Comparison Between Radial and Femoral Artery Access for Transarterial Chemoembolisation in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the technical success rate, the selectivity of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), the complication rate, the radiation dose given to the patients and the hospitalization stay between TACE performed using femoral artery approach (FAA) and TACE performed using radial artery approach (RAA) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Between June 2020 and April 2022, 49 patients with HCC who underwent 116 TACEs (75 using FAA and 41 using RAA) were included. Differences in technical success rate, selectivity of micro-catheterization, radiation dose given to the patients, fluoroscopy time, hospitalization stay duration, and complication rate were compared between FAA and RAA using Fisher exact or Student t tests. RESULTS: No differences in technical success rates were found between RAA (93%; 39/41 TACEs) and FAA (100%; 75/75 TACEs) (P = .12). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of selectivity of catheterization, radiation dose, fluoroscopy time and hospitalization stay duration. Five patients had Grade 2 complications (hematoma) after FAA vs. one patient with one Grade 1 complication (radial artery occlusion) after RAA (5/75 [7%] vs. 1/41 [2%], respectively; P = .42). No major arterial access site complications occurred with FAA or RAA. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that RAA is a safe approach that does not compromise the technical efficacy and the selectivity of TACE compared to FAA in patients with HCC.

Learning from the machine: AI assistance is not an effective learning tool for resident education in chest x-ray interpretation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether a computer-aided detection (CADe) system could serve as a learning tool for radiology residents in chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation. METHODS: Eight radiology residents were asked to interpret 500 CXRs for the detection of five abnormalities, namely pneumothorax, pleural effusion, alveolar syndrome, lung nodule, and mediastinal mass. After interpreting 150 CXRs, the residents were divided into 2 groups of equivalent performance and experience. Subsequently, group 1 interpreted 200 CXRs from the "intervention dataset" using a CADe as a second reader, while group 2 served as a control by interpreting the same CXRs without the use of CADe. Finally, the 2 groups interpreted another 150 CXRs without the use of CADe. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy before, during, and after the intervention were compared. RESULTS: Before the intervention, the median individual sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the eight radiology residents were 43% (range: 35-57%), 90% (range: 82-96%), and 81% (range: 76-84%), respectively. With the use of CADe, residents from group 1 had a significantly higher overall sensitivity (53% [n = 431/816] vs 43% [n = 349/816], p < 0.001), specificity (94% [i = 3206/3428] vs 90% [n = 3127/3477], p < 0.001), and accuracy (86% [n = 3637/4244] vs 81% [n = 3476/4293], p < 0.001), compared to the control group. After the intervention, there were no significant differences between group 1 and group 2 regarding the overall sensitivity (44% [n = 309/696] vs 46% [n = 317/696], p = 0.666), specificity (90% [n = 2294/2541] vs 90% [n = 2285/2542], p = 0.642), or accuracy (80% [n = 2603/3237] vs 80% [n = 2602/3238], p = 0.955). CONCLUSIONS: Although it improves radiology residents' performances for interpreting CXRs, a CADe system alone did not appear to be an effective learning tool and should not replace teaching. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Although the use of artificial intelligence improves radiology residents' performance in chest X-rays interpretation, artificial intelligence cannot be used alone as a learning tool and should not replace dedicated teaching. KEY POINTS: • With CADe as a second reader, residents had a significantly higher sensitivity (53% vs 43%, p < 0.001), specificity (94% vs 90%, p < 0.001), and accuracy (86% vs 81%, p < 0.001), compared to residents without CADe. • After removing access to the CADe system, residents' sensitivity (44% vs 46%, p = 0.666), specificity (90% vs 90%, p = 0.642), and accuracy (80% vs 80%, p = 0.955) returned to that of the level for the group without CADe.