A novel method for producing x-ray test objects and phantoms

• Published in: Physics in medicine & biology Vol. 49; no. 8; pp. 1423 - 1438
• Main Authors: Theodorakou, C, Horrocks, J A, Marshall, N W, Speller, R D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England IOP Publishing 21.04.2004
• Subjects: Air; Angioplasty - methods; Computers; Contrast Media - pharmacology; Copying Processes; Diagnostic Imaging - economics; Diagnostic Imaging - methods; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Iodine - chemistry; Mammography - methods; Models, Statistical; Models, Theoretical; Phantoms, Imaging; Potassium Iodide; Printing; Radiographic Image Enhancement; Reproducibility of Results; Software; Technology, Radiologic - methods; X-Rays
• ISSN: 0031-9155; 1361-6560
• DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/8/004

A novel method for producing customized x-ray test objects and clinically realistic phantoms has been developed. Test objects can be created with a drawing software package and the digital images can be printed on a standard inkjet printer but using potassium iodide solution in place of the cartridge's ink. The reproducibility and the consistency, the limiting spatial resolution, the uniformity as well as the potassium iodide thickness per print have been evaluated. The relationship between the number of prints, grey levels and the radiation contrast was investigated and quantified. A copy of the Leeds TO10 contrast detail test object was printed and the x-ray images of the Leeds TO10 and of the printed Leeds TO10 were compared. In addition, the potential use of this method was demonstrated by reproducing a percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty clinical digital image. The reproducibility and consistency of this method was found to be better than 0.1%. The limiting spatial resolution of the printer using ink was found to be 3.55 1p mm(-1) but it deteriorated when the ink was replaced with potassium iodide and as the print density increases. The uniformity across the printed area was found to be satisfactory although an artefact due to the printer was present in the x-ray images. The comparison between the Leeds TO10 and the printed Leeds TO10 gave differences less than 10%. A good agreement between the clinical image and the printed clinical image was found. In conclusion, the method is a reliable, cost-effective, flexible and alternative way for producing x-ray test objects and clinically related phantoms.