Grouping DX images into Series - DICOM

This is a discussion on Grouping DX images into Series - DICOM ; Hi all, I'm curious to know if there is a standardised/recommended way of grouping DX images from a single study into series based on the part of the body that is imaged. For example, I could think of grouping images ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Grouping DX images into Series

  1. Grouping DX images into Series

    Hi all,

    I'm curious to know if there is a standardised/recommended way of
    grouping DX images from a single study into series based on the part of
    the body that is imaged.

    For example, I could think of grouping images by series according to
    the Body Part Examined attribute - so for spinal images there could be
    two series in a study, corresponding to CSPINE and TSPINE images, with
    a lateral and AP image in each of the series.

    Altenatively, all the spine images could be in one series, with a Body
    Part Examined attribute of SPINE (or indeed this attribute could be lef
    out because it is type 3, and the Series Description set to Spine) with
    the anatomy being specified by the Anatomic Region Sequence.

    Simmilar to the above, one could have 3 series corresponding to
    SHOULDER, ARM and HAND Body Part Examined, or a single series which
    combines all these Upper Extremity images.

    Any comments will be most welcome.

    Thanks,

    Ben


  2. Re: Grouping DX images into Series

    There's a long history of different ivendor nterpretations of the
    standard regarding the meaning of/constraints implicit in images being
    in the same series

    The standard originally indicated images in a series were spatially or
    temporally related with the intent that ultrasound images taken in
    sequence or cross sectional images from a CT or MR would be organized
    into series but unrelated CR images would be each put into a separate
    series.

    However, this was somewhat inconvenient in some viewing packages and at
    least one CR vendor, put all the CR images for an exam in a single
    series, which allow a user in a lot of display packages to conveniently
    sequence through them, the same way they would sequence through a set
    of ultrasound or cross sectional imaging (CT, MR) images. But the
    definition ambiguous and there were a lot of implementations using
    Series differently.
    The Frame Of Reference UID was developed to unambiguously identify
    images which were spatially related to each other. This allowed images
    that were spatially related but acquired in different modes (and
    therefore placed in different series) to be definitely related to each
    other spatially. You can code this info exactly when your patient is on
    a table in a known orientation, and the gantry/sensor/table positioning
    can be sensed and the patient is presumed not to move.

    With CR, the plates are completely free to be moved around and are not
    integrated with xray source/gantry/etc. The general convention
    developed to put each CR image in its own series since there was too
    much uncheckable possibility of the images not being spatially related.


    DX mostly follows the CR convention but since DX gantry and sensor
    generally are in a fixed/instrumented spatial relationship, the
    modality can generate a frame of reference and relate images to each
    other. Frame of reference UIDS are generated but it seems like their
    placement into series is still up to the subjective choice of the
    vendor. I've seen a DX system generate a set of images for an exam
    where two images were in the same series and two other images were in a
    different series implying they do use something to group images into
    Series.; but I suspect it has more to do with the patient
    orientation/position remaining the same and the gantry being moved in
    only one plane (ie. or some other contraint where the modality was sure
    the same frame of reference still applied) rather than being related by
    the images having the same body part.


+ Reply to Thread