Patient radiation dose and image quality are primary issues in the conduct of nuclear medicine (NM) procedures. A range of protocols are currently used in image acquisition and analysis of quality control (QC) tests, with National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) methods and protocols widely accepted in providing an accurate description, measurement and report of γ-camera performance parameters. However, no standard software is available for image analysis. Present study compares vendor QC software analysis and three types of software freely downloadable from the internet: NMQC, NM Toolkit and ImageJ-NM Toolkit software. These were used for image analysis of QC tests of γ-cameras based on NEMA protocols including non-uniformity evaluation. Ten non-uniformity QC images were obtained using a dual head γ-camera installed in Trieste General Hospital and then analyzed. Excel analysis was used as the baseline calculation for the non-uniformity test according to NEMA procedures. The results of non-uniformity analysis showed good agreement between the independent types of software and Excel calculations (the average differences were 0.3%, 2.9%, 1.3% and 1.6% for the Useful Field of View (UFOV) integral, UFOV differential, Central Field of View (CFOV) integral and CFOV differential, respectively), while significant differences were detected following analysis using the company QC software when compared with Excel analysis (the average differences were 14.6%, 20.7%, 25.7% and 31.9% for the UFOV integral, UFOV differential, CFOV integral and CFOV differential, respectively). Compared to use of Excel calculations use of NMQC software was found to be in close accord. Variation in results obtained using the three types of software and γ-camera QC software was due to the use of different pixel sizes. It is important to conduct independent analyses tests in addition to using the vendor QC software in order to determine the differences between values.
Computed tomography is widely used for planar imaging. Previous studies showed that CR systems involve higher patient radiation doses compared to digital systems. Therefore, assessing the patient's dose and CR system performance is necessary to ensure that patients received minimal dose with the highest possible image quality. The study was performed at three medical diagnostic centers in Sudan: Medical Corps Hospital (MCH), Advance Diagnostic Center (ADC), and Advance Medical Center (AMC). The following tools were used in this study: Tape measure, Adhesive tape, 1.5 mm copper filtration (>10 × 10 cm), TO 20 threshold contrast test object, Resolution test object (e.g., Huttner 18), MI geometry test object or lead ruler, Contact mish, Piranha (semiconductor detector), Small lead or copper block (∼5 × 5 cm), and Steel ruler, to do a different type of tests (Dark Noise, Erasure cycle efficiency, Sensitivity Index calibration, Sensitivity Index consistency, Uniformity, Scaling errors, Blurring, Limiting spatial Resolution, Threshold, and Laser beam Function. Entrance surface air kerma (ESAK (mGy) was calculated from patient exposure parameters using DosCal software for three imaging modalities. A total of 199 patients were examined (112 chest X rays, 77 lumbar spine). The mean and standard deviation (sd) for patients ESAK (mGy) were 2.56 ± 0.1 mGy and 1.6 mGy for the Anteroposterior (AP) and lateral projections for the lumbar spine, respectively. The mean and sd for the patient's chest doses were 0.1 ± 0.01 for the chest X-ray procedures. The three medical diagnostic centers' CR system performance was evaluated and found that all of the three centers have good CR system functions. All the centers satisfy all the criteria of acceptable visual tests. CR's image quality and sensitivity were evaluated, and the CR image is good because it has good contrast and resolution. All the CR system available in the medical centers and upgraded from old X-ray systems to new systems, has been found to work well. The patient's doses were comparable for the chest X-ray procedures, while patients' doses from the lumbar spine showed variation up to 2 folds due to the variation in patients' weight and X-ray machine setting. Patients dose optimization is recommended to ensure the patients received a minimal dose while obtaining the diagnostic findings.