Radiomics is a new emerging field that includes extraction of metrics and quantification of so-called radiomic features from medical images. The growing importance of radiomics applied to oncology in improving diagnosis, cancer staging and grading, and improved personalized treatment, has been well established; yet, this new analysis technique has still few applications in cardiovascular imaging. Several studies have shown promising results describing how radiomics principles could improve the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis, risk stratification, and follow-up of patients with coronary heart disease (CAD), ischemic heart disease (IHD), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), hypertensive heart disease (HHD), and many other cardiovascular diseases. Such quantitative approach could be useful to overcome the main limitations of CCTA and MRI in the evaluation of cardiovascular diseases, such as readers’ subjectiveness and lack of repeatability. Moreover, this new discipline could potentially overcome some technical problems, namely the need of contrast administration or invasive examinations. Despite such advantages, radiomics is still not applied in clinical routine, due to lack of standardized parameters acquisition, inconsistent radiomic methods, lack of external validation, and different knowledge and experience among the readers. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a recent update on the status of radiomics clinical applications in cardiovascular imaging.

BACKGROUND: A recent simulation study proposed that stenosis measurements on coronary computed tomography (CT) angiography are influenced by the improved spatial resolution of photon-counting detector (PCD)-CT. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the impact of ultrahigh-spatial-resolution (UHR) on coronary stenosis measurements and Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System (CAD-RADS) reclassification rates in patients undergoing coronary CT angiography on both PCD-CT and energy-integrating detector (EID)-CT and to compare measurements against quantitative coronary angiography. METHODS: Patients with coronary calcification on EID-CT (collimation, 192×0.6 mm) were prospectively enrolled for a research coronary CT angiography with UHR PCD-CT (collimation, 120×0.2 mm) within 30 days (between April 1, 2023 and January 31, 2024). PCD-CT was acquired with the same or lower CT dose index and equivalent contrast media volume as EID-CT. Percentage diameter stenosis (PDS) for calcified, partially calcified, and noncalcified lesions were compared between scanners. Patient-level reclassification rates for CAD-RADS were evaluated. The accuracy of PDS measurements was validated against quantitative coronary angiography in patients who underwent invasive coronary angiography. RESULTS: In total, PDS of 278 plaques were quantified in 49 patients (calcified, 202; partially calcified, 51; noncalcified, 25). PCD-CT-based PDS values were lower than EID-CT measurements for calcified (45.1±20.7 versus 54.6±19.2%; P <0.001) and partially calcified plaques (44.3±19.6 versus 54.9±20.0%; P <0.001), without significant differences for noncalcified lesions (39.1±15.2 versus 39.0±16.0%; P =0.98). The reduction in stenosis degrees led to a 49.0% (24/49) reclassification rate to a lower CAD-RADS with PCD-CT. In a subset of 12 patients with 56 lesions, UHR–based PDS values showed higher agreement with quantitative coronary angiography (mean difference, 7.3%; limits of agreement, −10.7%/25.2%) than EID-CT measurements (mean difference, 17.4%; limits of agreement, −6.9%/41.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional EID-CT, UHR PCD-CT results in lower PDS values and more accurate stenosis measurements in coronary plaques with calcified components and leads to a substantial Coronary Artery Disease Reporting and Data System reclassification rate in 49.0% of patients.

Purpose: To perform a comprehensive intraindividual objective and subjective image quality evaluation of coronary CT angiography (CCTA) reconstructed with deep learning image reconstruction (DLIR) and to assess correlation with routinely applied hybrid iterative reconstruction algorithm (ASiR-V). Material and methods: Fifty-one patients (29 males) undergoing clinically indicated CCTA from April to December 2021 were prospectively enrolled. Fourteen datasets were reconstructed for each patient: three DLIR strength levels (DLIR_L, DLIR_M, and DLIR_H), ASiR-V from 10% to 100% in 10%-increment, and filtered back-projection (FBP). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) determined objective image quality. Subjective image quality was assessed with a 4-point Likert scale. Concordance between reconstruction algorithms was assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: DLIR algorithm did not impact vascular attenuation (P ≥ 0.374). DLIR_H showed the lowest noise, comparable with ASiR-V 100% (P = 1) and significantly lower than other reconstructions (P ≤ 0.021). DLIR_H achieved the highest objective quality, with SNR and CNR comparable to ASiR-V 100% (P = 0.139 and 0.075, respectively). DLIR_M obtained comparable objective image quality with ASiR-V 80% and 90% (P ≥ 0.281), while achieved the highest subjective image quality (4, IQR: 4–4; P ≤ 0.001). DLIR and ASiR-V datasets returned a very strong correlation in the assessment of CAD (r = 0.874, P = 0.001). Conclusion: DLIR_M significantly improves CCTA image quality and has very strong correlation with routinely applied ASiR-V 50% dataset in the diagnosis of CAD.

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a malignant biliary system tumor and the second most common primary hepatic neoplasm, following hepatocellular carcinoma. CCA still has an extremely high unfavorable prognosis, regardless of type and location, and complete surgical resection remains the only curative therapeutic option; however, due to the underhanded onset and rapid progression of CCA, most patients present with advanced stages at first diagnosis, with only 30 to 60% of CCA patients eligible for surgery. Recent innovations in medical imaging combined with the use of radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI) can lead to improvements in the early detection, characterization, and pre-treatment staging of these tumors, guiding clinicians to make personalized therapeutic strategies. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of how radiological features of CCA can be analyzed through radiomics and with the help of AI for many different purposes, such as differential diagnosis, the prediction of lymph node metastasis, the defining of prognostic groups, and the prediction of early recurrence. The combination of radiomics with AI has immense potential. Still, its effectiveness in practice is yet to be validated by prospective multicentric studies that would allow for the development of standardized radiomics models.

Purpose: Lung severity score (LSS) and quantitative chest CT (QCCT) analysis could have a relevant impact to stratify patients affected by COVID-19 pneumonia at the hospital admission. The study aims to assess LSS and QCCT performances in severity stratification of COVID-19 patients. Materials and methods: From April 19, 2020, until May 3, 2020, patients with chest CT suggestive for interstitial pneumonia and tested positive for COVID-19 were retrospectively enrolled and stratified for hospital admission as Group 1, 2 and 3 (home isolation, low intensive care and intensive care, respectively). For LSS, lungs were divided in 20 regions and visually assessed by two radiologists who scored for each region from non-lung involvement as 0, < 50% assigned as 1 and > 50% as 2. QCCT was performed with a dedicated software that extracts pulmonary involvement expressed in liters and percentage. LSS and QCCT were analyzed with ROC curve analysis to predict the performance of both methods. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Final population enrolled included 136 patients (87 males, mean age 66 ± 16), 19 patients in Group 1, 86 in Group 2 and 31 in Group 3. Significant differences for LSS were observed in almost all comparisons, especially in Group 1 vs 3 (AUC 0.850, P < 0,0001) and Group 1 + 2 vs 3 (AUC 0.783, P < 0,0001). QCCT showed significant results in almost all comparisons, especially between Group 1 vs 3 (AUC 0.869, P < 0,0001). LSS and QCCT comparison between Group 1 and Group 2 did not show significant differences. Conclusions: LSS and QCCT could represent promising tools to stratify COVID-19 patient severity at the admission.