The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program: Practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid

Cynthia H McCollough, Michael R. Bruesewitz, Michael F. McNitt-Gray, Krista Bush, Thomas Ruckdeschel, J. Thomas Payne, James A. Brink, Robert K. Zeman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

92 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The ACR CT accreditation program, begun in 2002, requires the submission of approximately 20 images, several completed data sheets and printouts of three Excel worksheets. The procedure manual is very detailed, yet participants unfamiliar with the program or having minimal CT experience have needed to redo aspects of their submission, or in some cases do not receive accreditation, due to mistakes made by the physicist. This review of the phantom portion of the ACR CT accreditation program supplements the ACR provided instructions with additional photos of phantom setup, region-of-interest (ROI), and image placement on the film sheets, and examples of completed portions of actual (but anonymous) submissions. Common mistakes, as well as uncommon but interesting images, are shown and explanations are given as to what could have been done to avoid the problem. Additionally, a review of CT dose measurement techniques and calculations will enable the physicist to better assist sites where typical exam doses are above the ACR reference values.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2423-2442
Number of pages20
JournalMedical Physics
Volume31
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2004

Fingerprint

Accreditation
Radiology
Artifacts
Tomography
Reference Values

Keywords

  • ACR accreditation
  • ACR CT phantom
  • CT image quality
  • CT radiation dosimetry
  • CTDI

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics

Cite this

The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program : Practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. / McCollough, Cynthia H; Bruesewitz, Michael R.; McNitt-Gray, Michael F.; Bush, Krista; Ruckdeschel, Thomas; Payne, J. Thomas; Brink, James A.; Zeman, Robert K.

In: Medical Physics, Vol. 31, No. 9, 09.2004, p. 2423-2442.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

McCollough, Cynthia H ; Bruesewitz, Michael R. ; McNitt-Gray, Michael F. ; Bush, Krista ; Ruckdeschel, Thomas ; Payne, J. Thomas ; Brink, James A. ; Zeman, Robert K. / The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program : Practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. In: Medical Physics. 2004 ; Vol. 31, No. 9. pp. 2423-2442.
@article{8eb9d58b5e3c432c8c1f6679672e6c2b,
title = "The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program: Practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid",
abstract = "The ACR CT accreditation program, begun in 2002, requires the submission of approximately 20 images, several completed data sheets and printouts of three Excel worksheets. The procedure manual is very detailed, yet participants unfamiliar with the program or having minimal CT experience have needed to redo aspects of their submission, or in some cases do not receive accreditation, due to mistakes made by the physicist. This review of the phantom portion of the ACR CT accreditation program supplements the ACR provided instructions with additional photos of phantom setup, region-of-interest (ROI), and image placement on the film sheets, and examples of completed portions of actual (but anonymous) submissions. Common mistakes, as well as uncommon but interesting images, are shown and explanations are given as to what could have been done to avoid the problem. Additionally, a review of CT dose measurement techniques and calculations will enable the physicist to better assist sites where typical exam doses are above the ACR reference values.",
keywords = "ACR accreditation, ACR CT phantom, CT image quality, CT radiation dosimetry, CTDI",
author = "McCollough, {Cynthia H} and Bruesewitz, {Michael R.} and McNitt-Gray, {Michael F.} and Krista Bush and Thomas Ruckdeschel and Payne, {J. Thomas} and Brink, {James A.} and Zeman, {Robert K.}",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1118/1.1769632",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "2423--2442",
journal = "Medical Physics",
issn = "0094-2405",
publisher = "AAPM - American Association of Physicists in Medicine",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program

T2 - Practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid

AU - McCollough, Cynthia H

AU - Bruesewitz, Michael R.

AU - McNitt-Gray, Michael F.

AU - Bush, Krista

AU - Ruckdeschel, Thomas

AU - Payne, J. Thomas

AU - Brink, James A.

AU - Zeman, Robert K.

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - The ACR CT accreditation program, begun in 2002, requires the submission of approximately 20 images, several completed data sheets and printouts of three Excel worksheets. The procedure manual is very detailed, yet participants unfamiliar with the program or having minimal CT experience have needed to redo aspects of their submission, or in some cases do not receive accreditation, due to mistakes made by the physicist. This review of the phantom portion of the ACR CT accreditation program supplements the ACR provided instructions with additional photos of phantom setup, region-of-interest (ROI), and image placement on the film sheets, and examples of completed portions of actual (but anonymous) submissions. Common mistakes, as well as uncommon but interesting images, are shown and explanations are given as to what could have been done to avoid the problem. Additionally, a review of CT dose measurement techniques and calculations will enable the physicist to better assist sites where typical exam doses are above the ACR reference values.

AB - The ACR CT accreditation program, begun in 2002, requires the submission of approximately 20 images, several completed data sheets and printouts of three Excel worksheets. The procedure manual is very detailed, yet participants unfamiliar with the program or having minimal CT experience have needed to redo aspects of their submission, or in some cases do not receive accreditation, due to mistakes made by the physicist. This review of the phantom portion of the ACR CT accreditation program supplements the ACR provided instructions with additional photos of phantom setup, region-of-interest (ROI), and image placement on the film sheets, and examples of completed portions of actual (but anonymous) submissions. Common mistakes, as well as uncommon but interesting images, are shown and explanations are given as to what could have been done to avoid the problem. Additionally, a review of CT dose measurement techniques and calculations will enable the physicist to better assist sites where typical exam doses are above the ACR reference values.

KW - ACR accreditation

KW - ACR CT phantom

KW - CT image quality

KW - CT radiation dosimetry

KW - CTDI

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4644258645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4644258645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1118/1.1769632

DO - 10.1118/1.1769632

M3 - Article

C2 - 15487722

AN - SCOPUS:4644258645

VL - 31

SP - 2423

EP - 2442

JO - Medical Physics

JF - Medical Physics

SN - 0094-2405

IS - 9

ER -