Veterinary - DICOM

This is a discussion on Veterinary - DICOM ; Dear All, I am wondering if anyone can point me to a document that provides an extension of the DICOM standard to veterinary (beside CP 643). In particular, there are certain body parts that are found in animals but are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Veterinary

  1. Veterinary

    Dear All,

    I am wondering if anyone can point me to a document that provides an
    extension of the DICOM standard to veterinary (beside CP 643). In
    particular, there are certain body parts that are found in animals but
    are not listed in CID 4009 (DX Anatomy Imaged).

    For example, in some cases veterinarians will not use the human
    equivalent tags (i.e. for example, they will not call a STIFLE a KNEE,
    even though that is what it is).
    To be more specific, we are wondering what to do if we needed to add
    "stifle" as a veterinary body region?

    Based on this statement from the DICOM standard:

    "An Application may extend an Extensible Context Group by adding terms
    for new concepts. Applications
    may not substitute other terms of the same concept in the Context
    Group. Such extension may be made
    without a change in Context Group Identifier, but with the
    specification of Code Set Extension (see
    PS3.3). Non-extensible Context Groups shall not be modified in an
    Application."

    It seems like we would be able to add "stifle" as a new body part as
    long as we don't change the Context Group Identifier (i.e. keep it the
    same as for the knee) and make the appropriate change to the Code Set
    Extension. Still, something does not seem quite right with this
    approach. It would allow too much interpretation on our part and it
    seems like there ought to be a document / table that contains anatomic
    regions for veterinary. Would you please guide us to this document,
    or tell us if our approach of extending the anatomic regions sequence
    is correct?

    We look forward to your response.

    Thank you,
    Victor

  2. Re: Veterinary

    And another one: for a Digital Intra-oral X-Ray ... is it possible to
    define a 3rd or 4rd premolar tooth (dog specific) in "Primary Anatomic
    Structure Sequence" ?
    If not, what should go there to be "legal" (to pass validation) ?

    Thank you,
    Victor

  3. Re: Veterinary

    Hi Victor

    Victor Pop wrote:

    > I am wondering if anyone can point me to a document that provides an
    > extension of the DICOM standard to veterinary (beside CP 643). In
    > particular, there are certain body parts that are found in animals but
    > are not listed in CID 4009 (DX Anatomy Imaged).
    >
    > For example, in some cases veterinarians will not use the human
    > equivalent tags (i.e. for example, they will not call a STIFLE a KNEE,
    > even though that is what it is).
    > To be more specific, we are wondering what to do if we needed to add
    > "stifle" as a veterinary body region?


    I am currently working with the DICOM veterinary group (WG 25) to
    extend the standard in a number of ways with respect to describing
    anatomy, views, orientation and positioning for quadrupeds.

    That includes such things as adding appropriate anatomic codes for
    veterinary use that already exist in SNOMED (e.g., T-15728 "Stifle
    joint", if that turns out to be the appropriate concept). For the
    CR rather than DX users, we will also add corresponding string
    values for used in Body Part Examined also (e.g., "STIFLE").

    In essence, the goal is to produce a veterinary-specific version of
    PS 3.16 Annex L for the anatomy.

    Also, there is some work needs to be done to add a list of appropriate
    views (e.g., "ventro-dorsal" rather than "antero-posterior") and
    to extend the patient orientation abbreviations correspondingly. This
    may require a little more effort, since there may not be a sufficient
    set of existing concepts in SNOMED at the present time, or defined
    synonyms, if it can be argued that VD and AP are the same concept
    (which they may be for the trunk at least).

    > Based on this statement from the DICOM standard:
    >
    > "An Application may extend an Extensible Context Group by adding terms
    > for new concepts. Applications
    > may not substitute other terms of the same concept in the Context
    > Group. Such extension may be made
    > without a change in Context Group Identifier, but with the
    > specification of Code Set Extension (see
    > PS3.3). Non-extensible Context Groups shall not be modified in an
    > Application."
    >
    > It seems like we would be able to add "stifle" as a new body part as
    > long as we don't change the Context Group Identifier (i.e. keep it the
    > same as for the knee) and make the appropriate change to the Code Set
    > Extension. Still, something does not seem quite right with this
    > approach. It would allow too much interpretation on our part and it
    > seems like there ought to be a document / table that contains anatomic
    > regions for veterinary. Would you please guide us to this document,
    > or tell us if our approach of extending the anatomic regions sequence
    > is correct?


    Rarely does anyone bother to record in the dataset any information to
    identify the context group from which codes were chosen (though it can
    be done) and less common still would be flagging an additional code
    as an extension.

    So, as long as a defined context group is extensible, as the anatomic
    region codes are, then you can just use anatomically appropriate codes
    that you find in SNOMED as you see fit, until we have finishing formally
    producing a table such as you describe is needed.

    BTW. I would strongly suggest that you join WG 25, or at least get on
    the mailing list, and become involved in this effort.

    David

  4. Re: Veterinary

    Hi Victor

    As far as I can ascertain, SNOMED only defines concepts for 1st and
    2nd premolar, so we would have to ask SNOMED to add new codes for
    these, or find another appropriate coding scheme for them.

    Until this is done, I would suggest using private codes.

    David

    Victor Pop wrote:
    > And another one: for a Digital Intra-oral X-Ray ... is it possible to
    > define a 3rd or 4rd premolar tooth (dog specific) in "Primary Anatomic
    > Structure Sequence" ?
    > If not, what should go there to be "legal" (to pass validation) ?
    >
    > Thank you,
    > Victor


  5. Re: Veterinary

    Dear David,

    Thank you very much for your detailed response to my two questions.
    It seems that some of these issues are still work in progress and the
    best thing would be for us to join the WG 25 mailing list, as you
    suggested. Please let me know where/how I can join the WG 25 mailing
    list.

    Best,
    Victor

+ Reply to Thread