1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209, USA
+1-703- 841-3281
http://dicom.nema.org
E-mail:
dicom@medicalimaging.org
MINUTES
DICOM WORKING GROUP THIRTY
(Small Animal Imaging)
Date:
November 4, 2014
Place:
Teleconference
Members Present
Burker Biospin
Bruker Biospin
Bruker Biospin
Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Emory University
InViCRO
National Cancer Institute
National Cancer Institute
National Cancer Institute
PixelMed
University of California, Los Angeles
Washington University
Represented by
Andreas Barth
Illes Muller
Uwe Wark
Leonid Syrkin
David Gutman
Bill Cupelo
Edward Helton
Joseph Kalen (Chair)
Eve Shalley (Secretary)
David Clunie
David Stout
Joseph Ackerman
Members Absent
iThera Medical
InViCRO
Johns Hopkins
Mass General Hospital
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Mediso
Memorial Sloak Kettering
PerkinElmer
PerkinElmer
Siemens Healthcar
Siemens Healthcare
Philips Healthcare
Represented by
Christian Wiest
Jacob Hesterman
Yuchuan Wang
Mikhail Pivovarov
John Hazle
Attila Farkas
Jason Koutcher
Jeff Meganck
Josh Kempner
Hari Kamujula
Heinz Blendinger
Bas Revet
University of Texas SW Medical Center at Dallas
University of Tennessee
University of Texas SW Medical Center at Dallas
University of Washington
Ralph Mason
Dustin Osborne
A. Dean Sherry
Shanrong Zhang
Alternate Voting Representatives, Observers, or Guests Present:
Frederick National Laboratory / Leidos
Ulli Wagner
National Cancer Institute
Cheryl Marks
Presiding Officer:
Secretary:
Joseph Kalen, Chair
Eve Shalley
1. Opening



The meeting was called to order at 11.00 on November 4.
Members identified themselves, their employers, and their areas of interest. A quorum
was present.
Minutes of the last meeting were approved.
2. Review Draft of Outline of Covariate/Handling Metadata Requirements
David Clunie facilitated a review of the requirements for metadata collection based on the
information collected during previous meetings.
In addition to capturing metabolic (FDG) PET, the group suggested information about
anesthesia would be useful. It was also pointed out that there is a bigger picture to
consider. In thermography imaging, 50% of caloric intake goes to keeping warm, so that
affects more than FDG, also cell type and expression. Two papers that went into veterinary
journals recently describes the scope of where that impact may be.
The anesthesia mechanism that is used for breathing and caging is also important because
both impact the metabolism quickly. The group agreed that regardless of whether the
impact is chronic or acute, the anesthesia and caging conditions need to be documented.
The following additions were agreed upon during review of David Clunie’s outline of high
level requirements.

Duration (prior to imaging)

Carrier gas, as oxygen versus air changes can change uptake in Ultrasound microbubbles
used as contrast

Caging ventilation data, which affect air flow and animal behavior as well as exposure to
infectious animals

Include male vs female under caregiver characteristics

Include additional information about cage maintenance

Animal temperature and method for capturing (device)

Type of food and feeding schedule, whether the animal was fed ad libidum

Blood glucose level and mechanism for capture

Other agents used / administered during or prior to testing

Handling and physical contact variables, which can impact the level of stress
experienced by the animal
It was agreed that all these details are important to capture, especially when considering
reproducibility of research results. However, some data will be required and other will be
recommended, and may be placed in the methods section of a paper, for example. Encoding
the information is a better approach, so that it can be made available downstream in a
standard format. David Clunie agreed to look at an information model of human anesthesia to
find coding that could be reused. It was also suggested that a member of the caDSR group from
NCI attend a meeting to discuss whether there were any common data elements (CDEs) that
had been developed for human use that could be reused for animals.
The group discussed how this information is currently captured and tracked, and there appears
to be no standard method. Bill Cupelo mentioned that the platform developed by inviCRO has
the capability to manage this data and offered to present about it at the next meeting.
The group discussed how this information may be encoded in DICOM. Researchers rarely go
back to the original image annotation and supply new data unless corrections are required.
There is a lot of processing that goes on after the images are developed but that data is rarely
ever captured back into the archive. It is important to do because a lot of effort goes into the
analysis of the images.
David Clunie described the options for capturing the data. Using the DICOM image headers to
capture this data presupposes that you know it at the time you are entering the information.
Glucose may be challenging, for example, since you do not get those results until after the
testing is complete. Another option for post-processing is to add information (to the images)
acquired from another source – augment what comes off the scanner if you have that workflow
capability. The benefit is that you then have all the information about the image in one place.
Another option would be to use a separate DICOM object, such as DICOM Structured Report
(SR), which can be used for many things, including procedure logs, so there are many
alternatives. The DICOM SR approach is recommended because it is simpler architecturally, but
then downstream there are many documents to work with. We need a system that exports
information into standard form, so the capturer and the consumer of the modality will have a
standard for interchange.
The group agreed that putting this information outside the image header is likely a better
solution, and also removes the requirement for vendors to revise their existing software.
Q:
Is a procedure log required, or is this acquisition context? Procedure logs were
introduced in human acquisition to capture timing of events, pre-injection timing, for
example. The paradigm is to use a shared timebase, and everyone would synch to that.
The recording device would then record events, and the imaging system would make
images, and waveform device would make waveforms, and these would be recorded.
A:
Yes, it is needed, although maybe not as critical as in humans. In terms of injecting other
drugs, recording breathing pattern, oxygen saturation over time, it is useful.
There could therefore be two objects – one for handling covariates, and a separate
procedure log, which would be recorded when needed.
The group discussed animal identifiers, and how they are captured and maintained. Animals
are tagged in various manual ways, sometimes on the cages and sometimes on their bodies.
Also, barcoding is sometimes used. The animal id is akin to the human name or patient ID in
human testing. This information is not captured in a standard way or using any standard tool in
animal testing.
The group also discussed dosing information, and the desire to measure the dose we are going
to inject and have that associated with session. It would be useful to have that info from dose
calibrator into headers. David Clunie mentioned that this was just standardized by another
working group (DICOM WG 7 Nuclear Medicine and PET) in Sup 159 Radiopharmaceutical
Radiation Dose Reporting, and that DICOM WG 30 could leverage that.
3. New Business
No new business.
4. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 12.00 on November 4.
5. Action Items
Action Item
Send David Clunie the recent veterinary journal papers that relate to
scope of data capture
Present on inviCRO approach to management and tracking of
covariate data
Invite Dianne Reeves to speak about CDEs and CRFs
Responsible
David Stout
Look for human anesthesia description model that could be reused
David Clunie
Talk to Charles Smith from Numa, Inc regarding Sup 159 and talking at
a WG 30 meeting about communication of radiopharmaceutical
information.
David Clunie
Bill Cupelo
Eve Shalley
Action Item
Were we also to request Dr. Marks to present the NCI background to
forming this group: co-clinical
Responsible
Joe Kalen
6. Future Meetings
The regular meetings of the DICOM WG 30 have been scheduled. They will be held on the first
and third Tuesdays of the month from 11 AM – Noon, beginning on October 21.
Submitted by Eve Shalley
WG-30 US Secretary
Reviewed by Legal Counsel Clark Silcox