PERF Evaluation

CT/MR Perfusion Imaging with Contrast (PERF) Final Text Evaluation

Reviewed by IHE RAD Tech on April 3, 2025:

Proposal

The CT/MR Perfusion Imaging with Contrast profile has been nominated for advancement to Final Text. (Advocate: Wim Corbijn)

Technical Committee Checklist

• Are all significant CPs against the profile "closed"?
  • Currently no active CPs

• Are all significant CPs against the underlying standards "closed"?
  • Currently no active CPs. DICOM has been checked.

• Have all significant comments been CP'd or rejected?
  • No open comments identified

• Have all open issues listed in the Supplement been closed?
  • No open issues, all issues are closed.

• Have all significant issues at Connectathon been dealt with?
  • not aware of any issues left from the Connectathons.

• Feedback from implementers.
  • No further feedback identified. Latest testing done in 2014 and 2017 Connectathons.

• Has the Connectathon Project Manager been queried and significant issues addressed?
  • Yes

Technical Committee Consensus

• Acknowledging that there has been no CT modality that has tested at a Connectathon, RAD Tech discussed whether to drop CT from the profile. We discussed whether there are differences in the imaging technique between CT and MR that affect encoding the images in different ways. The Image Display is also a significant part of the profile. Because the content of the objects for proper support of perfusion on the Image Display so we expect that an Image Display would be able to handle either CT or MR perfusion.

Decision to recommend for promotion of the PERF Profile to Final Text

Planning Committee Checklist

• Has the profile been through a Connectathon in at least two regions?

• No. North America only. RAD Tech discussed and decided that this is not a barrier to FT because it was fully tested in NA and we don't expect regional variations in implementations for this profile. 10+ years have passed and we don't expect additional testing.

• Has the profile been successfully tested with all actors at least at one Connectathon?

• Yes. NA Connectathon 2014

• Have different implementations of each actor in the profile been tested?

• Modality: Hitachi MR, Philips MR
  • Note: No CT modality has tested PERF at a Connectathon
• Image Display: GE
• Image Manager: Karos, Dell, Tiani-Spirit

• Have all the options been tested successfully at at least one Connectathon?

• Profile does not define any options

• Are there IHE-provided software testing tools to address all aspects of the profile?

• No
• TO DO: Lynn to determine whether any test images exist; unlikely since testing was long ago. Wim indicated that Philips could produce these. Perhaps Sharazone is a source

• Have the standards underlying the profile (DICOM) been implemented? In similar use cases? In healthcare? In general IT?

• Yes

• (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?)

• Philips, GE, and Siemens have this as standard functionality in their MR products.

• Have all issues that may have been raised about the profile been resolved?

• Yes

• Has there been sufficient interest in the profile to generate a one-page overview of the profile

• Yes: https://wiki.ihe.net/index.php/CT/MR_Perfusion_Imaging