Implementing the DICOM Standard for Digital Pathology

Background: Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM®) is the standard for the representation, storage, and communication of medical images and related information. A DICOM file format and communication protocol for pathology have been defined; however, adoption by vendors and in the field is pending. Here, we implemented the essential aspects of the standard and assessed its capabilities and limitations in a multisite, multivendor healthcare network. Methods: We selected relevant DICOM attributes, developed a program that extracts pixel data and pixel-related metadata, integrated patient and specimen-related metadata, populated and encoded DICOM attributes, and stored DICOM files. We generated the files using image data from four vendor-specific image file formats and clinical metadata from two departments with different laboratory information systems. We validated the generated DICOM files using recognized DICOM validation tools and measured encoding, storage, and access efficiency for three image compression methods. Finally, we evaluated storing, querying, and retrieving data over the web using existing DICOM archive software. Results: Whole slide image data can be encoded together with relevant patient and specimen-related metadata as DICOM objects. These objects can be accessed efficiently from files or through RESTful web services using existing software implementations. Performance measurements show that the choice of image compression method has a major impact on data access efficiency. For lossy compression, JPEG achieves the fastest compression/decompression rates. For lossless compression, JPEG-LS significantly outperforms JPEG 2000 with respect to data encoding and decoding speed. Conclusion: Implementation of DICOM allows efficient access to image data as well as associated metadata. By leveraging a wealth of existing infrastructure solutions, the use of DICOM facilitates enterprise integration and data exchange for digital pathology.

[1]  Maarten van Smeden,et al.  Machine Learning Compared With Pathologist Assessment. , 2018, JAMA.

[2]  Liron Pantanowitz,et al.  Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine Whole Slide Imaging Connectathon at Digital Pathology Association Pathology Visions 2017 , 2018, Journal of pathology informatics.

[3]  Mahadev Satyanarayanan,et al.  OpenSlide: A vendor-neutral software foundation for digital pathology , 2013, Journal of pathology informatics.

[4]  Sébastien Jodogne,et al.  The Orthanc Ecosystem for Medical Imaging , 2018, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[5]  Meyke Hermsen,et al.  1399 H&E-stained sentinel lymph node sections of breast cancer patients: the CAMELYON dataset , 2018, GigaScience.

[6]  Christopher J. Roth,et al.  Enterprise Imaging Governance: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper , 2016, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[7]  U J Balis,et al.  Digital imaging standards and system interoperability. , 1997, Clinics in laboratory medicine.

[8]  Rajendra Singh,et al.  Standardization in digital pathology: Supplement 145 of the DICOM standards , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[9]  Tiago Marques Godinho,et al.  An efficient architecture to support digital pathology in standard medical imaging repositories , 2017, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[10]  P. Prasad,et al.  1713 , 2019, Critical Care Medicine.

[11]  Christel Daniel-Le Bozec,et al.  Standardizing the use of whole slide images in digital pathology , 2011, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[12]  Ossama Tawfik,et al.  Integrating pathology and radiology disciplines: an emerging opportunity? , 2012, BMC Medicine.

[13]  Chaya S Moskowitz Using Free-Response Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves to Assess the Accuracy of Machine Diagnosis of Cancer. , 2017, JAMA.

[14]  W. D. Bidgood,et al.  Introduction to the ACR-NEMA DICOM standard. , 1992, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[15]  Roy Fielding,et al.  Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures"; Doctoral dissertation , 2000 .

[16]  S. Granter,et al.  Straw Men, Deep Learning, and the Future of the Human Microscopist: Response to "Artificial Intelligence and the Pathologist: Future Frenemies?" , 2017, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[17]  Liron Pantanowitz,et al.  Digital pathology and anatomic pathology laboratory information system integration to support digital pathology sign-out , 2016, Journal of pathology informatics.

[18]  Alexis B. Carter,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and the Pathologist: Future Frenemies? , 2017, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[19]  Alexis B. Carter,et al.  Computational Pathology: A Path Ahead. , 2016, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[20]  Gloria Bueno,et al.  Standardization Of Pathology Whole Slide Images According To DICOM 145 Supplement And Storage In PACs , 2016 .

[21]  Luis Ibáñez,et al.  The Design of SimpleITK , 2013, Front. Neuroinform..

[22]  Jeffrey A. Golden,et al.  Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases From Breast Cancer: Helping Artificial Intelligence Be Seen. , 2017, JAMA.

[23]  Christopher J. Roth,et al.  A Foundation for Enterprise Imaging: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper , 2016, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[24]  D Mason,et al.  SU-E-T-33: Pydicom: An Open Source DICOM Library , 2011 .

[25]  Paul J. Kennedy,et al.  Convolutional Deep Belief Network with Feature Encoding for Classification of Neuroblastoma Histological Images , 2018, Journal of pathology informatics.

[26]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  American Telemedicine Association clinical guidelines for telepathology , 2014, Journal of pathology informatics.

[27]  John D. Pfeifer,et al.  Implementation of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology: A value added approach , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[28]  Charles Marion,et al.  ITK: enabling reproducible research and open science , 2014, Front. Neuroinform..

[29]  Liron Pantanowitz,et al.  Current State of the Regulatory Trajectory for Whole Slide Imaging Devices in the USA , 2017, Journal of pathology informatics.

[30]  Andrew H. Beck,et al.  Diagnostic Assessment of Deep Learning Algorithms for Detection of Lymph Node Metastases in Women With Breast Cancer , 2017, JAMA.

[31]  Ioan C. Cucoranu,et al.  Digital pathology: A systematic evaluation of the patent landscape , 2014, Journal of pathology informatics.

[32]  Kristine A. Erps,et al.  Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. , 2009, Human pathology.

[33]  Andreas Wahle,et al.  DICOM for quantitative imaging biomarker development: a standards based approach to sharing clinical data and structured PET/CT analysis results in head and neck cancer research , 2016, PeerJ.

[34]  Gad Getz,et al.  Computational pathology: an emerging definition. , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[35]  Charles E. Kahn,et al.  DICOMweb™: Background and Application of the Web Standard for Medical Imaging , 2018, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[36]  Pablo R Ros,et al.  Integrated Diagnostics: The Computational Revolution Catalyzing Cross-disciplinary Practices in Radiology, Pathology, and Genomics. , 2017, Radiology.

[37]  David A. Clunie,et al.  Technical Challenges of Enterprise Imaging: HIMSS-SIIM Collaborative White Paper , 2016, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[38]  Clive R. Taylor,et al.  Whole Slide Imaging Versus Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology , 2017, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[39]  Michele Larobina,et al.  Medical Image File Formats , 2014, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[40]  Sébastien Jodogne,et al.  Open Implementation of DICOM for Whole-Slide Microscopic Imaging , 2017, VISIGRAPP.