Program Information
Medical Physics 1.0 Versus Medical Physics 2.0: A Case Study
D Carver1*, C Willis1 , P Stauduhar1 , T Nishino1 , J Wells2 , E Samei2 , (1) University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, (2) Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Presentations
TU-FG-209-7 (Tuesday, August 2, 2016) 1:45 PM - 3:45 PM Room: 209
Purpose: To illustrate how performance analytics can identify performance decrement in digital radiography systems.
Methods: Subsequent to a radiologist’s image quality complaint, four different advanced methods contributed to root cause analysis. Our system was a GE Revolution XQi digital radiography unit. Initially, we reviewed weekly GE Quality Assurance Procedures (QAP) results in a database dating from 2001. Next, we evaluated objective image quality metrics of individual PA Chest radiographs acquired. These images were anonymized, securely transferred, and analyzed by the Duke University Clinical Imaging Physics Group with software previously described¹ and validated². Third, we compared the exposure-dependent SNR² (NEQ) of the unit with previously established confidence limits³. Finally, we explored our service database to reveal events that might affect detector performance.
Results: QAP reported a decrease in CNR reflected in a significant increase in lung noise(Ln), mediastinum noise(Mn), and subdiaphragm-lung contrast(Slc) with a significant decrease in lung grey level(Lgl) after detector replacement. Most change occurred during week 1, before the QAP indicated one-half the ultimate decrease in CNR. After detector recalibration, QAP CNR improved, but was not restored to previous levels. Lgl and Slc were no longer significantly different from before, however Ln and Mn remained significantly different. Exposure-dependent SNR² show the detector to be operating within limits in October 2006 but subsequently became mis-calibrated sometime before acquisition of the 2011-2014 data. Service records revealed catastrophic failure of the Image Detection Controller that contained the 2007 calibration. Traditional metrics did not indicate that the system was performing outside of normal limits.
Conclusion: Performance analytics are powerful tools whose proper application could allow early intervention in degraded system performance. The image-quality metrics appear to be highly sensitive to system performance and are reported with every acquisition rather than at arbitrary intervals. Confidence intervals may require customization for individual systems or detectors.
Contact Email: