Difference between revisions of "Profile Strategy for Vol CT"

Revision as of 08:06, 26 January 2009

Vol CT needs to define a set of Profiles that ideally should:

Propose Profile Sets here and summarize the claim for each Profile:

Primary/Regional Nodes & Metastatic Sites Profile

Primary, Hilar & Medistinal Lymph Nodes Profile

Primary Tumor and Neo/Adjuvant Rx Profile

Alternatively, phrase the summary in the form of the "I want" that the Profile fulfills.

E.g. In IHE Radiology, the Scheduled Workflow Profile is the solution for:

"I want my RIS, PACS, Modality and Patient ID systems to all talk to each other so that demographics, orders, and imaging studies flow electronically and are correct and consistent"

Items to be considered from the January 12th, 2009 VolCT weekly call

Proffered claims a la UPICT bulls-eye: What assertions can we make about the information in our images? What can the information do for us, and for our human research volunteers? For ordinary patients with cancer?
Sequentially more complex and elegant tools/criteria/assertions?
Expression of what our problem is: What change do we want to measure?
Can we detect Progression of Disease prior to the detection of new lesions? Can we reduce the fraction of PD dx's based on new lesions?
Claims need to be technical in nature, not medical in nature, not philosophical.
Quality of information should become progressively more robust: bulls-eye model.
Profile claims are distinct from profile details.
Technical parameters of CT plus patient populations plus patient prep plus measurement/image analysis technique.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
+Alternatively, phrase the summary in the form of the "I want" that the Profile fulfills.
+E.g. In IHE Radiology, the Scheduled Workflow Profile is the solution for:
+* "I want my RIS, PACS, Modality and Patient ID systems to all talk to each other so that demographics, orders, and imaging studies flow electronically and are correct and consistent"