anonymization - use rsna standard?

[Satrajit Ghosh]

hey dan, 

would you guys consider implementing the rsna anonymization protocol? besides being rich, it's nice to have a standard protocol.

anonymization functions:

http://mircwiki.rsna.org/index.php?title=The_CTP_DICOM_Anonymizer

anonymization protocol example:

https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/CIP/Finalized+CTP+Anonymization+Profile+-+Basic

code:

https://github.com/johnperry/CTP/blob/master/source/java/org/rsna/ctp/stdstages/anonymizer/AnonymizerFunctions.java

and we are building a python library!

cheers,

satra

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Daniel Marcus <dan.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

Glad to hear you're moving forward.  I think you may as well get started with 1.5 and upgrade to 1.6 when it comes out.  If PHI is an immediate issue, you might consider putting a CTP instance in front of your XNAT to do the anonymization.

The anonymization in 1.6 will be configurable based on the particular anonymization profile that you use with your XNAT.  The profiles follow the DICOM browser anonymization language described here: http://nrg.wustl.edu/software/dicom-browser/instructions/anonymization-scripts/.  We'll make sure to include a sample script that is part 142 compliant.

-Dan

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Andrey Fedorov <andrey....@gmail.com> wrote:

Dan,

Thanks for your reply, this helps.

We had initial discussions here, and looks like we are going to give
it a try.

Regarding anonymization, is the implementation you plan to have in 1.6
going to be DICOM part 142 compliant? Does it make sense for us to
wait until 1.6 is out?

Regarding AIM -- yes, we are interested in the AIM-related
developments in XNAT, please keep us updated as you have any news on
that front. On our side, we are working to improve Slicer reporting
capabilities and provide some support of AIM.

AF

On Jan 30, 11:02 am, Daniel Marcus <dan.mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> Responses below...
>

> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Andrey Fedorov <andrey.fedo...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > Hi,
>
> > We have a need for a research PACS at our lab. I am considering XNAT
> > as a very promising option. I would like to clarify some of its
> > capabilities.
>
> > 1) I've heard there is work to incorporate CTP anonymization pipelines
> > into XNAT. Is there a timeline for this effort? Anonymization is very
> > important for our users.
>
> CTP and its anonymization capabilities can be easily added to an
> XNAT-workflow by configuring a CTP instance to relay the studies it
> receives to your XNAT.  Then, instead of sending directly to XNAT, send
> your studies to the CTP instance first.  We use this exact approach for
> some of our distributed projects.  An especially nice feature is that you
> can configure the CTP to XNAT traffic to go over HTTPS, so it's secure for
> sending data outside your firewalls.
>
> We've also implemented native anonymization in XNAT 1.6, which will be

> released in a few weeks.  It uses the DICOM Browser's editing language (http://nrg.wustl.edu/software/dicom-browser/instructions/anonymizatio...

> ).
>
>
>
> > 2) how broadly has XNAT been applied to imaging studies different from
> > neuroimaging? Again, for us it would be important to be able to handle
> > various imaging modalities, various body organs etc. Is this known to
> > work? Are people using XNAT for data other than neuro?
>
> I know that XNAT is used in a number of contexts outside neuro, include
> cancer and cardiology.  All major imaging modalities are support.  Perhaps
> others can pipe in about their work outside neuro.
>
> > 3) what is the level of support for metadata and annotations? Is it
> > possible to define some database schema per individual project? Is
> > there any plan to support AIM annotations (or any other alternative
> > format with similar functionality), so that data could be queried
> > based on some patient- and project-specific characteristics?
>
> XNAT itself does not come with any specific support for annotations.
> However, it was designed to be extensible, so that it can capture exactly
> this sort of stuff. We're currently preparing to implement an extension for
> AIM.  The overall plan is to make it part of the Slicer/XNAT data workflow,
> which I'm guessing is somthing you'll be interested in.  If so, let me know
> and we can roll your projects in for beta testing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I would appreciate your response.
>
> > AF
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "xnat_discussion" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > xnat_discussi...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/xnat_discussion?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xnat_discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to xnat_discussi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/xnat_discussion?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xnat_discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to xnat_di...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to xnat_discussi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/xnat_discussion?hl=en.

[Daniel Marcus]

Hi Satra,

That's not on our development trajectory (though we're happy to guide anyone who wants to take a stab at it).  Currently, the best way to get CTP functionality is as described in my previous post below.  It work seamlessly.

Regarding part 142, it's too aggressive for just about any application other than data sharing.

-Dan

[Satrajit Ghosh]

hi dan,

i think i was unclear in what i meant. by "implementing the protocol" i was suggesting implementing/using the scripting language that was developed by rsna, which would simply be a matter of adding their java anonymization class to the dicom browser. i didn't actually mean that you should follow their specific example script.

That's not on our development trajectory (though we're happy to guide anyone who wants to take a stab at it).  Currently, the best way to get CTP functionality is as described in my previous post below.  It work seamlessly.

it just seems again from a standards perspective that using code and script language from a place (i.e. rsna in this case) that seems to be defining the standard would allow for greater interoperability across packages and software.

Regarding part 142, it's too aggressive for just about any application other than data sharing.

yes, a given place would simply tailor a script for their needs.

cheers,

satra