Premium
SU‐C‐217BCD‐06: Analysis of Different CT Accreditation Programs
Author(s) -
Goodenough D
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4734642
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , accreditation , medical physics , software portability , computer science , nuclear medicine , image resolution , medicine , artificial intelligence , medical education , programming language
Purpose: This study will review two alternate pathways for CT accreditation ‐ the program of the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the program of Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC). The study will compare and contrast the two programs. Methods: The requirements of the ACR‐CT accreditation and IAC ‐ICACTL programs are reviewed for both the clinical and technical aspect. Physics data collected on several multidetector CT scanners (MDCT), including 16, 64, 128, 320, and up to 750 detector arrays utilizing both the ACR CT phantom and the CATPHAN 600 CT Phantom (note, IAC does not require a specific phantom, thus this widely used commercial phantom) is used. Scanning protocols are based on the protocols as required by ACR or IAC. Data necessary to complete the data forms for alignment, CT# accuracy, slice width, low contrast resolution (uniformity and noise, distance accuracy and high contrast spatial resolution), obtained measurements were made as specified in the accrediting group's instructions using manual processes as well as automated analysis approaches. Results: The results show examples of significant differences in the required levels of physical performance of head and body scanning under the different programs, particularly in the high resolution modulation transfer function (MTF) scanning ability. Likewise, significant differences in clinical body scanning ability of approved devices are shown. Conclusions: Significant differences in the levels of CT performance required to pass the two different accreditation programs are shown. The data sets indicate that a single phantom requirement for an accreditation program is unnecessary because the portability of physics data should obviate the need to purchase duplicate phantoms for accreditations purposes, and allow for more ready comparison between accreditation programs, government and industry specifications. This paper may guide imaging professionals in decisions regarding accreditation pathways with CT.DJG serves as a consultant to The Phantom Labratory and Image OWL, Salem, NY