Difference between revisions of "Enhanced DICOM Objects - Detailed Proposal"
Dick Donker (talk | contribs) |
Dick Donker (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
* The use of a Supplemental Color LUT | * The use of a Supplemental Color LUT | ||
* The relevant attributes for display on a workstation | * The relevant attributes for display on a workstation | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
Line 98: | Line 86: | ||
Use as input the work that has been done for the enhanced CT/MR demonstration, and create new Modality Content profiles based on this existing work. | Use as input the work that has been done for the enhanced CT/MR demonstration, and create new Modality Content profiles based on this existing work. | ||
− | == | + | ==7. Support & Resources== |
''<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>'' | ''<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>'' | ||
− | == | + | ==8. Risks== |
− | + | The scope of the profile, i.e. the number of clinical use cases that should be covered, could grow to an unmanageable number. | |
+ | |||
+ | We may get no response from the clinical society or the vendors, because the large-scale implementation of the enhanced MR and CT objects still has to happen. | ||
+ | Answ: chicken/egg problem: some vendors wait for this profile. | ||
+ | |||
+ | How big is the danger of technical divergence of implementations? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==9. Open Issues== | ||
+ | The NEMA Committee for the Advancement of DICOM would like to organize a first informal testing of this profile with systems that envisage or already give support for enhanced CT and MR objects at the January 2007 connectathon. | ||
+ | Answ: we assume this NEMA desire is still valid for the 2009 connectathon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | We need to consider how this profile must be packaged, as a separate profile per modality, or per clinical scenario? | ||
+ | Answ: Another possibility might be the CPI-approach | ||
+ | |||
+ | Should we address enhanced XR at also at this moment in time” If not, how will an enhanced XR profile be added later? | ||
+ | Answ: seperate use case | ||
+ | |||
+ | How much clinician input is needed for defining the display requirements? | ||
+ | Answ: estimated required input is low. Use cases are pretty straight forward. | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | == | + | ==10. Tech Cmte Evaluation== |
''<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>'' | ''<The technical committee will use this area to record details of the effort estimation, etc.>'' |
Revision as of 16:14, 29 September 2008
1. Proposed Workitem: Enhanced DICOM Image Profile
- Proposal Editor: Dick Donker
- Editor: Dick Donker
- Date: 29 september 2008
- Domain: Radiology
2. Summary
The original DICOM cross-sectional and multi-frame projectional objects needed a significant revision because of technology advancements, and the introduction of new acquisition protocols for which there was no standard description.
DICOM has created a new "enhanced family" of multi-frame image objects for MR, CT, PET, and most recently XA, XRF and 3D X-Ray (cone beam CT and tomosynthesis), and there is a new 3D Ultrasound object in development. In addition, new types of data such as raw data and MR spectroscopy can now be stored in a standard manner. Products have now entered the market that are capable of creating some of these new objects. There is a need to promote their adoption for storage in and retrieval from Image Managers and Archives as well as their display by Image Displays.
It is desirable to profile the multitude of possible clinical acquisition protocols supported by these objects in order to constrain alternative means of encoding the same information and to make feasible and interoperable the consistent display on workstations.
Additional profiles for improved query requirements for these objects, as well as per-frame retrieval of image contents may also be warranted.
3. Key Use Case
Profiles for a few clinical use cases have already be defined by WG16 and the committee for the advancement of DICOM, and have been demonstrated at the SCAR and RSNA conference by a number of vendors. DICOM WG16 and the NEMA (MITA) Advanced CT/MR Taskforce has requested that these profiles be elaborated and promoted to IHE profiles:
3.1 CT/MR Cardiac Imaging
New CT/MR cardiac images containing standard attributes for location and timing information.
3.2 MR Diffusion
MR diffusion images containing standard attributes for diffusion B values, direction and diffusion image type.
3.3 CT/MR Contrast Perfusion
Intra-venous contrast enhanced images containing standard attributes for timing and phase.
3.4 Multi-stack Spine Imaging
Images are acquired at multiple disk space levels of the spine such that multiple slices at each level are parallel to the disk space, each in a separate stack from slices at different angles through other disks. These images are exchanged in an interoperable way with standard attributes describing the stacks and their geometries.
3.5 MR Spectroscopy
Single-voxel, multi-voxel or multi-slice 1D MR spectra are exchanged with reference and metabolite images that contain information to allow correct display, post-processing and analysis.
3.6 PET-CT
Consider adding PET-CT to this growing list (Comment added by J. Wallis)
4. Standards & Systems
For the use-cases proposed, the Enhanced CT, MR and MR Spectroscopy SOP Classes provide the necessary functionality to be profiled.
For additional query and retrieval, DICOM Sup 119, Instance and Frame Level Retrieve SOP Classes, may or may not be sufficiently advanced in its process through the standardization process to use in this profile.
5. Discussion
The use cases may constitute the basis for a new IHE CT/MR Image profile, which specifies for each all that are applicable of the following:
- The required attributes (mostly already defined as mandatory in the standard),
- The relevant functional grouping
- The content of the dimension module
- The use of a Real World Values LUT
- The use of a Supplemental Color LUT
- The relevant attributes for display on a workstation
6. Technical Approach
Existing actors
No new actors are needed. A new set of requirements will be added to the Acquisition Modality, Evidence Creator, Image Manager/Archive and Image Display actors.
New actors
None, see above
Existing transactions
No new transactions are needed. A new set of requirements will be added to the Image Stored, Query Images and Retrieve Images transactions
New transactions (standards used)
None, see above
Impact on existing integration profiles
The embedded image part in Scheduled Workflow will be impacted
New integration profiles needed
A new content profile should be included for each modality with specific acquisition and display requirements.
Breakdown of tasks that need to be accomplished
Use as input the work that has been done for the enhanced CT/MR demonstration, and create new Modality Content profiles based on this existing work.
7. Support & Resources
<List groups that have expressed support for the proposal and resources that would be available to accomplish the tasks listed above.>
8. Risks
The scope of the profile, i.e. the number of clinical use cases that should be covered, could grow to an unmanageable number.
We may get no response from the clinical society or the vendors, because the large-scale implementation of the enhanced MR and CT objects still has to happen. Answ: chicken/egg problem: some vendors wait for this profile.
How big is the danger of technical divergence of implementations?
9. Open Issues
The NEMA Committee for the Advancement of DICOM would like to organize a first informal testing of this profile with systems that envisage or already give support for enhanced CT and MR objects at the January 2007 connectathon. Answ: we assume this NEMA desire is still valid for the 2009 connectathon.
We need to consider how this profile must be packaged, as a separate profile per modality, or per clinical scenario? Answ: Another possibility might be the CPI-approach
Should we address enhanced XR at also at this moment in time” If not, how will an enhanced XR profile be added later? Answ: seperate use case
How much clinician input is needed for defining the display requirements? Answ: estimated required input is low. Use cases are pretty straight forward.
10. 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