The purpose of this study was to compare radiation dose estimates between state -of-the-art interventional fluoroscopy systems in vitro and in clinical cases. In vitro analysis included verifying system-reported air kerma rates (AKR; with a Radcal detector) and comparing AKR for simulated patient thicknesses (20-40cm) for different dose modes and clinical protocols on Philips 'AlluraClarity' (different generations) and Siemens 'Artis Q' systems (n=4). After IRB approval, system-reported radiation dose estimates i.e., cumulative air kerma (CAK) at the interventional reference point and kerma-area product (KAP), were extracted for interventional cases performed over a 16-month period from GE Centricity RIS and compared split by procedure type. Next, CAK and KAP for patients with metastatic uveal melanoma undergoing repeat chemo/immuno-embolization (potentially high radiation dose procedure) of the same liver lobe by the same physician on AlluraClarity and Artis Q were compared, accounting for differences in patient positioning, reference locations and digital acquisitions obtained from structured dose reports using DoseMetrix (Primordial) and CareAnalytics (Siemens). IBM's SPSS Statistics was used for parametric and non-parametric tests (with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons ). In vitro analysis showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in verified AKR (25-45 mGy/min lower with AlluraClarity for thicknesses of 30-40 cm). Clinical data analysis comprised of 5113 cases; significant differences for CAK and KAP were seen for certain procedure (p < 0.05), with significantly lower values for AlluraClarity systems (differences in median: 34-61%). Subset analysis included 61 patients treated on both systems at different time points; accounting for differences in other parameters, CAK and KAP were significantly lower for AlluraClarity systems (p < 0.02; median for CAK lower by 44% and for KAP by 27%). Radiation dose differences observed in vitro between the AlluraClarity and Artis Q systems were reflected in clinical cases (even for same patients undergoing the same procedure). When the differences were significant, AlluraClarity systems showed relatively lower radiation utilization.
Approximately 9 million fluoroscopically-guided interventional procedures are performed annually in the USA. Recent technological advancements for interventional fluoroscopy systems have focused towards vendor-specific real-time image and signal processing. Hence, the purpose of this study was to evaluate if quantitative metrics derived from standard image quality phantoms, routinely used for quality control, are able to distinguish vendor-specific processing features for interventional fluoroscopy systems. Six standard image quality phantoms were used to measure contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), full-width-at-half-maximum (for determining edge blurring) and modulation transfer function, to analyze contrast detail characteristics, and to assess digital subtraction angiography (DSA) performance of six flat-panel detector based interventional fluoroscopy systems from Philips (with and without ClarityIQ) and Siemens. Phantom data were acquired at different dose modes and field-of-view settings. Fluoroscopy loops and digital subtraction acquisitions were saved (duration 3 seconds; repeated 3 times). Images were analyzed off-line using ImageJ. CNR measurements showed no differences between systems, whereas the contrast-detail analysis and edge blurring characterization showed relatively low performance of Philips Clarity systems compared to Siemens and Philips non-Clarity systems. Conversely, the modulation transfer function showed that the limiting spatial resolution was higher for the Philips systems relative to the Siemens suite. However, with the DSA phantom the performance of Siemens and Philips Clarity-systems was similar. In conclusion, depending on the image quality phantom used for comparing different systems, the results may differ and therefore, quantitative metrics derived from standard fluoroscopy phantoms lack the discriminatory ability to assess vendor-specific advancements in interventional fluoroscopy systems.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.