Purpose: This study investigates whether hepatic hilar nerve blocks (HHNB) provide safe, effective analgesia in patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET) treated with transarterial embolization (TAE). Methods: The retrospective study included all NETs treated with TAE or TAE + HHNB from 1/2020 to 8/2022. Eighty-five patients (45 men), mean age 62 years, were treated in 165 sessions (TAE, n = 153; TAE + HHNB, n = 12). For HHNBs, ≤10 mL bupivacaine HCl 0.25% ± 2 mg methylprednisolone were injected under ultrasound guidance. The aims were to assess safety of HHNB and reduction in pain. Groups were compared with Pearson’s chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Logistic regression assessed independent risk factors for pain. Results: No immediate complications from HHNBs were reported. No difference in incidence of major complications between TAE and TAE + HHNB one month post-embolization was observed (7.19% vs. 8.33%, p = 0.895). No differences in mean length of hospital stay after treatment were observed (TAE 2.2 days [95%CI: 1.74–2.56] vs. TAE + HHNB 2.8 days [95%CI: 1.43–4.26]; p = 0.174). Post-procedure pain was reported in 88.2% of TAE and 75.0% of TAE + HHNB patients (p = 0.185). HHNB recipients were more likely to use analgesic patches (25.0% vs. 5.88%; p = 0.014). No other differences in analgesic use were observed. Conclusions: HHNBs can safely be performed in patients with NETs. No difference in hospital stays or analgesic drug use was observed. Managing pain after TAE is an important goal; further study is warranted.

Purpose: This study examines the association between tumor volume doubling time (TVDT) and clinical outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with transarterial embolization (TAE) and evaluates the impact of tumor genotype on TVDT. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care cancer center, including treatment-naïve patients with biopsy-proven HCC treated with TAE from 1/2014 to 6/2022. The patients underwent initial baseline contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging more than 30 days prior to embolization. Index tumors were defined as the largest HCC present on baseline imaging treated with TAE, and TVDT was calculated using Schwartz’s equation with perpendicular trans-axial measurements. Genetic mutation analysis was performed on HCC tissue specimens using next-generation sequencing. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox regression was used to assess prognostic factors for survival. Results: Patients with a TVDT ≤ 2.5 months had a worse overall survival (OS) after TAE (p = 0.011). On multivariate regression analysis, predictors of worse OS following TAE included TVDT ≤ 2.5 months (p = 0.036), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score of 1 or 2 (p = 0.006), and alpha fetoprotein > 200 ng/mL (p = 0.013). The presence of ≥5 HCC tumors on initial imaging was associated with a worse local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) on multivariate analysis (p = 0.002). No single genetic mutation was associated with shorter TVDT. Conclusion: Patients with HCC exhibiting rapid growth, defined as shorter TVDT, may be associated with worse overall survival following TAE. Rapid tumor growth does not seem to be correlated with a single genetic mutation.

To evaluate responses from three publicly available Large Language Models (LLMs) of common patient questions regarding the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by interventional radiology, focusing on embolization and ablation. A standardized set of ten questions addressing procedure indications, risks, benefits, and outcomes was developed by the research team. Three LLMs—ChatGPT 4o Mini (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), and Copilot (Microsoft)—were prompted to generate responses to the questions. Two attending interventional radiologists independently evaluated responses using a web-based survey instrument, assessing response accuracy, comprehensiveness, readability, compassion, and overall quality on a numerical scale from 0 to 100. Comparisons between models in each domain were made using one-way ANOVA, and the survey provided opportunities for qualitative comments. LLMs were found to provide readable, generally accurate responses with no statistically significant difference within any of the evaluated domains (p > 0.05). Qualitative analysis revealed inconsistencies in LLM responses for addressing procedure subtypes, techniques, and clinical nuances of HCC treatment. While LLMs show promise as an adjunct tool for preprocedural patient education, current limitations highlight the necessity for professional oversight. Future studies incorporating patient feedback are essential to assess their impact on comprehension and satisfaction.