Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 26, 2025

Competing-Risk Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Survival in Multiple Primary Colorectal Cancer Patients after Surgery
Published on: September 27, 2024
Evaluation of an AI Model to Assess Future Breast Cancer Risk
Celeste Damiani1, Grigorios Kalliatakis1, Muthyala Sreenivas1
1From the Center for Human Technologies, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Via Melen 83, Genoa 16152, Italy (C.D.); Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK (C.D., E.F.L., J.C., A.R.B.); Institute of Computer Science (ICS), Foundation of Research and Technology Hellas, Heraklion, Crete, Greece (G.K.); Joint for Director Breast Screening, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Coventry, Coventry, UK (M.S.); Department of Oncoplastic Breast Surgery, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK (M.A.A.); Consumer member at National Cancer Research Institute, Breast Group, London, UK (J.R., C.P.); and University of Warwick, WMG, Coventry, UK (G.M.).
Abstract:
Background Accurate breast cancer risk assessment after a negative screening result could enable better strategies for early detection. Purpose To evaluate a deep learning algorithm for risk assessment based on digital mammograms. Materials and Methods A retrospective observational matched case-control study was designed using the OPTIMAM Mammography Image Database from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme in the United Kingdom from February 2010 to September 2019. Patients with breast cancer (cases) were diagnosed following a mammographic screening or between two triannual screening rounds. Controls were matched based on mammography device, screening site, and age. The artificial intelligence (AI) model only used mammograms at screening before diagnosis. The primary objective was to assess model performance, with a secondary objective to assess heterogeneity and calibration slope. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was estimated for 3-year risk. Heterogeneity according to cancer subtype was assessed using a likelihood ratio interaction test. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results Analysis included patients with screen-detected (median age, 60 years [IQR, 55-65 years]; 2044 female, including 1528 with invasive cancer and 503 with ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]) or interval (median age, 59 years [IQR, 53-65 years]; 696 female, including 636 with invasive cancer and 54 with DCIS) breast cancer and 1:1 matched controls, each with a complete set of mammograms at the screening preceding diagnosis. The AI model had an overall AUC of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.70), with no evidence of a significant difference between interval and screen-detected (AUC, 0.69 vs 0.67; P = .085) cancer. The calibration slope was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.26). There was similar performance for the detection of invasive cancer versus DCIS (AUC, 0.68 vs 0.66; P = .057). The model had higher performance for advanced cancer risk (AUC, 0.72 ≥stage II vs 0.66

