1
|
Lo Mastro A, Grassi E, Berritto D, Russo A, Reginelli A, Guerra E, Grassi F, Boccia F. Artificial intelligence in fracture detection on radiographs: a literature review. Jpn J Radiol 2024:10.1007/s11604-024-01702-4. [PMID: 39538068 DOI: 10.1007/s11604-024-01702-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2024] [Accepted: 11/04/2024] [Indexed: 11/16/2024]
Abstract
Fractures are one of the most common reasons of admission to emergency department affecting individuals of all ages and regions worldwide that can be misdiagnosed during radiologic examination. Accurate and timely diagnosis of fracture is crucial for patients, and artificial intelligence that uses algorithms to imitate human intelligence to aid or enhance human performs is a promising solution to address this issue. In the last few years, numerous commercially available algorithms have been developed to enhance radiology practice and a large number of studies apply artificial intelligence to fracture detection. Recent contributions in literature have described numerous advantages showing how artificial intelligence performs better than doctors who have less experience in interpreting musculoskeletal X-rays, and assisting radiologists increases diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity, improves efficiency, and reduces interpretation time. Furthermore, algorithms perform better when they are trained with big data on a wide range of fracture patterns and variants and can provide standardized fracture identification across different radiologist, thanks to the structured report. In this review article, we discuss the use of artificial intelligence in fracture identification and its benefits and disadvantages. We also discuss its current potential impact on the field of radiology and radiomics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Lo Mastro
- Department of Radiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
| | - Enrico Grassi
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Daniela Berritto
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
| | - Anna Russo
- Department of Radiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy
| | - Alfonso Reginelli
- Department of Radiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy
| | - Egidio Guerra
- Emergency Radiology Department, "Policlinico Riuniti Di Foggia", Foggia, Italy
| | - Francesca Grassi
- Department of Radiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy
| | - Francesco Boccia
- Department of Radiology, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Trovato P, Simonetti I, Morrone A, Fusco R, Setola SV, Giacobbe G, Brunese MC, Pecchi A, Triggiani S, Pellegrino G, Petralia G, Sica G, Petrillo A, Granata V. Scientific Status Quo of Small Renal Lesions: Diagnostic Assessment and Radiomics. J Clin Med 2024; 13:547. [PMID: 38256682 PMCID: PMC10816509 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13020547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2023] [Revised: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 01/16/2024] [Indexed: 01/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: Small renal masses (SRMs) are defined as contrast-enhanced renal lesions less than or equal to 4 cm in maximal diameter, which can be compatible with stage T1a renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). Currently, 50-61% of all renal tumors are found incidentally. Methods: The characteristics of the lesion influence the choice of the type of management, which include several methods SRM of management, including nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, ablation, observation, and also stereotactic body radiotherapy. Typical imaging methods available for differentiating benign from malignant renal lesions include ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Results: Although ultrasound is the first imaging technique used to detect small renal lesions, it has several limitations. CT is the main and most widely used imaging technique for SRM characterization. The main advantages of MRI compared to CT are the better contrast resolution and tissue characterization, the use of functional imaging sequences, the possibility of performing the examination in patients allergic to iodine-containing contrast medium, and the absence of exposure to ionizing radiation. For a correct evaluation during imaging follow-up, it is necessary to use a reliable method for the assessment of renal lesions, represented by the Bosniak classification system. This classification was initially developed based on contrast-enhanced CT imaging findings, and the 2019 revision proposed the inclusion of MRI features; however, the latest classification has not yet received widespread validation. Conclusions: The use of radiomics in the evaluation of renal masses is an emerging and increasingly central field with several applications such as characterizing renal masses, distinguishing RCC subtypes, monitoring response to targeted therapeutic agents, and prognosis in a metastatic context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Piero Trovato
- Radiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.T.); (I.S.); (S.V.S.); (A.P.); (V.G.)
| | - Igino Simonetti
- Radiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.T.); (I.S.); (S.V.S.); (A.P.); (V.G.)
| | - Alessio Morrone
- Division of Radiology, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, Italy;
| | - Roberta Fusco
- Medical Oncology Division, Igea SpA, 80013 Naples, Italy
- Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), SIRM Foundation, Via della Signora 2, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - Sergio Venanzio Setola
- Radiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.T.); (I.S.); (S.V.S.); (A.P.); (V.G.)
| | - Giuliana Giacobbe
- General and Emergency Radiology Department, “Antonio Cardarelli” Hospital, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Maria Chiara Brunese
- Diagnostic Imaging Section, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences & Neurosciences, University of Molise, 86100 Campobasso, Italy;
| | - Annarita Pecchi
- Department of Radiology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41121 Modena, Italy;
| | - Sonia Triggiani
- Postgraduate School of Radiodiagnostics, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.T.); (G.P.)
| | - Giuseppe Pellegrino
- Postgraduate School of Radiodiagnostics, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy; (S.T.); (G.P.)
| | - Giuseppe Petralia
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, 20141 Milan, Italy;
| | - Giacomo Sica
- Radiology Unit, Monaldi Hospital, Azienda Ospedaliera dei Colli, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Antonella Petrillo
- Radiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.T.); (I.S.); (S.V.S.); (A.P.); (V.G.)
| | - Vincenza Granata
- Radiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.T.); (I.S.); (S.V.S.); (A.P.); (V.G.)
| |
Collapse
|