Rad Tech Minutes 2008.10.01

Attendees

• David Clunie - RadPharm
• Paul Seifert - Agfa
• Kevin O'Donnell - Toshiba
• Chris Lindop - GE
• Peter Mildenberger, MD - DRG
• Jerry Wallis, MD - SNM
• Lynn Felhofer - Technical Project Mgr.
• Chris Carr - RSNA
• Nichole Drye-Mayo - RSNA

Minutes

Technical Review of Image Sharing Profile Detailed Proposals

1) XDS-I_Using_XDS.b_Technology - Detailed Proposal: Paul Seifert

• Agreement on Summary and Problem Statement: impetus to update XDS.a-based provide and register transactions with XDS.b transactions

• Absence of specific guidance about XDS-I/XDS.b makes it impossible to test or claim compliance
• Consumer actor is required to support either or both DICOM SCU/SCP and WADO retrieve (integration statement does not indicate which capability system implements)

• Risk

• Development by DICOM WG10 of new DICOM Web Services transfer protocols may require further update to profile

• Open Issues

• Is it possible to avoid building in interoperability failures and invalidating existing implementations?
• Can these capabilities by added via CP instead of supplement?

• Timing issues: needs to be implemented quickly if it is to be of any use
• If it requires a supplement, can it be fast-tracked to allow 2009 deployment

• Can we make it possible to test XDS.b at 2009 Connectathons?

• Would need to inform participants and group together those willing to test this
• Need to review XDS-I metadata, which differs from XDS, and any changes required to upgrade
• Technical Proj Mgrs would have to develop specific testing requirements and plan: could add option ad hoc testing for XDS-I participants willing to try with XDS.b provide and register
• Participants willing to do XDS.b of XDS-I have already implemented XDS.a version
• Without way of publishing test results, there would be little incentive for vendors to go through the effort

• Need to carefully review the specific text changes proposed to understand their impact on compatibility

• Action Item: Chris Lindop will gather input from Canada Health Infoway about moving XDS-I from XDS.a to XDS.b
• Action Item: Gather input from ITI about XDS Roadmap and how to coordinate
• Effort Estimate (percentage of available Technical Committee bandwidth)

• Preliminary estimate could not be agreed on; to be addressed on 2008-10-09 tcon

2) PDI Extensions: David Clunie

• David Clunie updated proposal based on input by committee
• Proposal was written up as detailed draft in 2007 but not taken up by committee
• Scope

• Excludes use of MPEG
• Requires harmonization with other domains (Cardiology, Eye Care, Rad Onc)

• Risks

• Support for lossy compression is controversial, can lead to abuse
• Compression schemes: necessary, but raises bar and introduces controversy (eg, JPEG2000)

• Open Issues

• Security: rule out of scope initially; phase in later per user demand?

• Effort Estimate (percentage of available Technical Committee bandwidth)

• 15%

3) Basic Image Review: Kevin O'Donnell

• Kevin O'Donnell updated proposal based on input by committee
• Agreement on Summary and Problem statement
• Difficult issues in Key Use Cases impact difficulty of implementation by vendors:

• Comparison of series
• Localization of currently displayed image on orthogonal image
• Display of laterality of sagittal images (as distinct from orientation of image)

• Technical Approach is

• Mainly adds functionality to Image Display actor
• Scope of viewer capabilities to display complex modality images (eg, Nuc Med, ultrasound in scope?)
• Need to get input requirements from primary care physicians (neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, etc): adds significantly to development workload
• List of candidate organizations and individuals to invite to meetings included in proposal

• Timeline goal is to be prepared for demonstration at AMA in April 2009
• Risks

• Difficulty of sufficiently engaging clinicians and vendors: need to work to get AMA Cmte, MITA Cmte and DICOM subcommittee, as well as DRG and RANZCR

• Work on getting input from referring physicians in US, Europe and Japan
• Need to define how evaluation will take place: objective criteria vs. judgment; clinical domain experts to be used as judges

• Action Item: RSNA will engage Media Creator vendors (and any vendors who develop image viewers for them)
• Open Issues

• Reporting should be kept out of scope: too large an issue in itself

• Effort Estimate (percentage of available Technical Committee bandwidth)

• 40%

4) Deferred to Oct. 9 Tcon:

a. XCA-I: Chris Lindop will contact Claudio Saccavini to review initial draft developed by Kevin O'Donnell

b. Image Management Enhancements: Chris Carr will contact Dave Heaney and request that he develop detailed version

c. SWFII - Phase 2: Chris Lindop will develop scoped down version

5) Next tcons:

• New: Oct. 9, 10:00am - 12:00pm: Review remaining detailed proposals and provide effort estimates
• Oct. 13, 9-11am CDT Technical Review of Enhanced DICOM Objects Profile and other Detailed Proposals
• Oct. 22, Planning Committee Call to select profile list
• Nov. 10-13, Face-to-face Meeting (RSNA HQ) to begin profile development

Radiology Technical Committee