A Working Group of Our Own (DICOM WG-26) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 21
About This Presentation
Title:

A Working Group of Our Own (DICOM WG-26)

Description:

A Working Group of Our Own (DICOM WG-26) Bruce Beckwith, MD Department of Pathology Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:124
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: BruceB175
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A Working Group of Our Own (DICOM WG-26)


1
A Working Group of Our Own (DICOM WG-26)
  • Bruce Beckwith, MD
  • Department of Pathology
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
  • Harvard Medical School
  • Boston, Massachusetts

2
Current State
3
Future State
4
Outline
  • DICOM overview
  • DICOM pathology support
  • Use in Pathology
  • Issues to address

5
DICOM
  • Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine
  • Initially drafted as jointly sponsored effort of
    the American College of Radiology and the
    National Electrical Manufacturers Association
    (ACR-NEMA), which became the DICOM committee in
    1998
  • Ver. 1 released 1985
  • Physical 50 pin hardware abstraction layer
    standard
  • Never implemented
  • Ver. 2 released 1988
  • Initial interest from radiological manufacturing
    community only
  • DICOM V3.0 released 1992
  • Visible light supplement 1999 (endoscopy/microscop
    y)

6
DICOM Governance
  • Voluntary standards group
  • Housed at NEMA in Virginia
  • Currently 26 working groups
  • Participants
  • Industry
  • Professional and trade groups
  • Standards developing bodies and government
    agencies
  • Anyone who has a material interest

7
Pathology in DICOM
  • Visible Light working group was initial home
  • Created Supp. 15
  • Minimal pathology activity since then
  • Dec 2005, created a new group for Pathology
    (WG-26)

8
Working Group 26
  • Open to all interested parties
  • 3-4 meetings per year
  • 70 subscribers to the mailing list
  • 35 organizations
  • 9 countries
  • Working with IHE (Japan and France) and HL7
    Pathology groups

9
DICOM Supplement 15
  • Support for
  • gross images
  • microscopic images
  • accession numbers
  • case history
  • SNOMEDTM nomenclature and others
  • some imaging system specifications
  • compatible with all DICOM database systems

10
How DICOM is Used
  • To communicate between image sources
    (radiographic instruments) and PACS
  • To communicate between PACS and display
    workstations
  • To communicate between RIS and PACS
  • To communicate between image sources and
    enterprise image archive

11
Image Exchange
  • DICOM standard is for communication related to
    digital images
  • Uses externally defined file formats to encode
    the image data
  • Includes metadata with the image data
  • Uses an object oriented data model
  • 16-part standard document
  • http//medical.nema.org/dicom/2006/

12
Typical VL Message Components
  • Header Constructs
  • Patient demographics
  • Study capture parameters
  • Equipment parameters
  • Pixel/voxel dimensions
  • Diagnostic data

Service Class Wrapper
Optional Components
  • Structured Reporting Data
  • Self-referential XML schemata
  • Clinical Data
  • Specimen Data
  • Tissue Array Data
  • Research Access data
  • Clinical Trial Data
  • Chain of custody data
  • .
  • Ancillary Schemata/DTD definitions
  • Ancillary XML
  • Image Data
  • Primary image plane data
  • Overlay data
  • Arbitrary waveform data
  • ROI data
  • Diagnostic ROI-localized modifier data
  • Access/authentication/watermark data

13
Picture Archiving Communication Systems
  • Store images acquired by multiple instruments
  • Serves images to various workstations
  • Uses DICOM for messaging
  • Typically only utilized for radiology images
  • May have workflow limitations

14
Enterprise Image Archive
  • Centralized storage for medical images
  • Share across many departments
  • Not limited to radiology or even DICOM
  • Not tightly coupled to any workflow
  • Can be write once read many (no deletion)

15
Imaging Comparison
  • Radiology
  • digital acquisition
  • automatic image capture
  • clinician interpretable
  • many patient requests
  • large storage needs
  • digital images save money
  • large budgets
  • strong standards for storage and transfer
  • Pathology
  • analog primary data
  • manual image capture
  • hard to interpret for non-pathologists
  • few patient requests
  • extreme storage needs
  • digital imaging costs more
  • modest budgets
  • limited pathology specific standards

16
Current State in Pathology
  • Many PACS vendors are compliant with Visible
    Light images for pathology, endoscopy, etc.
  • Growing number of imaging products targeted at
    pathology are DICOM compliant
  • Anatomic pathology laboratory information systems
    offer limited image management
  • Veterans Administration
  • Pathology imaging vendors must be DICOM compliant
    and store images in VISTA PACS
  • Small, but growing adoption of DICOM

17
Barriers to Adoption of Current Products
  • Turf
  • PACS systems have traditionally been the domain
    of Radiology
  • Movement toward storing all medical images in a
    central location with a single viewing mechanism
    still in infancy
  • Workflow
  • May need to manually annotate files with image
    description, accession number, etc.
  • If sending to PACS, need to order study first
  • Cost
  • Image acquisition and annotation takes time no
    extra reimbursement currently
  • Slide scanners and storage are costly

18
Path PACS
  • Humin Tec (Korea)
  • PACS system for pathology departments
  • 21 installations, all in Korea
  • Communicates with standard radiology PACS
  • Also offers station for specimen photography
  • Apollo Telemedicine (USA)
  • PACS system allows acquisition and storage of
    images
  • Installed at Milwaukee Veterans Administration
    Hospitals
  • Images can be stored in VISTA imaging system

19
Academic Center Efforts
  • Univ. of Pittsburgh
  • AP LIS is image aware
  • Gross specimen photos and single field
    microscopic images saved
  • Transmitted to Enterprise Image Archive
  • Clinicians can see only selected images on
    completed cases
  • Main clinician interest is specimen photos
  • Main pathologist use is conferences

20
Issues to Address
  • Technical
  • Need for additional data elements (block, slide,
    slide status, more detailed imaging system
    description, etc.)
  • Support for whole-slide microscopic images
  • DICOM is limited to 64k x 64k pixel images
    currently
  • Support for multi-resolution (pyramidal) formats
  • Support for navigating and selecting a region of
    interest from within entire slide image
  • Support for multispectral and hyperspectral
    modality images
  • Non-technical
  • Suggested workflow and use examples (IHE)
  • Support for DICOM from LIS vendors

21
Resources
  • DICOM web site medical.nema.org
  • RSNA DICOM Intro www.rsna.org/Technology/DICOM/int
    ro/index.cfm
  • Medical Imaging FAQ www.dclunie.com/medical-imag
    e-faq/html
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com