Synchronizing Two PACS Archives - DICOM

This is a discussion on Synchronizing Two PACS Archives - DICOM ; Hi, we do have the challenge to keep two PACS systems in sync. So if a new object is stored in one of the two systems, the other one has to be informed (auto routing), and if an object is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Synchronizing Two PACS Archives

  1. Synchronizing Two PACS Archives

    Hi,

    we do have the challenge to keep two PACS systems in sync. So if a new
    object is stored in one of the two systems, the other one has to be
    informed (auto routing), and if an object is updated or deleted, the
    other system has to be informed as well, and has to perform the same
    operation -> synchronization.

    Is there a standardized way to do that following the DICOM standard,
    e.g. using DICOM Toolkit? For new and updated objects I think we can
    use C-Store. But is there a way to propagate a deletion? I found a
    reference to somethink called "C-Delete" at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5835735.html
    ("The concept of a "C-Delete" command/status is supported as an
    extension to the DICOM standard.") - but did find not much detail
    about that. Is a C-Delete the the right way to go?

    Any hints or suggestions?

    Thanks, Manfred

  2. Re: Synchronizing Two PACS Archives

    Manfred wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > we do have the challenge to keep two PACS systems in sync. So if a new
    > object is stored in one of the two systems, the other one has to be
    > informed (auto routing), and if an object is updated or deleted, the
    > other system has to be informed as well, and has to perform the same
    > operation -> synchronization.
    >
    > Is there a standardized way to do that following the DICOM standard,
    > e.g. using DICOM Toolkit? For new and updated objects I think we can
    > use C-Store. But is there a way to propagate a deletion? I found a
    > reference to somethink called "C-Delete" at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5835735.html
    > ("The concept of a "C-Delete" command/status is supported as an
    > extension to the DICOM standard.") - but did find not much detail
    > about that. Is a C-Delete the the right way to go?
    >
    > Any hints or suggestions?
    >
    > Thanks, Manfred


    For updates:

    I think if the PACS are IHE compliant (and maybe not), they could handle
    HL7 messages as specified in IHE Patient Information Reconcilation
    Profile (PIR).

    From IHE Vol 1: (p68)

    "In addition, this Integration Profile allows the Image Manager and
    Report Manager to receive patient update messages to maintain
    consistency of the patient information."

    Also, see IHE Vol 2: Section 4.12 (RAD-12) Transaction - it specifies
    the HL7 messages for patient update.

    The sender of the patient update will probably need to use some type of
    guaranteed message delivery with acknowledgment for the HL7 messages.
    If you're growing your own, take a look at Mirth HL7 interface engine.

    Not sure about the delete. You will probably want to look at IHE anyways...

    Chuck

  3. Re: Synchronizing Two PACS Archives

    Thanks, Chuck, for your answer. I agree on using HL7 ADT Messages to
    handle patient specific information. Both systems are supposed to have
    mature HL7 interfaces that can handle these kinds of messages.

    When checking IHE sources, I did not find anything about
    synchronization of PACS systems or about the possiblity to delete
    objects using the DICOM protocol. Without the possiblity to send
    delete request from one PACS to the other, I dont see a method to
    synchronize the PACS systems in an "standardized" way.

    Any ideas from some PACS vendors on that list what kind of
    synchronisatzion their system could use?

    Mhm.... Manfred


  4. Re: Synchronizing Two PACS Archives

    Hello Manfred,

    I do not really get your use case. Why do you want to synchronize? If
    for redudancy, I would suggest to replicate Database and Image Data
    based on your technical infrastructure rather than use DICOM, which is a
    standard for distributed applications, thus targets at cooperation of
    different Application Entities rather than replication of one.

    Said that, maybe it is wiser to use rsync or similar to replicate the
    image data and [fill your favourite database name here] table
    replication / synchronisation.

    Just my EUR 0.02 ;-)

    I hope this helps,


    Peter

  5. Re: Synchronizing Two PACS Archives

    Hello Peter,

    the use case is two different PACS systems (two different vendors),
    one per department, both PACS systems should have the same data (if
    necessary, one of the two systems can be declared "read only" in an
    organizational manner, to ease the case an make it a unidirectional
    synchronization). So the databases behind are completly different, and
    the structure of the files on the filesystem is different as well.
    Rsync and/or direct database synchronization can therefore not be
    used. A simple solution would be, that modalities sending data can
    send it to both PACS systems, but this would not be sufficient in
    cases where one of the PACS systems deletes objects afterwards or does
    updates on them (e.g. add presentation states).

    I hope that made the use case more clear,

    Manfred

    On 30 Jan., 10:35, "Peter B. Schmidt" wrote:
    > Hello Manfred,
    >
    > I do not really get your use case. Why do you want to synchronize? If
    > for redudancy, I would suggest to replicate Database and Image Data
    > based on your technical infrastructure rather than use DICOM, which is a
    > standard for distributed applications, thus targets at cooperation of
    > different Application Entities rather than replication of one.
    >
    > Said that, maybe it is wiser to use rsync or similar to replicate the
    > image data and [fill your favourite database name here] table
    > replication / synchronisation.
    >
    > Just my EUR 0.02 ;-)
    >
    > I hope this helps,
    >
    > Peter



+ Reply to Thread