• Medical students are aware of the potential applications and implications of AI in radiology and medicine in general. • Medical students do not worry that the human radiologist or physician will be replaced. • Artificial intelligence should be included in medical training.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the robustness and reproducibility of radiomic features in different magnetic resonance imaging sequences. Materials and Methods: A phantom was scanned on a clinical 3 T system using fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T1-weighted (T1w), and T2-weighted (T2w) sequences with low and high matrix size. For retest data, scans were repeated after repositioning of the phantom. Test and retest datasets were segmented using a semiautomated approach. Intraobserver and interobserver comparison was performed. Radiomic features were extracted after standardized preprocessing of images. Test-retest robustness was assessed using concordance correlation coefficients, dynamic range, and Bland-Altman analyses. Reproducibility was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: The number of robust features (concordance correlation coefficient and dynamic range ≥ 0.90) was higher for features calculated from FLAIR than from T1w and T2w images. High-resolution FLAIR images provided the highest percentage of robust features (n = 37/45, 81%). No considerable difference in the number of robust features was observed between low-and high-resolution T1w and T2w images (T1w low: n = 26/45, 56%; T1w high: n = 25/45, 54%; T2 low: n = 21/45, 46%; T2 high: n = 24/45, 52%). A total of 15 (33%) of 45 features showed excellent robustness across all sequences and demonstrated excellent intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.75). Conclusions: FLAIR delivers the most robust substrate for radiomic analyses. Only 15 of 45 features showed excellent robustness and reproducibility across all sequences. Care must be taken in the interpretation of clinical studies using nonrobust features.

Key Points• Although radiomics is potentially a promising approach to analyze medical image data, many pitfalls need to be considered to avoid a reproducibility crisis.• There is a translation gap in radiomics research, with many studies being published but so far little to no translation into clinical practice.• Going forward, more studies with higher levels of evidence are needed, ideally also focusing on prospective studies with relevant clinical impact.

BackgroundTo compare the overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were treated with lipiodol-based conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) with that of patients treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE).MethodsBy an electronic search of our radiology information system, we identified 674 patients that received TACE between November 2002 and July 2013. A total of 520 patients received cTACE, and 154 received DEB-TACE. In total, 424 patients were excluded for the following reasons: tumor type other than HCC (n = 91), liver transplantation after TACE (n = 119), lack of histological grading (n = 58), incomplete laboratory values (n = 15), other reasons (e.g., previous systemic chemotherapy) (n = 114), or were lost to follow-up (n = 27). Therefore, 250 patients were finally included for comparative analysis (n = 174 cTACE; n = 76 DEB-TACE).ResultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups regarding sex, overall status (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification), liver function (Child-Pugh), portal invasion, tumor load, or tumor grading (all p > 0.05). The mean number of treatment sessions was 4 ± 3.1 in the cTACE group versus 2.9 ± 1.8 in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.01). Median survival was 409 days (95 % CI: 321–488 days) in the cTACE group, compared with 369 days (95 % CI: 310–589 days) in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.76). In the subgroup of Child A patients, the survival was 602 days (484–792 days) for cTACE versus 627 days (364–788 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.39). In Child B/C patients, the survival was considerably lower: 223 days (165–315 days) for cTACE versus 226 days (114–335 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.53).ConclusionThe present study showed no significant difference in overall survival between cTACE and DEB-TACE in patients with HCC. However, the significantly lower number of treatments needed in the DEB-TACE group makes it a more appealing treatment option than cTACE for appropriately selected patients with unresectable HCC.