DBT Extension Evaluation: Difference between revisions

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
:* There are no DBT Extension related CPs in DICOM
:* There are no DBT Extension related CPs in DICOM
* Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?  
* Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?  
:* The DBT Extension focuses on support of the Breast Projection
:* No significant comments about  DBT Extension were received
* Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
* Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
:* The first open issue can be closed, the supplement is aligned with DICOM CP 1342
:* Yes
:*<font color="blue">Open issue 2 (Should the Evidence Creator participate in the For Processing Breast Projection X-Ray Images Option? If so what transactions and functionality should it be required to support) is still open. However I recommend closing it based on the following reasons:
::* The current option text is written without involvement of the evidence creator actor and we have not received any feedback regarding this issue yet.
::* These images are generated at the Modality and are the original data, which are used to generate the DBT slices. There is no need for an evidence creator to be involved.
::* If this functionality should be needed later on, it can be added via the CP process, since it does not change any mandatory behaviour.
</font>
* Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?  
* Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?  
:* After checking with Lynn Felhofer and David Clunie, no issues have been raised at the Connectathon.
:* After checking with Lynn Felhofer, <font color="blue">the options introduced by this supplement have never been tested at connect-a-thon. However, as they are known to be used successfully in Real World, thus there is no reason to doubt their implementability</font>.
* Gather feedback from implementers via a [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Connectathon/IHE%20Vendor%20Questionnaire%20V0.4.doc formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants]
* Gather feedback from implementers via a [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Connectathon/IHE%20Vendor%20Questionnaire%20V0.4.doc formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants]
:* See above
:* Need to reach out directly to the vendors about existing and planned implementation to get evaluation of technical quality of the supplement.
* Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
* Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
:* See above
:* See above


== Technical Committee Consensus==
== Technical Committee Consensus==
:* The Technical Committee consensus pending
:* 2019-11-13. Vendors creating the DBT objects indicated that they either already create or intent to implement Breast Projection X-Ray Image Storage. The Technical Committee consensus: despite low participation in testing the options introduced by this supplement, there is little technical risk in these options, and the availability of the options will promote better interoperability.
Recommendation to promote to Final Text.


== Planning Committee Checklist ==
== Planning Committee Checklist ==


* Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
* Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
:*Yes (NA 2015 and 2016, and EU 2015 and 2016)
:*No
* Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
* Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
:*All major actors (Acquisition Modalities, Image Displays, Evidence Creators and Image Manager/Archives) have been tested. <font color="blue">However Print Composers and Servers have not been tested</font>
:*No
::*Acquisition Modalities: GE, Fuji, Siemens
::*Image Manager Archives: Agfa, GE, Dell, McKesson, Karos, Laitek, Visus, ...
::*Image Displays: Tiani, Sectra, McKesson, Siemens, ...
::*Evidence Creator: GE
:*<font color="blue"> Even though the printer actors have not been tested in the scope of the DBT profile, they have been tested in the context of the Mammo Image profile. The functionality for printing the two different object types (Mammography Image and For Breast Tomosynthesis Image SOP Instances) is mainly the same. Difference in requirements pertain only to different attribute locations from which certain information has to be obtained. Therefore I would suggest to keep the two printing related actors as part of this profile. </font>
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
* Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
:* Yes (see above)
:*No
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
* Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
:*<font color="blue">None of the options have been tested at the Connectathon. Options would be to either move them from the profile and get them in through CP later on if needed, or to keep them if functionality seems to be straight forward
:*No
:*Evaluation of options
:*Evaluation of options
::* Key Images option: This option is based on grouping with respective actors from the Key Image Note profile. The profile was frequently tested at Connectathons and the functionality is well understood. Therefore I would suggest to keep this option, since it does not impose any risks to keep it.
::*N/A
::* Media Creation option: This option is based on grouping with respective actors from the Portable Data for Imaging profile. The profile was frequently tested at Connectathons and the functionality is well understood. The only additional requirements include viewers on the media, however addition of viewers is optional behavior. Therefore I would suggest to keep this option.
::* User Annotation option: This option is based on grouping with respective actors from the Consistent Presentation of Images profile. The profile was frequently tested at Connectathons and the functionality is well understood. Therefore I would suggest to keep this option, since it does not impose any risks to keep it
::* Partial View option: This option has been available in the Mammo Image Profile. The functionality is the same, therefore I would suggest to keep the option for symmetry reasons.
::* For Processing and For Presentation Breast X-Ray Images options. These options define support (creation, storage and display) for two additional SOP classes, which is different from the other SOP classes, therefore I would suggest to remove them from the profile for now.
</font>
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
* Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
:* No specific test tools have been developed for the DBT profile, however existing tools are sufficient to cover the main aspects of the profile. Therefor this is not hindering, making the profile final text.
:* No specific test tools have been developed for the DBT Extension profile, however existing tools are sufficient to cover the main aspects of the profile. Therefor this is not hindering, making the profile final text.
* Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
* Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
:* The Breast Tomosynthesis Image Storage SOP Class has been supported by major vendors in this area.
:* The Breast Projection X-Ray Image Storage SOP Class has been supported by the limited number of vendors in this area.In particular, it is known that it has been implemented in production by Hologic Acquisition Modalities for appx. 24 month. There are number of vendors who are able to display these objects following the definitions of DBT profile, in existing implementations.
* (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
* (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
:* This profile is building upon the highly successful Mammography Image Profile and extends it to support Breast Tomosynthesis, which is gaining more and importance. Therefore it is assumed that the demand and support for this profile will increase.  
:* This introduces the option for the highly successful Digital Breast Tomosynthesys Profile and extends it to support Breast Projection X-Ray Image objects, that are routinely used in the interpretation of DBT studies. Until end of 2017, these objects were only available in proprietary format that could have been displayed only by the Image Displays from the same vendor..  
* Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
* Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
::: No issues have been raised
::: No issues have been raised
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
* Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page [[Profiles|overview of the profile]]
:::Yes, see [http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/Digital_Breast_Tomosynthesis DBT overview]
:* The two options introduced by this supplement - For Presentation Breast Projection X-Ray Images Option and For Processing Breast Projection X-Ray Images Option - will be included into the updated Overview of the DBT profile page.

Latest revision as of 14:26, 14 November 2019

Proposal

The Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Extension profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Andrei Leontiev) Per the Final Text Process, Items in blue text below warrant Committee discussion.

Technical Committee Checklist

  • Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
  • There are no open DBT Extension CPs
  • Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
  • There are no DBT Extension related CPs in DICOM
  • Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
  • No significant comments about DBT Extension were received
  • Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
  • Yes
  • Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
  • After checking with Lynn Felhofer, the options introduced by this supplement have never been tested at connect-a-thon. However, as they are known to be used successfully in Real World, thus there is no reason to doubt their implementability.
  • Need to reach out directly to the vendors about existing and planned implementation to get evaluation of technical quality of the supplement.
  • Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
  • See above

Technical Committee Consensus

  • 2019-11-13. Vendors creating the DBT objects indicated that they either already create or intent to implement Breast Projection X-Ray Image Storage. The Technical Committee consensus: despite low participation in testing the options introduced by this supplement, there is little technical risk in these options, and the availability of the options will promote better interoperability.

Recommendation to promote to Final Text.

Planning Committee Checklist

  • Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?
  • No
  • Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?
  • No
  • Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?
  • No
  • Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?
  • No
  • Evaluation of options
  • N/A
  • Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?
  • No specific test tools have been developed for the DBT Extension profile, however existing tools are sufficient to cover the main aspects of the profile. Therefor this is not hindering, making the profile final text.
  • Have the standards underlying the profile been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?
  • The Breast Projection X-Ray Image Storage SOP Class has been supported by the limited number of vendors in this area.In particular, it is known that it has been implemented in production by Hologic Acquisition Modalities for appx. 24 month. There are number of vendors who are able to display these objects following the definitions of DBT profile, in existing implementations.
  • (Do you have concrete reason to believe that this works robustly in the Real World) / (Are any products available for purchase that implement the profile?)
  • This introduces the option for the highly successful Digital Breast Tomosynthesys Profile and extends it to support Breast Projection X-Ray Image objects, that are routinely used in the interpretation of DBT studies. Until end of 2017, these objects were only available in proprietary format that could have been displayed only by the Image Displays from the same vendor..
  • Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?
No issues have been raised
  • The two options introduced by this supplement - For Presentation Breast Projection X-Ray Images Option and For Processing Breast Projection X-Ray Images Option - will be included into the updated Overview of the DBT profile page.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ihe.net/index.php?title=DBT_Extension_Evaluation&oldid=118779"