Introduction: The incidence of venous thromboembolism is estimated to be around 3% of cancer patients. However, a majority of incidental pulmonary embolism (iPE) can be overlooked by radiologists in asymptomatic patients, performing CT scans for disease surveillance, which may significantly impact the patient’s health and management. Routine imaging in oncology is usually reviewed with delayed hours after the acquisition of images. Nevertheless, the advent of AI in radiology could reduce the risk of the diagnostic delay of iPE by an optimal triage immediately at the acquisition console. This study aimed to determine the accuracy rate of an AI algorithm (CINA-iPE) in detecting iPE and the duration until the management of cancer patients in our center, in addition to describing the characteristics of patients with a confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE). Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of the role of Avicenna’s CE-certified and FDA-cleared CINA-iPE algorithm in oncology patients treated at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus. The results obtained from the AI algorithm were compared with the attending radiologist’s report and were analyzed by both a radiology resident and a senior radiologist. In case of any discordant results, the reason for this discrepancy was further investigated. The duration between the exact time of the CT scan and analysis was assessed, as well as the duration from the result’s report and the start of active management. Results: Out of 3047 patients, 104 alerts were detected for iPE (prevalence of 1.3%), while 2942 had negative findings. In total, 36 of the 104 patients had confirmed PE, while 68 alerts were false positives. Only one patient reported as negative by the AI tool was deemed to have a PE by the radiologist. The sensitivity and specificity of the AI model were 97.3% and 97.74%, while the PPV and NPV were 34.62% and 99.97%, respectively. Most causes of FP were artifacts (22 cases, 32.3%) and lymph nodes (11 cases, 16.2%). Seven patients experienced delayed diagnosis, requiring them to return to the ER for treatment after being sent home following their scan. The remaining patients received prompt care immediately after their testing, with a mean delay time of 8.13 h. Conclusions: The addition of an AI system for the detection of unsuspected PEs on chest CT scans in routine oncology care demonstrated a promising efficacy in comparison to human performance. Despite a low prevalence, the sensitivity and specificity of the AI tool reached 97.3% and 97.7%, respectively, with detection of all the reported clinical PEs, except one single case. This study describes the potential synergy between AI and radiologists for an optimal diagnosis of iPE in routine clinical cancer care. Clinical relevance statement: In the oncology field, iPEs are common, with an increased risk of morbidity when missed with a delayed diagnosis. With the assistance of a reliable AI tool, the radiologist can focus on the challenging analysis of oncology results while dealing with urgent diagnosis such as PE by sending the patient straight to the ER (Emergency Room) for prompt treatment.

The incidence of venous thromboembolism is estimated at around 3% of cancer patients. However, a majority of incidental pulmonary embolism (iPE) can be overlooked by radiologists in asymptomatic patients, performing CT scans for disease surveillance, which may significantly impact the patient's health and management. Routine imaging in oncology is usually reviewed with delayed hours after the acquisition of images. Nevertheless, the advent of AI in radiology could reduce the risk of diagnostic delay of iPE by an optimal triage immediately at the acquisition console. This study aimed to determine the accuracy rate of an AI algorithm (CIN A-iPE) in detecting iPE and the duration until the management of cancer patients in our center in addition to describing the characteristics of patients with a confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a retrospective analysis of the role of Avicenna's CE-certified and FDA-cleared CINA-iPE algorithm in oncology patients treated at Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus. The results obtained from the AI algorithm were compared with the attending radiologist's report and analyzed by both a radiology resident and a senior radiologist. In case of any discordant results, the reason for this discrepancy was further investigated. The duration between the exact time of the CT scan and analysis was assessed as well as the duration from the result’s reporting and the start of active management. RESULTS Out of 3047 patients, 104 alerts were detected for iPE (prevalence of 1.3%) while 2942 had negative findings. 36 of the 104 patients had confirmed PE while 68 alerts were false positives. Only one patient reported as negative by the AI tool was deemed to have a PE by the radiologist. The sensitivity and specificity of the AI model were 97.3% and 97.74% while the PPV and NPV were 34.62% and 99.97% respectively. Most causes of FP were artifacts (22 cases, 32.3%) and lymph nodes (11 cases, 16.2%). Seven patients experienced delayed diagnosis, requiring them to return to the ER for treatment after being sent home following their scan. The remaining patients received prompt care immediately after their testing with a mean delay time of 8.13 hours. CONCLUSION The addition of an AI system for the detection of unsuspected PEs on chest CT scans in routine oncology care demonstrated a promising efficacy in comparison to human performance. Despite a low prevalence, the sensitivity and specificity of the AI tool reached 97.3% and 97.7% respectively with detection of all the reported clinical PEs except one single case. This study describes the potential synergy between AI and radiologists for an optimal diagnosis of iPE in routine clinical cancer care.

Background: Portal venous phase (PVP) contrast-enhanced CT is a cornerstone for response assessment in early-phase oncology trials, yet contrast-enhancement phase timing remains insufficiently monitored across sites. We assessed PVP timing using a validated artificial intelligence (AI) quality control tool (CECT-QC). Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study, 402 CT examinations from 402 patients enrolled in phase I oncology trials across three European institutions were analyzed using CECT-QC, which quantifies aortic and portal venous enhancement to classify contrast-enhancement phase. The primary analysis included 335 standard CT examinations. Optimal PVP classification was compared (i) across institutions, (ii) before vs. after French regulatory changes impacting contrast delivery, and (iii) across scanner technologies (photon-counting CT [PCCT] vs. standard CT). Results: Among the 335 standard CT examinations included in the primary analysis, 53.1% (178/335) were classified by CECT-QC as optimal PVP. Optimal PVP rates were 39.0% (32/82) at Institution A, 56.9% (87/153) at Institution B, and 59.0% (59/100) at Institution C, with a significant adjusted institutional association (p = 0.039). No significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change (p = 0.716). At Institution A, standard CT was associated with higher odds of optimal PVP classification than PCCT (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.07–4.68; p = 0.031), while PCCT showed higher aortic and portal venous attenuation (both p < 0.001). Conclusions: Approximately half of standard CT examinations in phase I oncology trials were classified as optimal PVP. Classification varied significantly across institutions and by scanner technology, whereas no significant temporal association was observed before versus after the legislative change. These findings support continued quality-control monitoring, protocol harmonization, and adaptation of classification tools to emerging CT platforms.