To reduce the number of missed or misdiagnosed lung nodules on CT scans by radiologists, many Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms have been developed. Some algorithms are currently being implemented in clinical practice, but the question is whether radiologists and patients really benefit from the use of these novel tools. This study aimed to review how AI assistance for lung nodule assessment on CT scans affects the performances of radiologists. We searched for studies that evaluated radiologists’ performances in the detection or malignancy prediction of lung nodules with and without AI assistance. Concerning detection, radiologists achieved with AI assistance a higher sensitivity and AUC, while the specificity was slightly lower. Concerning malignancy prediction, radiologists achieved with AI assistance generally a higher sensitivity, specificity and AUC. The radiologists’ workflows of using the AI assistance were often only described in limited detail in the papers. As recent studies showed improved performances of radiologists with AI assistance, AI assistance for lung nodule assessment holds great promise. To achieve added value of AI tools for lung nodule assessment in clinical practice, more research is required on the clinical validation of AI tools, impact on follow-up recommendations and ways of using AI tools.

Radiological imaging plays a crucial role in the detection and treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, there are several challenges associated with the use of these techniques in daily clinical practice. Determination of the presence or absence of cancer using radiological imaging is difficult and requires specific expertise, especially after neoadjuvant therapy. Early detection and characterization of tumors would potentially increase the number of patients who are eligible for curative treatment. Over the last decades, artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (CAD) has rapidly evolved as a means for improving the radiological detection of cancer and the assessment of the extent of disease. Although the results of AI applications seem promising, widespread adoption in clinical practice has not taken place. This narrative review provides an overview of current radiological CAD systems in pancreatic cancer, highlights challenges that are pertinent to clinical practice, and discusses potential solutions for these challenges.

Background: Decision-making in lung cancer is complex due to a rapidly increasing amount of diagnostic data and treatment options. The need for timely and accurate diagnosis and delivery of care demands high-quality multidisciplinary team (MDT) collaboration and coordination. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can potentially support MDTs in constructing a shared mental model of a patient case. This enables the team to assess the strength and completeness of collected diagnostic data, stratification for the right personalized therapy driven by clinical stage and other treatment-influencing factors, and adapt care management strategies when needed. Current CDSSs often have a suboptimal fit into the decision-making workflow, which hampers their impact in clinical practice. Methods: A CDSS for multidisciplinary decision-making in lung cancer was designed to support the abovementioned goals through presentation of relevant clinical data in line with existing mental model structures of the MDT members. The CDSS was tested in a simulated multidisciplinary tumor board meeting for primary diagnosis and treatment selection, based on de-identified primary lung cancer cases (n=8). Decision course analysis, eye-tracking data and questionnaires were used to assess the impact of the CDSS on constructing shared mental models to improve the decision-making process and outcome. Results: The CDSS supported the team in their self-correcting capacity for accurate diagnosis and TNM classification. It enabled cross-validation of diagnostic findings, surfaced discordance between diagnostic tests and facilitated cancer staging according the diagnostic evidence, as well as spotting contra-indications for personalized treatment selection. Conclusions: This study shows the potential of CDSS on clinical decision making, when these systems are properly designed in line with clinical thinking. The presented setup enables assessment of the impact of CDSS design on clinical decision making and optimization of CDSSs to maximize their effect on decision quality and confidence.

Background: Many promising artificial intelligence (AI) and computer-aided detection and diagnosis systems have been developed, but few have been successfully integrated into clinical practice. This is partially owing to a lack of user-centered design of AI-based computer-aided detection or diagnosis (AI-CAD) systems. Objective: We aimed to assess the impact of different onboarding tutorials and levels of AI model explainability on radiologists’ trust in AI and the use of AI recommendations in lung nodule assessment on computed tomography (CT) scans. Methods: In total, 20 radiologists from 7 Dutch medical centers performed lung nodule assessment on CT scans under different conditions in a simulated use study as part of a 2×2 repeated-measures quasi-experimental design. Two types of AI onboarding tutorials (reflective vs informative) and 2 levels of AI output (black box vs explainable) were designed. The radiologists first received an onboarding tutorial that was either informative or reflective. Subsequently, each radiologist assessed 7 CT scans, first without AI recommendations. AI recommendations were shown to the radiologist, and they could adjust their initial assessment. Half of the participants received the recommendations via black box AI output and half received explainable AI output. Mental model and psychological trust were measured before onboarding, after onboarding, and after assessing the 7 CT scans. We recorded whether radiologists changed their assessment on found nodules, malignancy prediction, and follow-up advice for each CT assessment. In addition, we analyzed whether radiologists’ trust in their assessments had changed based on the AI recommendations. Results: Both variations of onboarding tutorials resulted in a significantly improved mental model of the AI-CAD system (informative P=.01 and reflective P=.01). After using AI-CAD, psychological trust significantly decreased for the group with explainable AI output (P=.02). On the basis of the AI recommendations, radiologists changed the number of reported nodules in 27 of 140 assessments, malignancy prediction in 32 of 140 assessments, and follow-up advice in 12 of 140 assessments. The changes were mostly an increased number of reported nodules, a higher estimated probability of malignancy, and earlier follow-up. The radiologists’ confidence in their found nodules changed in 82 of 140 assessments, in their estimated probability of malignancy in 50 of 140 assessments, and in their follow-up advice in 28 of 140 assessments. These changes were predominantly increases in confidence. The number of changed assessments and radiologists’ confidence did not significantly differ between the groups that received different onboarding tutorials and AI outputs. Conclusions: Onboarding tutorials help radiologists gain a better understanding of AI-CAD and facilitate the formation of a correct mental model. If AI explanations do not consistently substantiate the probability of malignancy across patient cases, radiologists’ trust in the AI-CAD system can be impaired. Radiologists’ confidence in their assessments was improved by using the AI recommendations.

Background: Preoperative planning of patients diagnosed with pancreatic head cancer is difficult and requires specific expertise. This pilot study assesses the added value of three-dimensional (3D) patient models and computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms in determining the resectability of pancreatic head tumors. Methods: This study included 14 hepatopancreatobiliary experts from eight hospitals. The participants assessed three radiologically resectable and three radiologically borderline resectable cases in a simulated setting via crossover design. Groups were divided in controls (using a CT scan), a 3D group (using a CT scan and 3D models), and a CAD group (using a CT scan, 3D and CAD). For the perceived fulfillment of preoperative needs, the quality and confidence of clinical decision-making were evaluated. Results: A higher perceived ability to determine degrees and the length of tumor–vessel contact was reported in the CAD group compared to controls (p = 0.022 and p = 0.003, respectively). Lower degrees of tumor–vessel contact were predicted for radiologically borderline resectable tumors in the CAD group compared to controls (p = 0.037). Higher confidence levels were observed in predicting the need for vascular resection in the 3D group compared to controls (p = 0.033) for all cases combined. Conclusions: “CAD (including 3D) improved experts’ perceived ability to accurately assess vessel involvement and supports the development of evolving techniques that may enhance the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic cancer”.

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the deadliest malignancies, with outcomes dependent on timely diagnosis and accurate assessment of surgical resectability. Centralized care models aim to improve diagnostic quality by concentrating specialized expertise. While centralization improves access to expertise, it introduces new challenges in coordinating diagnostic work across institutions, aligning heterogeneous data and technologies, and sustaining reliable collective decision-making under time pressure. How diagnostic reasoning is practically accomplished within these distributed care networks remains insufficiently understood. We conducted a qualitative case study of a regional centralized pancreatic cancer care network in the Netherlands. Drawing on socio-technical systems theory, we analyzed diagnostic workflows including imaging assessments, multidisciplinary team meetings, and surgical procedures through contextual observations. Our findings show that diagnostic reliability emerges from the coordinated interaction of distributed expertise, clinical data, and technological infrastructures. Multidisciplinary meetings, shared imaging systems, and iterative data interpretation play a central role, while tensions arise around efficiency, standardization, authority, and uncertainty. This study contributes (1) empirical insight into the socio-technical dynamics of centralized pancreatic cancer care, (2) a qualitative approach for studying complex, distributed healthcare systems, and (3) practice-grounded implications for integrating AI in ways that support existing clinical coordination and expertise.