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

doi:10.1118/1.1769632

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

Radiation Physicists

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

108 Scopus citations

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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	2423-2442
Number of pages	20
Journal	Medical physics
Volume	31
Issue number	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1769632
State	Published - Sep 2004

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Biophysics
Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Access to Document

10.1118/1.1769632

Cite this

McCollough, C. H., Bruesewitz, M. R., McNitt-Gray, M. F., Bush, K., Ruckdeschel, T., Payne, J. T., Brink, J. A., & Zeman, R. K. (2004). The phantom portion of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Computed Tomography (CT) accreditation program: Practical tips, artifact examples, and pitfalls to avoid. Medical physics, 31(9), 2423-2442. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1769632

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. et al.
In: Medical physics, Vol. 31, No. 9, 09.2004, p. 2423-2442.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

@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 CT phantom, ACR accreditation, 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 = sep,

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 CT phantom

KW - ACR accreditation

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

SN - 0094-2405

VL - 31

SP - 2423

EP - 2442

JO - Medical physics

JF - Medical physics

IS - 9

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this