[Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR PET QC Manual Discrepancy

Tue Dec 9 12:59:02 EST 2025

If you're going to try to evaluate the background SUV with high precision then you need the large cylindrical (3 cm) VOI.  The SUVmean of that small ROI used for accreditation is very noisy and just not a good estimate of background SUV/scanner calibration. We did look at this carefully and  we were aware that it would cause some grief for the physicists who are preparing an accreditation-ready dataset during the annual.  But the small amount of extra work is worth it.  And, our hope is that the ACR PET/Nukes physics committee will see the light and change accreditation submission directions (or just broaden them to allow either) .

The P/F criteria for the annual test BTW, is still +/- 10% but there's a recommendation to investigate the cause if it falls outside the +/- 5% range.

Matt Palmer

From: Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Dylan DeAngelis via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 12:40 PM
To: intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu
Subject: [External] [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR PET QC Manual Discrepancy

Good morning, I saw an email chain from earlier this month describing a discrepancy between NM QC manual and ACR website for image submission. In reviewing the new PET manual, my colleagues and I found a similar mismatch, and I'm wondering
Good morning,

I saw an email chain from earlier this month describing a discrepancy between NM QC manual and ACR website for image submission. In reviewing the new PET manual, my colleagues and I found a similar mismatch, and I'm wondering how others interpret this...

On the ACR webpage that details phantom testing, https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://accreditationsupport.acr.org/support/solutions/articles/11000062800-phantom-testing-pet-revised-10-23-2025-__;!!KGKeukY!0BtrYW2kb74gU-thCP9VwfmBoMSw5ZbNMJFt2PXRFqhxy_VvuOYbzzw72ZGRXebmgXRseqDIORiPMiiPglgOjWBGjYkcLh3BfBSIoWsW6kLyUWM$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/accreditationsupport.acr.org/support/solutions/articles/11000062800-phantom-testing-pet-revised-10-23-2025-__;!!KGKeukY!2B_SaoLiOmxgkrD2pZiXsX8iWJdmjJorE3R8OPYw-gqgZ8632rWlWt6zchEzI-9QoTyEOHVYxzeTCD0ZJAvwFzeuBp3uUNANbdIgtmr4ayGW$>, you are instructed to take your background SUV mean value from the "best 1 cm central slice (around the mid-point of the vials) of the hot cylinders...".

But in the SUV Accuracy test as outlined in the QC manual (starting on page 45), you are told to average three background values from three consecutive slices in the uniform section of the phantom. And this picture accompanies those instructions:

[cid:image001.png at 01DC690B.97258ED0]

I get the argument that the QC manual is for routine testing (acceptance, annual, etc.), while the webpage is showing what's needed for ACR submissions, but isn't it odd that we would evaluate the same parameter (background mean SUV) differently depending on whether it's an ACR survey versus annual?

There's also this text on page 47 of the manual: "For the purpose of accreditation submission, the ACR defines the acceptable background SUVmean range in the Program Requirements but for the purpose of the physicist's annual performance evaluation, background SUVmean should be between 0.95 and 1.05 (i.e. +/- 5%)." Is this an acknowledgment of the discrepancy?

What do others think?

Dylan DeAngelis, MS, DABR
NYS Licensed Medical Physicist
(Diagnostic Radiological Physics and Medical Nuclear Physics)

Upstate Medical Physics - Diagnostic Radiology, Medical Nuclear & Medical Health Physics, P.C.
W: 585-924-0350
C: 585-441-5096
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.upstatemp.com__;!!KGKeukY!0BtrYW2kb74gU-thCP9VwfmBoMSw5ZbNMJFt2PXRFqhxy_VvuOYbzzw72ZGRXebmgXRseqDIORiPMiiPglgOjWBGjYkcLh3BfBSIoWsWP6yc5bs$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.upstatemp.com/__;!!KGKeukY!2B_SaoLiOmxgkrD2pZiXsX8iWJdmjJorE3R8OPYw-gqgZ8632rWlWt6zchEzI-9QoTyEOHVYxzeTCD0ZJAvwFzeuBp3uUNANbdIgtvEBZF5x$>

Click here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ws.onehub.com/signin__;!!KGKeukY!2B_SaoLiOmxgkrD2pZiXsX8iWJdmjJorE3R8OPYw-gqgZ8632rWlWt6zchEzI-9QoTyEOHVYxzeTCD0ZJAvwFzeuBp3uUNANbdIgtomYVPqQ$> for Credentials (Login & Password required)
Click here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.upstatemp.com/calibration-records/__;!!KGKeukY!2B_SaoLiOmxgkrD2pZiXsX8iWJdmjJorE3R8OPYw-gqgZ8632rWlWt6zchEzI-9QoTyEOHVYxzeTCD0ZJAvwFzeuBp3uUNANbdIgtvZ6axkp$> for Equipment Calibration Records

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: This message is intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, your use of this message for any purpose is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please delete the message and notify the sender so that we may correct our records. See our web page at https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.bilh.org__;!!KGKeukY!0BtrYW2kb74gU-thCP9VwfmBoMSw5ZbNMJFt2PXRFqhxy_VvuOYbzzw72ZGRXebmgXRseqDIORiPMiiPglgOjWBGjYkcLh3BfBSIoWsW7yaTAYA$  for a full directory of Beth Israel Lahey Health sites, staff, services and career opportunities.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/private/intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list/attachments/20251209/902fa37a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 157324 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.osu.edu/mailman/private/intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list/attachments/20251209/902fa37a/attachment.png>