Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes最新文献

Purpose: To determine whether multiparametric MRI-based spatial habitats and fractal analysis can help distinguish triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) from non-TNBC. Method: Multiparametric DWI and DCE-MRI at 3T were obtained from 142 biopsy- and surgery-proven breast cancer with 148 breast lesions (TNBC = 26 and non-TNBC = 122). The contrast-enhancing lesions were divided into 3 spatial habitats based on perfusion and diffusion patterns using K-means clustering. The fractal dimension (FD) of the tumour subregions was calculated. The accuracy of the habitat segmentation was measured using the Dice index. Inter- and intra-reader reliability were evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The ability to predict TNBC status was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results: The Dice index for the whole tumour was 0.81 for inter-reader and 0.88 for intra-reader reliability. The inter- and intra-reader reliability were excellent for all 3 tumour habitats and fractal features (ICC > 0.9). TNBC had a lower hypervascular cellular habitat and higher FD 1 compared to non-TNBC (all P < .001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that hypervascular cellular habitat (OR = 0.88) and FD 1 (OR = 1.35) were independently associated with TNBC (all P < .001) after adjusting for rim enhancement, axillary lymph nodes status, and histological grade. The diagnostic model combining hypervascular cellular habitat and FD 1 showed excellent discriminatory ability for TNBC, with an AUC of 0.951 and an accuracy of 91.9%. Conclusions: The fraction of hypervascular cellular habitat and its FD may serve as useful imaging biomarkers for predicting TNBC status.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving and has transformative potential for interventional radiology (IR) clinical practice. However, formal training in AI may be limited for many clinicians and therefore presents a challenge for initial implementation and trust in AI. An understanding of the foundational concepts in AI may help familiarize the interventional radiologist with the field of AI, thus facilitating understanding and participation in the development and deployment of AI. A pragmatic classification system of AI based on the complexity of the model may guide clinicians in the assessment of AI. Finally, the current state of AI in IR and the patterns of implementation are explored (pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural).

Purpose: Patients may seek online information to better understand medical imaging procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of information provided by 2 popular artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots pertaining to common imaging scenarios' risks, benefits, and alternatives.

Methods: Fourteen imaging-related scenarios pertaining to computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used. Factors including the use of intravenous contrast, the presence of renal disease, and whether the patient was pregnant were included in the analysis. For each scenario, 3 prompts for outlining the (1) risks, (2) benefits, and (3) alternative imaging choices or potential implications of not using contrast were inputted into ChatGPT and Bard. A grading rubric and a 5-point Likert scale was used by 2 independent reviewers to grade responses. Prompt variability and chatbot context dependency were also assessed.

Results: ChatGPT's performance was superior to Bard's in accurately responding to prompts per Likert grading (4.36 ± 0.63 vs 3.25 ± 1.03 seconds, P < .0001). There was substantial agreement between independent reviewer grading for ChatGPT (κ = 0.621) and Bard (κ = 0.684). Response text length was not statistically different between ChatGPT and Bard (2087 ± 256 characters vs 2162 ± 369 characters, P = .24). Response time was longer for ChatGPT (34 ± 2 vs 8 ± 1 seconds, P < .0001).

Conclusions: ChatGPT performed superior to Bard at outlining risks, benefits, and alternatives to common imaging scenarios. Generally, context dependency and prompt variability did not change chatbot response content. Due to the lack of detailed scientific reasoning and inability to provide patient-specific information, both AI chatbots have limitations as a patient information resource.

Objective: To assess the reporting quality of radiomics studies on ischemic stroke, intracranial and carotid atherosclerotic disease using the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI) reporting guidelines with the aim of finding avenues of improvement for future publications. Method: PubMed database was searched to identify relevant radiomics studies. Of 560 articles, 41 original research articles were included in this analysis. Based on IBSI radiomics reporting guidelines, checklists for CT-based and MRI-based studies were created to allow a structured and comprehensive evaluation of each study's adherence to these guidelines. Results: The main topics covered included radiomics studies were ischemic stroke, intracranial artery disease, and carotid atherosclerotic disease. The reporting checklist median score was 17/40 for the 20 CT-based radiomics studies and 22.5/50 for the 20 MRI-based studies. Basic items like imaging modality, region of interest, and image biomarker set utilized were included in all studies. However, details regarding image acquisition and reconstruction, post-acquisition image processing, and image biomarkers computation were inconsistently detailed across studies. Conclusion: The overall reporting quality of the included radiomics studies was suboptimal. These findings underscore a pressing need for improved reporting practices in radiomics research, to ensure validation and reproducibility of results. Our study provides insights into current reporting standards and highlights specific areas where adherence to IBSI guidelines could be significantly improved.

Interventional Oncology (IO) stands at the forefront of transformative cancer care, leveraging advanced imaging technologies and innovative interventions. This narrative review explores recent developments within IO, highlighting its potential impact facilitated by artificial intelligence (AI), personalized medicine and imaging innovations. The integration of AI in IO holds promise for accelerating tumour detection and characterization, guiding treatment strategies and refining predictive models. Imaging modalities, including functional MRI, PET and cone beam CT are reshaping imaging and precision. Navigation, fusion imaging, augmented reality and robotics have the potential to revolutionize procedural guidance and offer unparalleled accuracy. New developments are observed in embolization and ablative therapies. The pivotal role of genomics in treatment planning, targeted therapies and biomarkers for treatment response prediction underscore the personalization of IO. Quality of life assessment, minimizing side effects and long-term survivorship care emphasize patient-centred outcomes after IO treatment. The evolving landscape of IO training programs, simulation technologies and workforce competence ensures the field's adaptability. Despite barriers to adoption, synergy between interventional radiologists' proficiency and technological advancements hold promise in cancer care.

Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether deep-learning reconstruction (DLR) improves interobserver agreement in the evaluation of honeycombing for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) who underwent high-resolution computed tomography (CT) compared with hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR). Methods: In this retrospective study, 35 consecutive patients suspected of ILD who underwent CT including the chest region were included. High-resolution CT images of the unilateral lung with DLR and HIR were reconstructed for the right and left lungs. A radiologist placed regions of interest on the lung and measured standard deviation of CT attenuation (i.e., quantitative image noise). In the qualitative image analyses, 5 blinded readers assessed the presence of honeycombing and reticulation, qualitative image noise, artifacts, and overall image quality using a 5-point scale (except for artifacts which was evaluated using a 3-point scale). Results: The quantitative and qualitative image noise in DLR was remarkably reduced compared to that in HIR (P < .001). Artifacts and overall DLR quality were significantly improved compared to those of HIR (P < .001 for 4 out of 5 readers). Interobserver agreement in the evaluations of honeycombing and reticulation for DLR (0.557 [0.450-0.693] and 0.525 [0.470-0.541], respectively) were higher than those for HIR (0.321 [0.211-0.520] and 0.470 [0.354-0.533], respectively). A statistically significant difference was found for honeycombing (P = .014). Conclusions: DLR improved interobserver agreement in the evaluation of honeycombing in patients with ILD on CT compared to HIR.

Breast cancer screening guidelines vary for women at intermediate risk (15%-20% lifetime risk) for developing breast cancer across jurisdictions. Currently available risk assessment models have differing strengths and weaknesses, creating difficulty and ambiguity in selecting the most appropriate model to utilize. Clarifying which model to utilize in individual circumstances may help determine the best screening guidelines to use for each individual.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Gastrointestinal Expert Panel consists of radiologists, a gastroenterologist, a general surgeon, a family physician, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 20 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 58 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 85 recommendation statements specific to the adult population across the 20 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for dysphagia/dyspepsia, acute nonlocalized abdominal pain, chronic abdominal pain, inflammatory bowel disease, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, chronic gastrointestinal bleeding/anemia, abnormal liver biopsy, pancreatitis, anorectal diseases, diarrhea, fecal incontinence, and foreign body ingestion.