CR) imaging plates, and an a-Si:H/CsI:Tl-based flat-panel (FP) detector. Images obtained with the CR and the FP were acquired over a broad range of detector entrance exposure levels. The DF slit images were evaluated according to NEMA specifications (visually, using a 7x magnifying glass with reticule) by six medical physicists. Additionally, the DF images were digitized and the focal spot sizes obtained from the digital profiles of the slit. The CR and the FP images were analyzed in a manner similar to the digitized DF images. It took less than 20 minutes for a complete CR or FP measurement of focal spot size in two dimensions. In comparison, a typical DF measurement with visual evaluation takes at least 60 minutes, in our experience. In addition to a great reduction in measurement time achieved by using digital detectors, the tube loading requirements were reduced to approximately 20 mAs compared with approximately 1000 mAs when using the DF technique. The calculated focal spot sizes for CR and FP differed from those of digitized DF by -2.4% to +4.8% (sigma=2.5%), far less than the -16.6% to +9.3% (sigma=8.1%) variability introduced by the visual evaluation of the slit image. In addition, the calculated focal spot sizes for the CR and the FP images maintained a coefficient of variation <1.0% over the broad range of exposure levels. Based upon these results, we conclude that (1) FP and CR detectors yield consistent results in measurements of x-ray tube focal spot sizes, (2) compared to DF, CR and FP significantly reduce measurement time and tube loading requirements, (3) CR and FP readily permit digital profile analysis, thereby eliminating observer error, and (4) unlike DF, CR and FP are independent of exposure level.