An accurate diagnosis of bone tumours on imaging is crucial for appropriate and successful treatment. The advent of Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning methods to characterize and assess bone tumours on various imaging modalities may assist in the diagnostic workflow. The purpose of this review article is to summarise the most recent evidence for AI techniques using imaging for differentiating benign from malignant lesions, the characterization of various malignant bone lesions, and their potential clinical application. A systematic search through electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov) was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 34 articles were retrieved from the databases and the key findings were compiled and summarised. A total of 34 articles reported the use of AI techniques to distinguish between benign vs. malignant bone lesions, of which 12 (35.3%) focused on radiographs, 12 (35.3%) on MRI, 5 (14.7%) on CT and 5 (14.7%) on PET/CT. The overall reported accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of AI in distinguishing between benign vs. malignant bone lesions ranges from 0.44–0.99, 0.63–1.00, and 0.73–0.96, respectively, with AUCs of 0.73–0.96. In conclusion, the use of AI to discriminate bone lesions on imaging has achieved a relatively good performance in various imaging modalities, with high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for distinguishing between benign vs. malignant lesions in several cohort studies. However, further research is necessary to test the clinical performance of these algorithms before they can be facilitated and integrated into routine clinical practice.

Epithelioid sarcoma is a rare malignant mesenchymal tumor that represents less than 1% of soft-tissue sarcomas. Despite its slow growth, the overall prognosis is poor with a high rate of local recurrence, lymph-node spread, and hematogenous metastasis. Primary epithelioid sarcoma arising from the spine is extremely rare, with limited data in the literature. We review the existing literature regarding spinal epithelioid sarcoma and report a case of epithelioid sarcoma arising from the spinal cord. A 54 year old male presented with a 1-month history of progressive left upper-limb weakness and numbness. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the spine showed an enhancing intramedullary mass at the level of T1 also involving the left T1 nerve root. Systemic radiological examination revealed no other lesion at presentation. Surgical excision of the mass was performed, and histology was consistent with epithelioid sarcoma of the spine. Despite adjuvant radiotherapy, there was aggressive local recurrence and development of intracranial metastatic spread. The patient died of the disease within 5 months from presentation. To the best of our knowledge, spinal epithelioid sarcoma arising from the spinal cord has not yet been reported. We review the challenges in diagnosis, surgical treatment, and oncologic outcome of this case.

Background: The Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) guides treatment for patients with spinal tumors, but issues arise with complexity, interobserver variability, and time demands. Large language models (LLMs) may help overcome these limitations. Objectives: This study evaluates the accuracy and efficiency of a privacy-preserving LLM (PP-LLM) for SINS calculation, with and without clinician involvement, to assess its feasibility as a clinical decision-support tool. Methods: This retrospective observational study was granted a Domain-Specific Review Board waiver owing to minimal risk. Patients from 2020 to 2022 were included. A PP-LLM was employed to maintain secure handling of patient data. A consensus SINS reference standard was established by musculoskeletal radiologists and an orthopedic surgeon. Eight orthopedic and oncology trainees were divided into two groups to calculate SINS, with and without PP-LLM assistance. LLM-predicted scores were also generated independently of any human input. Results: The main outcomes were agreement with the reference standard (measured by intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]) and time required for SINS calculation. The LLM-assisted method achieved excellent agreement (ICC = 0.993, 95%CI = 0.991–0.994), closely followed by the LLM-predicted approach (ICC = 0.990, 95%CI = 0.984–0.993). Clinicians working without LLM support showed a significantly lower ICC compared to both LLM methods (0.968, 95%CI = 0.960–0.975) (both p < 0.001). The LLM alone produced scores in approximately 5 s, while the median scoring time for LLM-assisted clinicians was 60.0 s (IQR = 46.0–80.0), notably shorter than the 83.0 s (IQR = 58.0–124.0) required without LLM assistance. Conclusions: An LLM-based approach, whether used autonomously or in conjunction with clinical expertise, enhances both accuracy and efficiency in SINS calculation. Adopting this technology may streamline oncologic workflows and facilitate more timely interventions for patients with spinal metastases.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools in healthcare. In diagnostic radiology, LLMs can assist in the computation of the Spine Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS), which is a critical tool for assessing spinal metastases. However, the accuracy of LLMs in calculating the SINS based on radiological reports remains underexplored. Objective: This study evaluates the accuracy of two institutional privacy-preserving LLMs—Claude 3.5 and Llama 3.1—in computing the SINS from radiology reports and electronic medical records, comparing their performance against clinician readers. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 124 radiology reports from patients with spinal metastases. Three expert readers established a reference standard for the SINS calculation. Two orthopaedic surgery residents and two LLMs (Claude 3.5 and Llama 3.1) independently calculated the SINS. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to measure the inter-rater agreement for the total SINS, while Gwet’s Kappa was used to measure the inter-rater agreement for the individual SINS components. Results: Both LLMs and clinicians demonstrated almost perfect agreement with the reference standard for the total SINS. Between the two LLMs, Claude 3.5 (ICC = 0.984) outperformed Llama 3.1 (ICC = 0.829). Claude 3.5 was also comparable to the clinician readers with ICCs of 0.926 and 0.986, exhibiting a near-perfect agreement across all individual SINS components [0.919–0.990]. Conclusions: Claude 3.5 demonstrated high accuracy in calculating the SINS and may serve as a valuable adjunct in clinical workflows, potentially reducing clinician workload while maintaining diagnostic reliability. However, variations in LLM performance highlight the need for further validation and optimisation before clinical integration.

Background: Breast cancer remains the most common cancer among women globally. Mammography is a key diagnostic modality; however, interpretation is increasingly challenged by rising imaging volumes, a global shortage of breast radiologists, and variability in reader experience. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a potential adjunct to address these issues, particularly in settings with high breast density, such as Asian populations. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of AI assistance on mammographic diagnostic performance among resident and consultant radiologists in Singapore. Objective: To assess whether AI assistance improves diagnostic accuracy in mammographic breast cancer detection across radiologists with varying levels of experience. Methods: A multi-reader, multi-case study was conducted at the National University Hospital, Singapore, from May to August 2023. De-identified digital mammograms from 500 women (250 with cancer and 250 normal or benign) were interpreted by 17 radiologists (4 consultants, 4 senior residents, and 9 junior residents). Each radiologist read all cases over 2 reading sessions: one without AI assistance and another with AI assistance, separated by a 1-month washout period. The AI system (FxMammo) provided heatmaps and malignancy risk scores to support decision-making. Area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) was used to evaluate diagnostic performance. Results: Among the 500 cases, 250 were malignant and 250 were non-malignant. Of the malignant cases, 16%(80/500) were ductal carcinoma in situ and 84%(420/500) were invasive cancers. Among non-malignant cases, 69.2%(346/500) were normal, 17.6%(88) benign, and 3.6%(18/500) possibly benign but stable on follow-up. Masses (54.4%, 272) and calcifications (10.8%, 54/500) were the most common findings in cancer cases. A majority of both malignant (66.8%, 334/500) and non-malignant (68%, 340/500) cases had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts (BIRADS [Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System] categories C and D). The AI model achieved an AUROC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.91‐0.95), slightly higher than consultant radiologists (AUROC 0.90, 95% CI 0.89‐0.92; P =.21). With AI assistance, AUROC improved among junior residents (from 0.84 to 0.86; P =.38) and senior residents (from 0.85 to 0.88; P =.13), with senior residents approaching consultant-level performance (AUROC difference 0.02; P =.051). Diagnostic gains with AI were greatest in women with dense breasts and among less experienced radiologists. AI also improved inter-reader agreement and time efficiency, particularly in benign or normal cases. Conclusions: This is the first study in Asia to evaluate AI assistance in mammography interpretation by radiologists of varying experience. AI significantly improved diagnostic performance and efficiency among residents, helping to narrow the experience-performance gap without compromising specificity. These findings suggest a role for AI in enhancing diagnostic consistency, improving workflow, and supporting training. Integration into clinical and educational settings may offer scalable benefits, though careful attention to threshold calibration, feedback loops, and real-world validation remains essential. Further studies in routine screening settings are needed to confirm generalizability and cost-effectiveness.