Artificial intelligence (AI) has seen dramatic growth over the past decade, evolving from a niche super specialty computer application into a powerful tool which has revolutionized many areas of our professional and daily lives, and the potential of which seems to be still largely untapped. The field of medicine and medical imaging, as one of its various specialties, has gained considerable benefit from AI, including improved diagnostic accuracy and the possibility of predicting individual patient outcomes and options of more personalized treatment. It should be noted that this process can actively support the ongoing development of advanced, highly specific treatment strategies (e.g., target therapies for cancer patients) while enabling faster workflow and more efficient use of healthcare resources. The potential advantages of AI over conventional methods have made it attractive for physicians and other healthcare stakeholders, raising much interest in both the research and the industry communities. However, the fast development of AI has unveiled its potential for disrupting the work of healthcare professionals, spawning concerns among radiologists that, in the future, AI may outperform them, thus damaging their reputations or putting their jobs at risk. Furthermore, this development has raised relevant psychological, ethical, and medico-legal issues which need to be addressed for AI to be considered fully capable of patient management. The aim of this review is to provide a brief, hopefully exhaustive, overview of the state of the art of AI systems regarding medical imaging, with a special focus on how AI and the entire healthcare environment should be prepared to accomplish the goal of a more advanced human-centered world.

Background: Microvascular invasion (MVI) is a consolidated predictor of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after treatments. No reliable radiological imaging findings are available for preoperatively diagnosing MVI, despite some progresses of radiomic analysis. Furthermore, current MVI radiomic studies have not been designed for small HCC nodules, for which a plethora of treatments exists. This study aimed to identify radiomic MVI predictors in nodules ≤3.0 cm by analysing the zone of transition (ZOT), crossing tumour and peritumour, automatically detected to face the uncertainties of radiologist’s tumour segmentation. Methods: The study considered 117 patients imaged by contrast-enhanced computed tomography; 78 patients were finally enrolled in the radiomic analysis. Radiomic features were extracted from the tumour and the ZOT, detected using an adaptive procedure based on local image contrast variations. After data oversampling, a support vector machine classifier was developed and validated. Classifier performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and related metrics. Results: The original 89 HCC nodules (32 MVI+ and 57 MVI−) became 169 (62 MVI+ and 107 MVI−) after oversampling. Of the four features within the signature, three are ZOT heterogeneity measures regarding both arterial and venous phases. On the test set (19MVI+ and 33MVI−), the classifier predicts MVI+ with area under the curve of 0.86 (95%CI (0.70–0.93), p∼10−5), sensitivity = 79% and specificity = 82%. The classifier showed negative and positive predictive values of 87% and 71%, respectively. Conclusions: The classifier showed the highest diagnostic performance in the literature, disclosing the role of ZOT heterogeneity in predicting the MVI+ status.

Predicting grade 1 (G1) and 2 (G2) primary pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (panNET) is crucial to foresee panNET clinical behaviour. Fifty-one patients with G1-G2 primary panNET demonstrated by pre-surgical [68Ga]Ga-DOTANOC PET/CT and diagnostic conventional imaging were grouped according to the tumour grade assessment method: histology on the whole excised primary lesion (HS) or biopsy (BS). First-order and second-order radiomic features (RFs) were computed from SUV maps for the whole tumour volume on HS. The RFs showing the lowest p-values and the highest area under the curve (AUC) were selected. Three radiomic models were assessed: A (trained on HS, validated on BS), B (trained on BS, validated on HS), and C (using the cross-validation on the whole dataset). The second-order normalized homogeneity and entropy was the most effective RFs couple predicting G2 and G1. The best performance was achieved by model A (test AUC = 0.90, sensitivity = 0.88, specificity = 0.89), followed by model C (median test AUC = 0.87, sensitivity = 0.83, specificity = 0.82). Model B performed worse. Using HS to train a radiomic model leads to the best prediction, although a “hybrid” (HS+BS) population performs better than biopsy-only. The non-invasive prediction of panNET grading may be especially useful in lesions not amenable to biopsy while [68Ga]Ga-DOTANOC heterogeneity might recommend FDG PET/CT.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract