[Intl_DxMedPhys] [EXTERNAL] Re: ACR CT test question

Wed Sep 16 17:04:26 EDT 2026

Hi Everyone,

I will humbly state that I think some folks are overthinking this.  As has
been pointed out, the range of WED in the abdominal area is huge; output is
exponentially related to patient size; and the ACR is asking for a single
CTDI number that will never represent the full range of CTDI values that
could be used in a protocol.  In a time and resource-constrained system,
using a representative number of patient exams to estimate an average
technique is perfectly acceptable.  If a facility has additional resources
and access to better data, great!  The accreditation program doesn't
require that level of detailed analysis to get to an average technique, but
if you want to do that, by all means, do it.  I don't want the ACR saying
that there's one right way to find an average technique.  We should use
whatever tools are available to us and our professional judgement

The question of what to do for new systems is a good one.  Particularly for
new technology (new recon methods, photon counting, dual energy, etc.),
this obviously presents challenges to figuring out average techniques when
you're doing an acceptance test.  This is where I think this listserv
should be and is a very helpful resource.  Except for a very few sites that
are research centers for the major vendors, there's almost always someone
who reads this listserv who already has that scanner and has implemented
successful protocols.  Reach out and figure out their protocols.
Acceptance testing, by definition, should be more thorough than annual
testing, so maybe testing various protocols to find the techniques that
will achieve acceptable CNR would be a good idea.  If we're able to verify
that the reported CTDI is accurate, then we could spend more time figuring
out how changes in technique factors impact image quality on any particular
scanner and then review clinical exams to make sure that the dose ranges
and image quality are acceptable.

One more thing I'll say about the ACR accreditation process, and this isn't
a secret but isn't shouted from the rooftops:  the clinical images that are
submitted are not cross-checked against the phantom techniques.  The ACR
gives physicists the benefit of the doubt that the techniques we list in
the phantom data form are representative of the clinical protocols.

Tyler Fisher
Therapy Physics, Inc.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 9:43 AM Douglas Pfeiffer <xraydoug at me.com> wrote:

> The CNR values in the manual were developed using clinical techniques on
> the phantom, 70 kg-ish adult abdomen and 20 kg-ish ped abdomen. The phantom
> was predetermined, so the CNR values came from scanning that fixed phantom
> with cllnical techniques. So, no, you don’t want to scale the mAs down.
>
> Best regards,
> Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Pfeiffer, MS, DABR FACR, FAAPM (he/him)
> Medical Physicist, Radiation Safety Officer
> Boulder Community Health
> xraydoug at me.com
> 303.415.7515 <(303)%20415-7515>
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
> The opinions expressed in this message are the product of the gray and
> white matter loitering in my cranium. I speak for myself and no one else,
> unless I say otherwise.
>
> On Sep 16, 2026, at 10:35 AM, Januseski, Daniel via
> Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> This message was sent securely using Zix®
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.zixcorp.com/get-started/__;!!KGKeukY!3eV4_Vje7O0HZNPqkqWjIZEZwMWKVJwuTcUqKKARAM-q00Xn7ume1fSiahNDdFV1r2ze3zZX930Irql6Qj1QrDEeo7tUxbl02L7_VIiMMs8$>
> I had struggled a while with this very question as trying to find the
> average patient from some recent scans did not seem very representative at
> all.  The comments I agree with that each health system has a different
> “average” patient.  So I moved to using DMS data by looking at the WED
> (water-equivalent diameter) vs. modulated output.  The data was restricted
> to the WED for which our medium abdomen protocols were set (we have mainly
> GE scanners and use sm/med/lg auto modulated protocols to compensate for
> extreme body types), which include diameters from 25 – 32 cm.
>
> Six months of data is analyzed, about 10,000 exams, and the mean and
> median patient weight for this sample is always around 70-74 kg.  So I felt
> pretty good that this was our “average” patient.  The corresponding mAs
> values are then used for the CTDI phantom test and image quality test.  It
> has also helped to properly set the manual backup techniques, which I
> usually pick the 75%ile values because there is enough dose headroom to
> stay under the DRL and guarantee decent image quality for patients at the
> extreme of the size limit.  The small and large protocols are then adjusted
> by noise index from these data.  So far, unless I am missing something
> fundamental, out DIR results have been very decent and I believe this is a
> representative sample of our average patients.
>
> One caveat I do see, though, is that our average patient is bigger than
> the ACR phantom by maybe 6-8 cm, and so the image quality result is
> overstated.  Would it be more appropriate to scale the test mAs down from
> our 27cm “average” patient dose to the 20cm ACR phantom and see if the CNR
> is still acceptable?
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> *Daniel J. Januseski, M.S., DABR*
> *Director, Department of Diagnostic Imaging Physics*
> *Radiation Safety Officer*
> *(856) 247-4436 <(856)%20247-4436> | f (856) 247-2819 <(856)%20247-2819>*
> *djanuseski at virtua.org <djanuseski at virtua.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces+djanuseski=virtua.org at lists.osu.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Donna Davis-Urgo via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2026 12:06 PM
> *To:* 'Bob Kobistek' <bob at rjkmedphys.com>; 'Tyler Fisher' <
> sdtyler at gmail.com>; 'Matt Wait' <Matt.Wait at kp.org>
> *Cc:* 'DxMedPhys List' <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR CT test question
>
> **WARNING** This email did* NOT* originate from inside Virtua.
> Please *STOP* and *ANALYZE* before opening attachments, clicking on
> links, or providing any information.
>
> Just as the average BMI could be larger at a given facility, so can the
> amount of pediatrics patients in the targeted weight/age range. Many times,
> facilities might only do a handful of these pediatric exam types/ages a
> year (and need to substitute
> Just as the average BMI could be larger at a given facility, so can the
> amount of pediatrics patients in the targeted weight/age range. Many times,
> facilities might only do a handful of these pediatric exam types/ages a
> year (and need to substitute
> Just as the average BMI could be larger at a given facility, so can the
> amount of pediatrics patients in the targeted weight/age range.  Many
> times, facilities might only do a handful of these pediatric exam
> types/ages a year (and need to substitute another type of clinical exam or
> an older patient when the accreditation comes up).
>
> Donna Davis-Urgo, One Physics
>
> *From:* Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces+murgo571=verizon.net at lists.osu.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Bob Kobistek via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2026 10:23 AM
> *To:* Tyler Fisher <sdtyler at gmail.com>; Matt Wait <Matt.Wait at kp.org>
> *Cc:* DxMedPhys List <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR CT test question
>
> The downside I see with basing the phantom scans on the “average” patient
> drawn from the institutions patient population is that if the average for
> the local population does not align with whatever the ACR considers
> average, then pass / fail
> The downside I see with basing the phantom scans on the “average” patient
> drawn from the institutions patient population is that if the average for
> the local population does not align with whatever the ACR considers
> average, then pass / fail criteria would not be appropriate for that
> institution. I used to consult in rural West Virginia where the average
> patient would be heavy when compared to most other definitions of average.
> So if a higher CTDIvol is needed to produce acceptable image quality in
> this high-BMI population, the facility may fail if the CTDIvol is above the
> failure limit. The flip side to that is that the standard ACR image quality
> phantom was designed with a specific body model in mind. A high BMI
> population would lead to the use of increased mAs or mAs and kV combination
> when scanning the phantom, which would result in image quality scores that
> do not represent the image quality of the clinical scans.
>
>
> Robert J. Kobistek, MS, FACR, DABR, MRSE(MRSC™)
> Medical Physicist
> RJK Medical Physics, Inc.
> 440-463-7879 <(440)%20463-7879>
>
> *From:* Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces+bob=rjkmedphys.com at lists.osu.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Tyler Fisher via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 15, 2026 1:36 PM
> *To:* Matt Wait <Matt.Wait at kp.org>
> *Cc:* DxMedPhys List <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR CT test question
>
> Hi Everyone, This has been a very good discussion. I'll add my two cents
> but also state up-front that I am the current chair of the ACR CT Physics
> Accreditation Sub-Committee, so there may be a pro-ACR bias coming through.
> In general, the
> Hi Everyone,
> This has been a very good discussion.  I'll add my two cents but also
> state up-front that I am the current chair of the ACR CT Physics
> Accreditation Sub-Committee, so there may be a pro-ACR bias coming
> through.
>
> In general, the ACR technical standards, QC Manuals, and Accreditation
> program requirements are overlapping but independent.  The QC manuals are
> assembled and maintained by ACR staff and committees of volunteer members
> who represent the accreditation programs and other stakeholders.  Slight
> variations in language or specifics like this are to be expected.
>
> The intent of the "average-sized" language in the accreditation program,
> as I interpret it, is site and scanner specific.  When I test a CT system,
> I will look through the patients scanned recently for what I think is their
> standard adult abdomen protocol.  I check the scout first to make sure
> they're not tiny or bariatric, then I'll scroll through the primary axial
> images until I get to mid-liver and record the mA.  I'll take an average of
> 6 or 8 patients.  I don't look at patient sex or age.  If a site has
> additional data (ACR DIR or dose-tracking software) that will give me
> techniques for an average-sized patient, I'll use that, but more often than
> not, the sites that I visit do not.  This method would be more accurate
> than my average of 6 or 8 scans, but I think we have to remember that the
> majority of scanners in the country aren't being monitored like this.  The
> ACR would love for everyone to participate in the ACR DIR, but this is not
> a requirement for accreditation.  Also, we're measuring and reporting a
> single CTDI value for a protocol whose standard deviation of CTDI values is
> huge.
>
> For new scanners, Scott's suggested methods all seem reasonable.  I tend
> to take my knowledge of similar (or exactly the same make/model) scanners,
> the site's standard protocols for other scanners if available, default
> protocols, and my own personal expertise to come up with an average
> technique.  I will note in my report that the protocols tested may not
> match the clinical protocols established during applications training and
> the next time I lay hands on that scanner, I'm going to closely review what
> they're actually doing.  Also, I'll make sure at acceptance testing that
> the reported CTDI values match what I measure, so that if the protocols are
> different than what I tested, at least they'll know that the doses are
> accurate.
>
> The discussion about finding a "21 or 23 cm effective diameter patient" to
> set as the "average-patient" is wrong.  The "DFOV close to 21 cm" is
> strictly based on the size of the image quality phantom - it has nothing to
> do with an average patient.  If the image quality phantom was 30 cm
> diameter, we'd tell you to scan with a DFOV close to 31 cm.
>
> Last thing I'll say is this:  The ACR believes that qualified diagnostic
> medical physicists have the expertise and integrity to perform quality
> medical physics testing on scanners.  Can someone iteratively increase dose
> to get CNR to pass?  Of course.  Can we cheat the average technique down to
> make sure that we're within the dose thresholds?  Sure.  The accreditation
> programs work on the assumption that we're all doing our best.  The
> programs try to balance being overly prescriptive on how to do every single
> test vs. allowing physicists free-reign to do whatever we want.  Over 25
> years of the CT accreditation program, I think we've gotten pretty close to
> the right balance, but as the chair, I'm open to suggestions of how we can
> improve.
>
> Thanks.
> Tyler Fisher
> Therapy Physics, Inc.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 1:53 PM Matt Wait via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:
>
> To clarify: I had been going on the assumption that 70 kg correlated with
> a patient with an abdomen of about 21 cm in diameter. Maybe I had gotten it
> mixed up with the phantom diameter somewhere down the line. The point is, I
> don't really have
> To clarify: I had been going on the assumption that 70 kg correlated with
> a patient with an abdomen of about 21 cm in diameter. Maybe I had gotten it
> mixed up with the phantom diameter somewhere down the line.
>
> The point is, I don't really have any idea what the abdomen of a 70 kg
> patient "looks like". It would be much easier to have a rough estimate of
> an abdomen diameter range to use.
>
> *Matt Wait, MS, DABR, DABSNM, MRSE*
> Senior Diagnostic Physicist
> Associate Radiation Safety Officer
> Assistant Residency Director
> *Kaiser Permanente*
> *Southern Permanente Medical Group*
> Medical Imaging Technology and Informatics
> 4867 Sunset Blvd
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> Los Angeles, CA 90027
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> x5347 (office
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> )
> (818) 232-2427 (mobile phone)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Douglas Pfeiffer <xraydoug at me.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2026 1:47 PM
> *To:* Matt Wait <Matt.Wait at kp.org>
> *Cc:* DxMedPhys List <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>; Bob
> Kobistek <bob at rjkmedphys.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR CT test question
>
> The 21 cm DFOV is to make it easier to analyze - nothing to do with
> patient size. It doesn’t impact dose in any way. Using a small Scan FOV is
> to reduce non-uniformities due to the bowtie not being matched to the
> object size on some scanners.
>
> Best regards,
> Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Pfeiffer, MS, DABR FACR, FAAPM (he/him)
> Medical Physicist, Radiation Safety Officer
> Boulder Community Health
> xraydoug at me.com
> 303.415.7515 <(303)%20415-7515>
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
> The opinions expressed in this message are the product of the gray and
> white matter loitering in my cranium. I speak for myself and no one else,
> unless I say otherwise.
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2026, at 2:42 PM, Matt Wait <Matt.Wait at kp.org> wrote:
>
> That's good to hear, that's the practice I've been using. But I have never
> found a good reference for correlating the abdomen diameter (21 cm?) with
> 70 kg.
>
> *Matt Wait, MS, DABR, DABSNM, MRSE*
> Senior Diagnostic Physicist
> Associate Radiation Safety Officer
> Assistant Residency Director
> *Kaiser Permanente*
> *Southern Permanente Medical Group*
> Medical Imaging Technology and Informatics
> 4867 Sunset Blvd
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> Los Angeles, CA 90027
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> x5347 (office
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> )
> (818) 232-2427 (mobile phone)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Douglas Pfeiffer <xraydoug at me.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2026 1:35 PM
> *To:* Matt Wait <Matt.Wait at kp.org>
> *Cc:* DxMedPhys List <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>; Bob
> Kobistek <bob at rjkmedphys.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR CT test question
>
> Going through the list of scanned patients on the scanner and looking for
> abdomens that look about the right size, and looking at the mA at mid-liver
> (belly button-ish).
>
> Best regards,
> Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Pfeiffer, MS, DABR FACR, FAAPM (he/him)
> Medical Physicist, Radiation Safety Officer
> Boulder Community Health
> xraydoug at me.com
> 303.415.7515 <(303)%20415-7515>
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
> The opinions expressed in this message are the product of the gray and
> white matter loitering in my cranium. I speak for myself and no one else,
> unless I say otherwise.
>
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2026, at 2:16 PM, Matt Wait <Matt.Wait at kp.org> wrote:
>
> Doug, how did you envision determining the automatic tube current
> selection for Standard Man?
>
> *Matt Wait, MS, DABR, DABSNM, MRSE*
> Senior Diagnostic Physicist
> Associate Radiation Safety Officer
> Assistant Residency Director
> *Kaiser Permanente*
> *Southern Permanente Medical Group*
> Medical Imaging Technology and Informatics
> 4867 Sunset Blvd
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> Los Angeles, CA 90027
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> x5347 (office
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4867*Sunset*Blvd**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Los*Angeles,*CA*90027**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*x5347*(office?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrKysrKyUlKyUlKys!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNp2uhMtA$>
> )
> (818) 232-2427 (mobile phone)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces+matt.wait=kp.org at lists.osu.edu> on
> behalf of Douglas Pfeiffer via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 14, 2026 1:12 PM
> *To:* Bob Kobistek <bob at rjkmedphys.com>
> *Cc:* DxMedPhys List <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR CT test question
>
> *Caution: *This email came from outside Kaiser Permanente. Do not open
> attachments or click on links if you do not recognize the sender.
> ------------------------------
> For what it’s worth now, the intent when I was working on the manual was
> Standard Man (i.e., 70 kg). It was an unfortunate oversight on my part that
> I did not catch that and state it explicitly way back when. I’m not sure
> what is assumed now by the ACR, but that was the original thinking.
>
> Best regards,
> Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Pfeiffer, MS, DABR FACR, FAAPM (he/him)
> Medical Physicist, Radiation Safety Officer
> Boulder Community Health
> xraydoug at me.com
> 303.415.7515 <(303)%20415-7515>
>
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>
> The opinions expressed in this message are the product of the gray and
> white matter loitering in my cranium. I speak for myself and no one else,
> unless I say otherwise.
>
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2026, at 1:45 PM, Bob Kobistek via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I also beat my head against a wall searching for answers to these
> questions when the ACR CT accreditation program was started. I stopped
> overthinking it, and now I pretty much wing it.
>
> For average size patient, I look through patient scans to find one with an
> A-P dimension through the abdomen of around 23 cm. If I can find more than
> one (hard to find nowadays), I’ll toss out the outliers and take an average
> of the mAs values.
>
> For new scanners I use nearly all the options you presented. If it’s a
> scanner with a similar model in use at the facility, I refer to patients
> scanned on the existing scanners. If it’s a scanner that I see at other
> facilities, I’ll make adjustments for differences in protocols and use
> that. If it’s a scanner I’ve never seen before, I’ll pull up the
> manufacturer’s suggested protocols and take a guess at the mAs when TCM is
> used. If I use the second or third option, I’ll take a look at patient
> scans once the scanner has been operating for a few weeks. If I can make
> adjustments to my measurements based on the clinical data, I will. If I
> have to, I’ll repeat the measurements using the clinical protocols. If the
> site is going to be ACR accredited I will always make a second trip so I
> can use the actual protocols and clinical mAs values for accreditation, not
> matter which of the three options above that I use.
>
> There is very little guidance on how to chose mAs (and kVp when
> applicable) for automated technique selection. So we use out best judgment.
>
>
> Robert J. Kobistek, MS, FACR, DABR, MRSE(MRSC™)
> Medical Physicist
> RJK Medical Physics, Inc.
> 440-463-7879 <(440)%20463-7879>
>
> *From:* Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <
> intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu> *On Behalf Of *David S.
> Winter via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
> *Sent:* Monday, September 7, 2026 4:02 PM
> *To:* DxMedPhys List <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
> *Subject:* [Intl_DxMedPhys] ACR CT test question
>
> All, I apologize as this has no doubt been discussed in the past, but I
> have a two part inquiry related to ACR CT testing. I am happy to clarify
> directly with the ACR, but I figured I would touch base with this forum
> first. (Especially since
> All,
>
> I apologize as this has no doubt been discussed in the past, but I have a
> two part inquiry related to ACR CT testing. I am happy to clarify directly
> with the ACR, but I figured I would touch base with this forum first.
> (Especially since only part 1 would be good to ask the ACR directly.)
>
> Part 1:  The ACR’s scanning instructions webpage and the CT QC manual both
> give a weight range for the pediatric abdominal exam of 40-50lbs, but only
> the QC manual has a weight for the adult abdomen (i.e. 70 kg, ~154 lbs).
> The webpage merely says “average sized patient”. The exclusion of the 70 kg
> reference could be an accidental omission, but that requires the same
> omission to have been repeated in multiple different locations on their
> webpage.
>
> “Average sized” could be interpreted to mean average across the entire US
> population, the region a CT scanner is in, or the specific patient
> population a specific CT scanner sees (which could be massively different
> if the scanner is the go-to scanner for bariatric patients.) The CDC says
> the current adult average weights are 199 lbs for men and 171.8 lbs for
> women. (Both significantly more than 154). In addition, the ACR’s mandatory
> dose calculation sheet calculates the adult abdomen SSDE for a 35 cm water
> equivalent diameter. While you can’t exactly convert abdominal water
> equivalent diameter to a patient weight, that value would likely correspond
> to a patient significantly heavier than 154 lbs.
>
> Has anyone specifically seen anything that dictates which is definitively
> correct for determining what techniques to set, and by extension, determine
> whether or not the scanner is really passing the CNR test?
>
> Part 2: In practice, I am curious how people are determining the mA that
> CT scanners are selecting for the “average”, particularly for brand new
> scanners without much/any historic patient data. I can imagine four
> different general approaches. 1) Analysis of historical data aggregated by
> a dose metric monitoring system like Radimetrics. 2) Manually looking for a
> few historical patients that look to be roughly “average size” and then
> averaging the mA from a representative slice from a few of those studies.
> 3) For new systems, using values from a similar system with similar
> settings. 4) Conducting scans of a standard (e.g. their CTDI phantom),
> seeing what the CT scanner picks for mA, and then applying a scaling factor
> to that mA to adjust for the size difference.
>
> Sincerely,
> Scott
>
> *D. SCOTT WINTER*
> **********
> *CHIEF DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL PHYSICIST*
> O:
> 228-865-3475
> 4500
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
>  13th
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
>  St
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
> ,
> Gulfport
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
> ,
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
>
> MS
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
> ,
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
>
> 39501
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
> <image001.gif>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wearememorial.com/__;!!KGKeukY!2MSmyveKKzGn4EYDtlECE0uHMzo9qICIABIb_AilEMGb_zQ1uA7SIMU5B_TVMuEa8DaUCdbH70xPaPjVYos6Dt0dayhOFYF5vxZV$>
> *WeAreMemorial.com*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.wearememorial.com/__;!!KGKeukY!2MSmyveKKzGn4EYDtlECE0uHMzo9qICIABIb_AilEMGb_zQ1uA7SIMU5B_TVMuEa8DaUCdbH70xPaPjVYos6Dt0dayhOFYF5vxZV$>
> *|*
> *Facebook*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/MemorialHospitalMS/__;!!KGKeukY!2MSmyveKKzGn4EYDtlECE0uHMzo9qICIABIb_AilEMGb_zQ1uA7SIMU5B_TVMuEa8DaUCdbH70xPaPjVYos6Dt0dayhOFdPd1EsI$>
> *|*
> *YouTube*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/user/gulfportmemorial__;!!KGKeukY!2MSmyveKKzGn4EYDtlECE0uHMzo9qICIABIb_AilEMGb_zQ1uA7SIMU5B_TVMuEa8DaUCdbH70xPaPjVYos6Dt0dayhOFUp5zZIl$>
> *|*
> *LinkedIn*
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/company/memorial-hospital-at-gulfport__;!!KGKeukY!2MSmyveKKzGn4EYDtlECE0uHMzo9qICIABIb_AilEMGb_zQ1uA7SIMU5B_TVMuEa8DaUCdbH70xPaPjVYos6Dt0dayhOFbsk9WzQ$>
> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain PRIVILEGED or
> CONFIDENTIAL information and may be read or used only by the intended
> recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of the email or any of its
> attachments,
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/search/4500*13th*St**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*Gulfport**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*MS**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*,**A0D*0A**A0D*0A**A0D*0A*39501?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSsrJSUrJSUrJSUrKyUlKyUlKyUlKyslJSslJSslJSs!!KGKeukY!x0papCM_iTVWnSTQkMc_SHwci_FgU-ejRnjPVU_cgUbJqe-P2hx_f5xsdNZb_QTzWtxmZZ6JO-vfe_fkP6jHa56k6UJ_NeNUWk_9Hg$>
>  please be advised that you have received this email in error and that
> any use, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing, or copying of
> this email or any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this email in error, please immediately purge it and all
> attachments and notify the sender by reply email or contact the sender at
> the number listed.
>
>
> *NOTICE TO RECIPIENT:*  If you are not the intended recipient of this
> e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or
> disclosing its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this
> e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them.
> v.173.295  Thank you.
>
>
>
>
> This email message is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or
> entity, to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure under applicable
> law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please notify the sender immediately by telephone or return email, delete
> the message from your computer system, and return any hard copies to us at
> the following address 303 Lippincott Drive, Marlton, NJ 08053
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.google.com/maps/search/303*Lippincott*Drive,*Marlton,*NJ*08053?entry=gmail&source=g__;KysrKys!!KGKeukY!xEx2tbR91l4zqtDFgjrWzXMm7pTJFzYklMJ3MZSnKZcN68ZFHZ1QF8cY9SPNiEfGkZ7fHkGA7qPNgzDtcLQE1SLSw5cQDcTDQr-YdA$ >.
> Thank you.
>
> This message was secured by *Zix
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.zixcorp.com__;!!KGKeukY!3eV4_Vje7O0HZNPqkqWjIZEZwMWKVJwuTcUqKKARAM-q00Xn7ume1fSiahNDdFV1r2ze3zZX930Irql6Qj1QrDEeo7tUxbl02L7_DCVw_DQ$>®*
> .
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list/attachments/20260916/2b9711da/attachment.html>