Utility of Digital Radiography for the Screening of Pneumoconiosis as Compared to Analog Radiography

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare digital radiography (DR) and analog radiography (AR) for the screening of pneumoconiosis with respect to radiation dose, image quality, and pneumoconiosis classification. DR was performed on 50 subjects who were enrolled for an examination of pneumoconiosis (Digital Diagnost™, Philips, Netherlands), and AR (MXO-15B, Toshiba, Japan) was performed the same day after the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Entrance surface doses (ESDs) of DR and AR were measured using a glass dosimeter attached to a Rando human phantom (Alderson Co., U.S.) under exposure conditions commonly used in clinical practice in Korea. Visibilities on all images were evaluated using a 5-point scale by four chest radiologists using a modified form of the European Chest Guidelines (EUR 16260). All the images were classified using the ILO's guidelines by referencing standard analog radiographs. ESDs of DR were significantly lower than those of AR (0.15 mGy vs. 0.21 mGy, p < 0.05). All anatomic structures were significantly more visible by DR images (p < 0.0001), especially the left main bronchus, ribs, and thoracic spine. Body mass index did not correlate with anatomic structure visibility by DR (r = -0.029, p = 0.842) or AR images (r = -0.076, p = 0.602). Overall intra- and inter-reader agreements for DR images were significantly higher than for AR images. DR offers improved image quality with a significant reduction of up to 23.6% in radiation dose and more accurate pneumoconiosis classification than AR.