Rad Tech Minutes 2008.10.01

From IHE Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Attendees

  • David Clunie - RadPharm
  • Paul Seifert - Agfa
  • Kevin O'Donnell - Toshiba
  • Chris Lindop - GE
  • Peter Mildenberger, MD - DRG
  • Jerry Wallis, MD - SNM
  • Lynn Felhofer - Technical Project Mgr.
  • Chris Carr - RSNA
  • Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA

Minutes

Technical Review of Image Sharing Profile Detailed Proposals

1) XDS-I_Using_XDS.b_Technology - Detailed Proposal: Paul Seifert

  • Agreement on Summary and Problem Statement: impetus to update XDS.a-based provide and register transactions with XDS.b transactions
  • Absence of specific guidance about XDS-I/XDS.b makes it impossible to test or claim compliance
  • Consumer actor is required to support either or both DICOM SCU/SCP and WADO retrieve (integration statement does not indicate which capability system implements)
  • Risk
  • Development by DICOM WG10 of new DICOM Web Services transfer protocols may require further update to profile
  • Open Issues
  • Is it possible to avoid building in interoperability failures and invalidating existing implementations?
  • Can these capabilities by added via CP instead of supplement?
  • Timing issues: needs to be implemented quickly if it is to be of any use
  • If it requires a supplement, can it be fast-tracked to allow 2009 deployment
  • Can we make it possible to test XDS.b at 2009 Connectathons?
  • Would need to inform participants and group together those willing to test this
  • Need to review XDS-I metadata, which differs from XDS, and any changes required to upgrade
  • Technical Proj Mgrs would have to develop specific testing requirements and plan: could add option ad hoc testing for XDS-I participants willing to try with XDS.b provide and register
  • Participants willing to do XDS.b of XDS-I have already implemented XDS.a version
  • Without way of publishing test results, there would be little incentive for vendors to go through the effort
  • Need to carefully review the specific text changes proposed to understand their impact on compatibility
  • Action Item: Chris Lindop will gather input from Canada Health Infoway about moving XDS-I from XDS.a to XDS.b
  • Action Item: Gather input from ITI about XDS Roadmap and how to coordinate
  • Effort Estimate (percentage of available Technical Committee bandwidth)
  • Preliminary estimate could not be agreed on; to be addressed on 2008-10-09 tcon


2) PDI Extensions: David Clunie

  • David Clunie updated proposal based on input by committee
  • Proposal was written up as detailed draft in 2007 but not taken up by committee
  • Scope
  • Excludes use of MPEG
  • Requires harmonization with other domains (Cardiology, Eye Care, Rad Onc)
  • Risks
  • Support for lossy compression is controversial, can lead to abuse
  • Compression schemes: necessary, but raises bar and introduces controversy (eg, JPEG2000)
  • Open Issues
  • Security: rule out of scope initially; phase in later per user demand?
  • Effort Estimate (percentage of available Technical Committee bandwidth)
  • 15%


3) Basic Image Review: Kevin O'Donnell

  • Kevin O'Donnell updated proposal based on input by committee
  • Agreement on Summary and Problem statement
  • Difficult issues in Key Use Cases impact difficulty of implementation by vendors:
  • Comparison of series
  • Localization of currently displayed image on orthogonal image
  • Display of laterality of sagittal images (as distinct from orientation of image)
  • Technical Approach is
  • Mainly adds functionality to Image Display actor
  • Scope of viewer capabilities to display complex modality images (eg, Nuc Med, ultrasound in scope?)
  • Need to get input requirements from primary care physicians (neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, etc): adds significantly to development workload
  • List of candidate organizations and individuals to invite to meetings included in proposal
  • Timeline goal is to be prepared for demonstration at AMA in April 2009
  • Risks
  • Difficulty of sufficiently engaging clinicians and vendors: need to work to get AMA Cmte, MITA Cmte and DICOM subcommittee, as well as DRG and RANZCR
  • Work on getting input from referring physicians in US, Europe and Japan
  • Need to define how evaluation will take place: objective criteria vs. judgment; clinical domain experts to be used as judges
  • Action Item: RSNA will engage Media Creator vendors (and any vendors who develop image viewers for them)
  • Open Issues
  • Reporting should be kept out of scope: too large an issue in itself
  • Effort Estimate (percentage of available Technical Committee bandwidth)
  • 40%


4) Deferred to Oct. 9 Tcon:

a. XCA-I: Chris Lindop will contact Claudio Saccavini to review initial draft developed by Kevin O'Donnell
b. Image Management Enhancements: Chris Carr will contact Dave Heaney and request that he develop detailed version
c. SWFII - Phase 2: Chris Lindop will develop scoped down version


5) Next tcons:

  • New: Oct. 9, 10:00am - 12:00pm: Review remaining detailed proposals and provide effort estimates
  • Oct. 13, 9-11am CDT Technical Review of Enhanced DICOM Objects Profile and other Detailed Proposals
  • Oct. 22, Planning Committee Call to select profile list
  • Nov. 10-13, Face-to-face Meeting (RSNA HQ) to begin profile development



Radiology Technical Committee