Five Levels of PACS Modularity: Integrating 3D and Other Advanced Visualization Tools
- 281 Downloads
The current array of PACS products and 3D visualization tools presents a wide range of options for applying advanced visualization methods in clinical radiology. The emergence of server-based rendering techniques creates new opportunities for raising the level of clinical image review. However, best-of-breed implementations of core PACS technology, volumetric image navigation, and application-specific 3D packages will, in general, be supplied by different vendors. Integration issues should be carefully considered before deploying such systems. This work presents a classification scheme describing five tiers of PACS modularity and integration with advanced visualization tools, with the goals of characterizing current options for such integration, providing an approach for evaluating such systems, and discussing possible future architectures. These five levels of increasing PACS modularity begin with what was until recently the dominant model for integrating advanced visualization into the clinical radiologist's workflow, consisting of a dedicated stand-alone post-processing workstation in the reading room. Introduction of context-sharing, thin clients using server-based rendering, archive integration, and user-level application hosting at successive levels of the hierarchy lead to a modularized imaging architecture, which promotes user interface integration, resource efficiency, system performance, supportability, and flexibility. These technical factors and system metrics are discussed in the context of the proposed five-level classification scheme.
KeywordsPACS 3D imaging (imaging, three-dimensional) Computer systems Advanced visualization Server-based rendering Application hosting
KCW gratefully acknowledges the support of RSNA Research and Education Foundation Fellowship Training Grant #FT0904, as well as that of the Walter and Mary Ciceric Research Award.
- 5.Desjardins B, Kazerooni EA: ECG-gated cardiac CT. Am J Roentgenol 182:993–1010, 2004Google Scholar
- 6.Lawler LP, Pannu HK, Fishman EK: MDCT evaluation of the coronary arteries, 2004: How we do it—data acquisition, postprocessing, display, and interpretation. Am J Roentgenol 184:1402–1412, 2005Google Scholar
- 8.Shi R, Schraedley-Desmond P, Napel S, Olcott EW, Jeffrey RB, Yee J, Zalis ME, Margolis D, Paik DS, Sherbondy AJ, Sundaram P, Beaulieu CF: CT colonography: influence of 3D viewing and polyp candidate features on interpretation with computer-aided detection. Radiology 239:768–776, 2006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Horton KM, Fishman EK: Multidetector CT angiography of pancreatic carcinoma: part I, evaluation of arterial involvement. Am J Roentgenol 178:827–831, 2002Google Scholar
- 12.Takeshita K, Kutomi K, Takada K, Kohtake H, Furui S: 3D pancreatic arteriography with MDCT during intraarterial infusion of contrast material in the detection and localization of insulinomas. Am J Roentgenol 184:852–854, 2005Google Scholar
- 13.Silverman PM, Zeiberg AS, Sessions RB, Troost TR, Davros WJ, Zeman RK: Helical CT of the upper airway: normal and abnormal findings on three-dimensional reconstructed images. Am J Roentgenol 165:541–546, 1995Google Scholar
- 16.Levoy M. Polygon-assisted JPEG and MPEG compression of synthetic images. Proceedings Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, 21–28, 1995.Google Scholar
- 17.Yoon I, Neumann U (2000) Web-based remote rendering with IBRAC (image-based rendering acceleration and compression). Eurographics 19:321–330Google Scholar
- 19.Poliakov AV, Albright E, Corina D et al. (2001) Server-based approach to web visualization of integrated 3D medical image data. Proc Am Med Inform Assoc Symp 533–537Google Scholar
- 24.Health Level Seven International. Available at http://www.hl7.org/implement/standards/ccow.cfm. Accessed 13 July 2010
- 27.ClearCanvas Inc. Available at http://www.clearcanvas.ca. Accessed 13 July 2010