DBT Extension Evaluation

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?

• The DBT Extension focuses on support of the Breast Projection

• 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
• 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.

• 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.

• Gather feedback from implementers via a formal questionnaire to Connectathon participants

• See above

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

• See above

Technical Committee Consensus

• The Technical Committee consensus pending

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?

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

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

• Evaluation of options

• 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 number of vendors in this area.

• (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.

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

No issues have been raised

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