Presentation of CAD/Annotations/Markups - Detailed Proposal

1. Proposed Workitem:

• Proposal Editor: Michael Planchart/Peter Maton
• Profile Editor:
• Domain: Radiology

Summary

<Summarize in a few lines the existing problem . E.g. "It is difficult to monitor radiation dose for individual patients and almost impossible to assemble and compare such statistics for a site or a population.">

<Demonstrate in a line or two that the key integration features are available in existing standards. E.g. "DICOM has an SR format for radiation dose events and a protocol for exchanging them.">

<Summarize in a few lines how the problem could be solved. E.g. "A Radiation Dose profile could require compliant radiating devices to produce such reports and could define transactions to actors that collect, analyze and present such information.">

<Summarize in a line or two market interest & available resources. E.g. "Euratom and ACR have published guidelines requiring/encouraging dose tracking. Individuals from SFR are willing to participate in Profile development.">

<Summarize in a line or two why IHE would be a good venue to solve the problem. E.g. "The main challenges are dealing with the chicken-and-egg problem and avoiding inconsistent implementations.">

2. The Problem

CAD and clinical processing applications create processed images with annotations/markups. Different products are using different mechanisms for the markup, e.g.:

• burned into the DICOM image,

• encoded in the image overlay,

• encoded in separate presentation state graphics,

• encoded in a separate SR,

• rendered onto the image in a separate JPEG

With so many mechanisms, display systems support some of them poorly or not at all, so workflow is disrupted and key information may be inaccessible. The variability also makes it very difficult to create robust hanging protocols.

Of all the methods available the DICOM Structured Report (SR) is the preferred one and by industry-wide consensus, to contain the encoded markups.

3. Key Use Cases

• DR/CR Chest X-Ray Lung CAD:

Chest X-Ray Lung CAD devices process the digital images of AP/PA projections (frontal chest) obtained from the DR/CR modalities in order to detect nodules or abnormalities and to identify and mark the coordinates of the regions of interest (ROI).

The CAD processed output shall be delivered as a DICOM Chest CAD SR SOP Class to the PACS server.

The PACS image viewing workstation shall provide the means of toggling on off the markers atop the source image. The markers should be off by default on the PACS viewing workstation. The SR should be independently toggled from other overlays.

4. Standards & Systems

• DICOM – Chest CAD SR SOP Class

5. Technical Approach

<This section can be very short but include as much detail as you like. The Technical Committee will flesh it out when doing the effort estimation.>

<Outline how the standards could be used/refined to solve the problems in the Use Cases. The Technical Committee will be responsible for the full design and may choose to take a different approach, but a sample design is a good indication of feasibility.>

<If a phased approach would make sense indicate some logical phases. This may be because standards are evolving, because the problem is too big to solve at once, or because there are unknowns that won’t be resolved soon.>

Existing actors

<Indicate what existing actors could be used or might be affected by the profile.>

New actors

<List possible new actors>

Existing transactions

<Indicate how existing transactions might be used or might need to be extended.>

New transactions (standards used)

<Describe possible new transactions (indicating what standards would likely be used for each. Transaction diagrams are very helpful here. Feel free to go into as much detail as seems useful.>

Impact on existing integration profiles

<Indicate how existing profiles might need to be modified.>

New integration profiles needed

<Indicate what new profile(s) might need to be created.>

Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished

<A list of tasks would be helpful for the technical committee who will have to estimate the effort required to design, review and implement the profile.>

6. Support & Resources

<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>

7. Risks

<List technical or political risks that will need to be considered to successfully field the profile.>

8. Open Issues

<Point out any key issues or design problems. This will be helpful for estimating the amount of work and demonstrates thought has already gone into the candidate profile.>

9. Tech Cmte Evaluation

<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>

Effort Evaluation (as a % of Tech Cmte Bandwidth):

• 35% for ...

Responses to Issues:

See italics in Risk and Open Issue sections

Candidate Editor:

TBA