1300 North 17th Street, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22209, USA
+1-703-475-9217
http://dicom.nema.org
dicom@medicalimaging.org
MINUTES
DICOM Working Group Seven
(Radiation Therapy)
November 18, 2013 – November 22, 2013
MITA Offices
Arlington, VA USA
Members Present
ATC/Wash. U. St. Louis
AAPM
Brainlab
Elekta
Varian Medical Systems
Represented by
Walter Bosch
Bruce Curran
Christof Schadt
Jim Percy
Ulrich Busch
M
x
x
x
T
x
x
x
Members Not Present
Accuray
* Optivus Proton Therapy
* Hokkaido University
* Mevion Med. Systems
* Moyers, Michael
Siemens Healthcare
Voting Representative
Chris Pauer
Michael Baumann
Hiroki Shirato
Bruce Rakes
Michael Moyers
TBA
x
Alternate Voting Representatives,
Observers, Others Present Affiliation
Henk Van Dijken
Bob Murry
Stephen Vastagh
Elekta
Elekta
MITA
Th
x
x
x
F
x
x
x
x
W
x
x
x
p
x
x
x
M
T
W
Th
F
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(* = Does not count toward a quorum, p = Phone and/or web, x = Present)
1
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
Presiding Officer:
1.
Ulrich Busch, Chairman
Opening
The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:00 am USA Eastern Time.
The agenda was reviewed, revised and approved.
The antitrust rules were reviewed by the Secretary.
The Meeting Minutes of the following meetings and t-cons have been approved:

Face-to-Face Meeting August 2013

Tcon August 26, 2013

Tcon Sep 3, 2013
2.
Subgroups
2.1
Experimental Implementation
W. Bosch reported that there is currently no progress.
Two documents produced to date:

Private tag white paper.

Segmentation paper.
Preliminary instances uploaded to ATC server:

Segmentation, Segmentation Properties, Radiation, Radiation Set, Physician Intent
The group had some discussion on how this should proceed as Segmentations are defined and further
steps would be required. It was decided to re-visit this topic, after discussion of “New Objects” agenda
item.
2.2
Brachytherapy group
H. van Dijken reported on work in progress; many CPs are in preparation. The group is growing. AAPM
Brachy group is involved (Larry DeWert). Outreach to GEC ESTRO group (esp. BRAPHYCS) is in place.
There are also interoperability issues that the Group will address.
As first tangible result, CP1203 is now finished and submitted to WG-07 for review, prior to submission
to WG-06.
The demand for development for 2nd Gen Brachy radiation has been expressed.
2.3
[Patient] Positioning Workflow - Supplement 160
C. Schadt reported that there is currently no activity. There was a discussion on where priorities should be
in the future. The work will now resume in coordination with IHE-RO DPDW Profile development
2
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
Group. Efforts need to be balanced with adoption of workflow in treatment planning: TPS-side needs to
be triggered to start issuing 2nd Gen objects in order to get start the process.
This led to the discussion of existing clinical solutions: it was decided to invite academic workflow
presentations on “Current Investigations into Planning Workflow” (Washington Univ., Long Island
Jewish Hospital, and others….) The next WG-07 meeting at AAPM will start one day earlier (on
Wednesday) for these presentations.
The DICOM – related issues are:

What data are needed for the work flow:

How can DICOM support these efforts?

2.4
Ion Subgroup
U. Busch reported on behalf of the sub-group chairman that there was a next meeting planned beginning
of next year in Japan (22-28 January 2014). Another one was tentatively setup at PTCOG (Shanghai, June
2014). S. Vastagh noted that this meeting will not be held. There was a discussion about how to
continue the work of this Group and organize the next meeting. It was noted that the new proton
technologies are not supported by the 1st generation Ion Supplement.
2.5
IHE-RO
Reported by Bruce Curran:
Three working groups are set up to work on new profiles.
1. Data Transport – sub-profiles on transparency and data storage in archives, also includes Q/R
2. General Issues – exchange between RT and HIS
3. Consistent Patient ID – CT Sim Profile
Clinical impact statements on various existing and new profiles are being developed.
The new IHE-RO structure within ASTRO was reported. The chairman asked for an overview of the new
structure.
It is considered that IHE testing may become ISO/IEC compliant – recognized by regulatory agencies as
appropriate for product submissions. IHE-RO Testing and Tools Group is revamping Gazelle to meet
standards requirements. Other topics are licensing of test procedures: protection for IHE intellectual
property.
IHE-RO has the approval for two IHE-RO connectathons in 2014. RO participation in North American
and European connectathons has also been discussed. There are differences in economic model for the
two Connectathons. IHE-RO remains sufficiently unique in content but increased imaging integration will
probably create more common ground with radiology IHE.
3
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
2.5.1
Areas of involvement of WG-07
WG-07 has to support the development of the Data Transparency Profile by developing the necessary
Query/Retrieve extensions.
Another topic for WG-07 is to determine, where the boundary is for use of HL7 versus DICOM in Patient
Header conciliation in the context of interoperability with HIS systems.
The discussion led to concluding that there is a need to take a closer look at the Post-Acquisition
Workflow Profile which includes the DICOM Part 19 “Application Hosting”. This profile may serve as a
pattern/starting point.
For information and education, C. Schadt gave a presentation on Application Hosting (DICOM Part 19) to
broaden the common understanding.
3.
Other WGs / Supps
3.1 WG-28
WG-28 works on a new Patient Dose SR template that extends the existing Dose Reporting SR.
The AAPM Task group considers a coarse imaging dose (maybe even just 1cm resolution) to be reported.
Recommendation is that imaging dose from patient positioning should be taken into account if the
imaging dose exceeds 5% of the therapeutic dose. Recommend that TPS be configured to compute KV
organ dose from imaging and report tables of (non-volumetric) organ doses per procedure.
WG-07 decided that any major enhancements to account for imaging dose be deferred to 2nd Gen objects.
Minor changes, e.g., flagging dose using new Defined Terms (for Dose Summation Type?), may be
addressed in the interim.
There was a discussion about what WG-07 can do regarding Dose Reporting. There are no technical
obstacles to the use the existing Dose SR for CBCT, MVCT, 2D kV imaging. It was decided that currently
nothing needs to be done as the existing SRs can be used and it is only an issue whether the vendors
implement it in RT. This topic was deferred to the MITA RT Section for further discussion.
3.2 Sup 121
Sup 121 defines a non-patient-centric composite object. As this and other profiles are now non-patientcentric, the discussion came up to utilize DICOM for the ROI Templates and the Machine
Characterizations which had been rejected by this group until now.
U. Busch and C. Schadt may review this supplement offline.
Although Sup 121 is in Public Comment, it is not expected to move forward in WG-06 until perhaps as
late as June 2014 but certainly not before March 2014 due to extensive user review being conducted..
3.3 Sup 167
This supplement contains an informative annex in Part 17 on 3D Angiographic Imaging.
4
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
This is of interest to the group, as it covers basically cone-beam CT (3D reconstruction of C-arm x-ray
imagers)
4.
IEC
U. Busch gave a presentation as a base for discussion with the meeting with IEC in order to define the
common areas of interest and responsibility.
Some aspects mentioned are: IEC coordinates are useful for C-arm-like geometries, but ranges (0-359
degrees for angles) are problematic. DICOM is referenced in some old IEC Technical Reports; however,
some are confusing and should be retired.
A draft MOU between DICOM and IEC regarding coordination of standards between DICOM WG-07
(Radiotherapy) and IEC 62C (Therapy) WG-1 (Teletherapy) document was presented that, if agreed upon,
could serve as the common understanding of domain responsibilities. The approach was discussed.
U. Busch and B. Curran will finalize the MOU to have a candidate document in case it is determined to be
useful. Both will explore options to increase coordination with IEC 62C WG-1, including increasing the
level of our liaison status with IEC to increase our awareness and ability to respond to IEC activities.
Contacts will be Geoff Ibbott as chair of 62C and convener of WG-1. Pfeiffer and DeWert are liaisons.
Moyers, Bova, Galvin, Cohen are among other U.S. delegates.
5.
New Data Objects
(In the following the term 'Plan' is used informally to annotate everything related to a Radiation Set).
Three new objects were initially proposed in order to explore their scope and related use cases:

Data Set Reference Object

Treatment Plan Object

Dose Evaluation Object
As it was not clear whether these objects would be sufficient, or more or less would be required. Use
cases were evaluated in order to determine the need for new objects (see related brain-storming documents
in past meeting folders for details.) Some use cases have been already described in the White Paper 'Data
Set Reference DICOM object,' dated November 03, 2011 (see Inbox of Meeting folder of 2011-11-07).
The base motivation was that when the 2nd Generation RT Objects will be introduced where a managed
workflow will not yet be in place, there will be no facility to convey a conceptual treatment plan. That
applies especially when “plans” are to be exchanged between systems which are not directly treatmentrelated, such as treatment planning systems or review stations. On the other hand, retrieving archived
“plans” is also hardly possible with the current structure of the 2nd Gen Objects, as the number of objects
created during planning time will be extended by the objects during treatment. Although the RT Course
object has references to almost all of the objects, it does not completely cover everything, especially not
those objects that were only “related” to the planning process.
The Group further discussed this area in depth. Following that, the Group analyzed use cases and
established a list of input and (partially) output objects to determine the reference data structures to be
supported.
5
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
The results are as follows:
Objects of interest:




Data Set Reference Object

Would be needed

Currently it is not clear, if this is a plain list of instances with no further semantics for easier
re-use or rather a report-style object that includes relations and use-case-related semantic
Plan Object

It seems that there could be a need for that

No further evaluation was performed
Report Objects

SR object definitions that serve the purpose of reporting e.g. dose review, plan review.

No further evaluation was performed
Dose Companion Object


Object that will be the result of plan optimization/dose planning that could include
optimization parameters, general dose algorithm parameters and vendor- or algorithm-specific
parameters related to dose planning
Generally we determined a broad need to develop Reports as output and potentially also input for
RT Use Cases.
Characteristics of Data Set Reference Object:
1. First-level clusters need to be available for high-level sorting of inputs
(basically per line of the Use Case Analysis Excel)
2. Second level clustering needs to be available, since sole organization along SOP Classes is not
sufficient.
(e.g. to differentiate Planning CT Image Sets from Treatment CT Image Sets)
3. Further level organization may be useful, but there is no clear indications for that yet.
4. Technically, “levels’ above do not suggest leveling of DICOM sequences. It may be represented
differently, e.g., by a plain list of clusters, which are organized by a referencing cluster in a data
structure in parallel (but inside the IOD).
5. Use case inputs should always work with one IOD only.
(i.e. Reference Container IODs should not reference other Reference Container IODs)
6. The Reference Containers should be neutral in just holding references. Purpose should be
represented outside.
7. We want to have one part, which is semantically neutral and collect the references. It should have
the ability to have multiple clusters (subset).
8. KOS IOD was inspected and has a plain list of references. This may be not sufficient.
Questions on Data Set Reference Object:
6
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
1. Object references, type, and purpose/context
2. Internal structure vs. recursive references to object reference objects.
What is the scope of the referenced objects? Especially: Is it sufficient to reference the top-level
root objects of a cluster – or do we unnecessarily prevent use of the clusters by applications which
do not understand the all object detail
3. Data set reference support for workflow – keep procedure instruction IODs, result reports
(IOD/SR) and annotation (IOD/SR) separate
4. Collections of objects may be used both for integrated workflow and for export of data for
detached mode operations, e.g., clinical trials/registry submissions.
5. It is not clear yet, whether we want to have the Data Reference container and the semantic content
in 2 separate objects or in one combined one. The separation would better facilitate general
interoperability. On the other hand, the discussion of data set reference object almost always
included immediately the semantics of the references – therefore a separate object only handling
references may not be of interest as such.
Overall the discussion established a good basis of both consistent and disputed viewpoints. It was unambiguously decided that there is a need to have additional objects in the scope outlined.
All materials related to the foregoing will be posted in the following folder. It may be reorganized when
work items, work groups or other ways of organizing will be decided by this Group. ftp://d9workgrps@medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Private/Dicom/WORKGRPS/WG07/Other/NewObjects
Particular attention is called to the following items in that folder:

The Use Case Excel worked out during the meeting

Some sketches of Data Set Reference options of that meeting

Mind Maps having been prepared by C. Schadt and further modified during the meeting
ACTION:
An ad-hoc Data Set Reference Subgroup was established:
Christof Schadt

Walter Bosch

Bruce Curran

Bob Murry
6.
Supplement 147
6.1 Current Documents
Current Documents are the following:

Supplement 147 - Revision 42
(sup147_42.doc)
Working version during the period of reading with WG-06
7
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013

Reading Notes
(Sup147_42 - Reading_Notes.docx)
Continuous accumulation of changes made during the reading process and tasks for modifications
to be done offline in between the WG-06 Meetings.

Documents are located on
ftp://d9-workgrps@medical.nema.org/MEDICAL/Private/Dicom/WORKGRPS/Wg07/Supp147
6.2 Current Process:
Supplement 147 is being reviewed by WG-06 in order to approve it for Public Comment. WG-07
completed its work on the document. The review results of the WG-06 reading are continuously included
in Revision 42 and presented to WG-07 as needed.

Two final readings (August/October 2013) have been conducted. The reading proceeded to
C.AA.2.17 External Beam Control Point General Attributes Macro.

Various small to medium changes have been made during and following the WG-06 review
sessions. Many of the changes are clarifications and about the structure of the specification. A
few changes include semantic aspects.
6.3 Review of WG-06 Findings:
Wg-07 reviewed various findings and their resolutions as proposed by WG-06 or the Chair and Vice Chair
of this Group who are making the presentations to WG-06.
The following points are important to be mentioned explicitly:

During last WG-06 review, the macro title “Conceptual Volume Segmentation and Combination
Macro” was perceived to be misleading since it could be understood also as a verb, indicating that
segmentation takes place in this macro. WG-07 now proposes to take "Conceptual Volume
Segmentation Reference and Combination Macro".

The conceptual volume macros have been reduced from 4 to 2. There is the base "Conceptual
Volume Macro" and the "Conceptual Volume Segmentation Reference and Combination Macro".
The former 2 other macros indicating whether the conceptual volume has to be segmented of may
be segmented has been removed. Instead, that indication is provided at the invocation of the macro
defining the allowed values for Conceptual Volume Segmentation Defined Flag (30xx,1311)
("YES or NO", versus "YES" only).

The 'Device Identification Macro' now contains a 'Regulatory Device Identifier Sequence'
(30xx,5031), which allows to hold identifiers like the device UDI requested by FDA. CID
SUP147053 was introduced for that purpose.

All of the 3 macros 'Treatment Device Identification Macro', 'RT Patient Support Identification
Macro' and 'RT Accessory Device Identification Macro' now contain the following 2 macros:
'Device Model Macro' and 'Device Identification Macro'. This streamlines the devices descriptions
and removes unnecessary differences.

WG-07 discussed the topic of naming of meterset attributes, i.e. whether to use ‘Cumulative
Radiation Meterset’ or ‘Cumulative Meterset’. To void suggesting, that the meterset directly
8
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
indicates the amount of Radiation, the attribute name was changed to Change to ‘Cumulative
Meterset’.

WG-06 asked, whether it is necessary to specify symmetric mode and alike differently than any
rectangular shape in the ‘Outline Macro’. WG-07 confirmed that it is OK to remove Symmetric
and Square annotations and cleaned the attribute requirements.

Reviewed change in Control Point section (C.AA.2.16.1 Control Point Attribute Requirements)
and approved changes.

Discussed area of Delivery Rate (formerly Primary Meterset Rate), also section C.AA.2.17.1.12
Delivery Rate. Decided to use 'Delivery Rate' as attribute name since it is not always tight to a
meterset. Further on made presence of Delivery Rate depending on real-world condition, whether
the device needs that rate. Simplified the unit specification by always requiring a unit whenever
Delivery Rate is provided.
In that context, changed Primary Radiation Dosimeter Unit (30xx,5113) to be a sequence of codes
to make it extensible by Committee. Added CID Sup147055 Radiation Dosimeter Unit Sequence.
Two new issues - to be clarified later- were found

C.AA.2.12 RT Patient Support Devices Macro: Do we want to model table parts (esp. table top
inserts etc.) as well, e.g. as a part sequence in that macro. Do we see that as a part of the Patient
Setup IOD? The topic should be re-visited at the WG-07 Meeting in April 2014.

How to specify the format of barcodes, RFIDs etc., in respect to Device Alternate Identifier Type
(30xx,1327). This is expected to be re-visited at the WG-06 Meeting January 2014.
7.
CPs (Correction Proposals)
7.1 CP 1319
The CP was discussed extensively and the White Paper ' DICOM Frame of Reference: issues and
proposal' dated November 21, 2012 was visited (the white paper is available in the CP1319 folder). The
rationale for the CP has been recognized and shared as putting reasonable forward potential issues with
frame of references.
WG-07 did not conclude to support that CP as is, but supports and asks for further discussions on that
CP, especially by WG-06. Both the Chair and Vice Chair of this Group will be present at the January WG06 meeting. They will address the following issues:

Do we really need the capability to reference more than one FOR (despite of Registrations?)

The selection of instances used for evidence (what are criteria, how should they be selected?).
How to find the canonical?

Would it be sufficient to have only a series UID? Aren't series sufficient consistent within their
objects – respectively do we need sub-series selection as well?

Should it be allowed to accumulate various objects in there to represent a comprehensive
collection of objects having been involved while creating the object – or should it be restricted to a
minimum set?
9
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013

How can we increase the probability that no inconsistencies among referenced objects occur,
especially when the inclusion of a large mixture of FORs and objects is allowed?

How can it be prevented, that trees of references are established (esp. be separate applications)
which are combined on a higher level through some other objects?

Should we restrict the references to the objects 'lowest' in the geometrical hierarchy (e.g. somehow
restricting the allowed references to images?)
7.2 RT39
Moved to closed status. No further input was received.
(General note: Such CPs are moved to 'Finished' subfolder when no further proceedings are planned, but
can still be found therein).
7.3 1203
The group had a longer discussion and made some changes. Those changes do not affect the purpose and
approach, rather than try to strengthen the proposal. Revision 15 contains those changes. The
Brachytherapy subgroup should review the changes. If the subgroup does accept the CP as is, it will be
submitted to WG-06.
7.4 1331
WG-07 decided to drop the Calculated Treatment Time (this should also happen in Supp 147). With that
change this CP should be put forward to WG-06.
7.5 1343
WG-06 approved the concept.. The group had a short discussion whether this touches areas of other
domains such as HL7. HL7 and DICOM UPS will always have some overlapping areas, which does not
suggest automatically normalizing the protocols and using them in parallel (often this maybe to inefficient
or not even an option from the type of applications). Therefore some data may legitimately appear in both
protocols. WG-07 leaves it to WG-06 to eventually raise architectural aspects.
7.6 1345
This CP will be needed for application of UPS in treatment sessions due to the number of steps modelled
by UPS, which in turn need to be partitioned as a groups of related in many cases.
8.
2nd Gen of the Standard - Educational Conferences
8.1 DICOM 2nd Generation Conference
WG-07 discussed the options for information, education and advice on the purpose and introduction of
DICOM 2nd Generation. The following audiences and proposed activities have been identified:
Business Level (Engineering Managers, Business Managers):
10
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013

Create a business presentation distributable to all vendors.
A recorded presentation will be useful.

Distribute to all vendors (executives)

Present to the MITA RT Section
Engineering (Systems Engineers, Architects, Implementers, Experts):

Create a Recorded Presentation:


Can be distributed and listened to offline
Offer 2nd Generation Workshops (in the range of 2.5 days)

Intro: Issues with first Gen, Architectural and Design Approaches

Area 1: Prescription, Conceptual Volumes,

Area 2: Radiation Sets, Radiations, Doses

Area 3: RT Course, Relations in general, how it work together

Implementation strategies, Transition

Hands-on: Small groups to develop the use of 2nd Gen in certain use case. Present the results.
Those hands-on sessions should be performed after each block
Possible Venues for related activities:

RSNA 2013



Gather contacts for both audiences
AAPM 2014

Hold Session on 2nd Gen

Last possibility to gather contacts
ASTRO 2014

Common Purpose Presentation
Action items:
Check point: February T-Con

Collect contacts
All (at any occasions possible)
Provide contacts to the Chair

Business Presentation
Christof Schadt (lead), Bruce Curran, Jim Percy, Mark Pepelea, Bruce Rakes.

Engineering Presentation
Uli Busch (lead), Walter Bosch, Bob Murry

Engineering Workshop Planning
(until Feb 2014: Agenda, Curriculum, Materials)
Uli Busch, Christof Schadt
11
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013

AAPM Presentations
Bruce Curran, Uli Busch, Christof Schadt
8.2 Outreach of 2nd Generation
WG-07 discussed the topic of outreach for 2nd Generation and the possible approaches of adoption of the
new Standard.
Eventually, it is an option to use IEC in a similar way as for first generation: is there a value in proposing
an IEC Technical Report for DICOM? This option should be further explored.
The Staged Implementation Approach could look like as follows:
1. Prescription
in context with IHE-RO
2. RT Segment Annotation:
Link to the prescription. Provides the RT payload (which is not included in Segmentation and
Surface IODs).
Esp. replacement of RTSS by Segmentation drives the need RT Seg. Annotation
That also removes optionality we currently have.
As it may be relevant by that time: Allows support of multi-frame images as well.
3. Radiation Sets / Radiations for new modalities
Understood and issued natively by TPS, which can plan radiation for certain modalities (esp. the
ones not covered by 1st Gen) or all modalities.
TMS should be enabled to handle the Radiations transparently for some modalities (as there is no
need to understand those in details, as today)
4. Finalization by introducing the other objects.
9.
Future Work
WG-07 will submit two new work items for adding Brachytherapy and Ion Radiation Objects to 2nd
Generation Standard now under review by WG-06:

Brachytherapy Object in 2nd Generation RT

Ion Therapy Object in 2nd Generation RT
Those work items will be considerable smaller than the 2nd generation Standard itself (Supplement 147.)
10.
Policies for use of the DICOM WG-07 Mailing Lists
The following position statement of this Group was decided:
The DICOM WG-07 mailing lists are established to facilitate communication of WG-07 on development
of the DICOM standard, about the proceedings of WG-07 and generic topics related to the use of the
standard. The communication may only refer to the specifications of the standard itself and classes of
applications in case needed. Especially, no references should be included to specific vendor
implementations, products or clinical sites. The Anti-trust rules for meetings apply to written
communications, as well. If questions, members should contact the Officers of this Group and the
12
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013
Secretary, in advance. To clarify the appropriateness of some intended communication. Detailed
discussion of technical implementation and application and specific scenarios or product issues should be
held in the Google group for DICOM. There is also a Yahoo group on the topic of DICOM RT, which
appears rarely used. The chair will contact the mail list owner, Mark Bloom, and advise that the Google
group appears to be monitored by more DICOM experts, perhaps consider moving those discussions to
the Google group for more exposure and visibility.
Stephen Vastagh will explore adding mailing list use policies to the DICOM procedures perhaps just
extending the Guidelines for conducting meetings.
11.
Agenda for the Next Meetings
Topics for the next meetings will include:

DICOM 2nd Generation: what is the definition of 'Plan' in the 2nd Generation Standard?

New Objects discussions
12.
Time, Place and Topics for Future Meetings
12.1 WG-07
The following WG-07 meetings are currently scheduled:

Tcon:
Feb 11, 2014, 11:00 – 1:00 EST

In Person:
Mon, March 24, 2014 – Fri, March 28, 2014, 12:00
Location: Washington
Wed, July 23, 13:00 – Sat, July 26 2014, 12:00
AAPM, Austin, TX

Mon, November 3, 2014 – Fri, November 7, 2014 (12:00)
(location TBD, seeking hosts)
12.2 WG-06
WG-06 Meetings (in Arlington, VA, unless otherwise stated):

January 6 – January 10, 2014
Washington

March 31 – April 4, 2014
Washington

June 23 – June 27, 2014
Edinburgh , UK
13
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013

September 8 – September 12, 2014
Washington

November 10 – November 14, 2014
Washington
12.3 Other Meetings of Interest
13.

ESTRO
Fri 04.04.2014 - Tue 08.04.2014, Vienna

AAPM
Sun 20.07.2014 - Thu 24.07.2014, Austin, TX

ASTRO
Sun 14.09.2014 - Wed 17.09.2014, San Francisco, CA

RSNA
Sun 30.11.2014 - Fri 05.12.2014, Chicago, IL
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 on November 22, 2013.
Reported by:
U. Busch, Chair
Christof Schadt, Vice-Chair
Walter Bosch, ATC
Stephen Vastagh, Secretary
Reviewed by: CRS 2013-12-20
14
Working Group Seven (Radiotherapy)
of the DICOM Standards Committee
Nov. 18-22, 2013