Deep learning on histopathological images to predict breast cancer recurrence risk and chemotherapy benefit
Open accessAbstract
Genomic testing has transformed treatment decisions for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer; however, it remains inaccessible to many patients worldwide due to high costs and logistical barriers. Here, we developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model using a multimodal deep learning approach that estimates Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence scores (RS) from routine histopathology images and clinicopathologic variables, including age at diagnosis, tumor size, and receptor status. Using a foundation model pre-trained on 171,189 histopathological slides, we fine-tuned and validated our AI model on the TAILORx randomized trial (n=8,284). Among 2,407 patients in the TAILORx validation, the model classifies 45.6% of patients as low-risk, 42.4% as intermediate risk, and 12.0% as high-risk. For predicting high genomic risk disease (RS≥26), occurring in 15.9% in the TAILORx validation set, the model achieves AUC=0.898. Patient stratification by our model shows strong prognostic value across multiple clinical endpoints, including recurrence-free interval, distant recurrence-free interval, and disease-free survival. Importantly, chemotherapy benefit is demonstrated for premenopausal patients classified by our model as high AI risk and chemotherapy benefit is ruled out for postmenopausal patients classified as low AI risk. External validation across six independent cohorts (n=5,497 patients) demonstrates robust generalization of the AI model for prognostication and prediction of RS. Notably, in postmenopausal patients, the AI model reclassifies approximately 30% of clinically high-risk cases, defined by the MINDACT criteria, as low-risk. These findings demonstrate that artificial intelligence applied to standard histopathology can be a valuable tool for chemotherapy decision-making in HR+/HER2- early breast cancer. This approach can help reduce unnecessary chemotherapy and extend precision medicine, particularly in resource-limited settings, where genomic testing is not widely accessible.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Towards a general-purpose foundation model for computational pathology
Chen, R. J., Ding, T., Lu, M. Y., Williamson, D. F. K., Jaume, G., Song, A. H., Chen, B., Zhang, A., Shao, D., Shaban, M., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-02857-3 · Cited by 1,560 · see citing works
A whole-slide foundation model for digital pathology from real-world data
Xu, H., Usuyama, N., Bagga, J., Zhang, S., Rao, R., Naumann, T., Wong, C., Gero, Z., González, J., Gu, Y., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07441-w · Cited by 921 · see citing works
Boehm, K. M., Aherne, E. A., Ellenson, L., Nikolovski, I., Alghamdi, M., Vázquez-García, I., Zamarin, D., Long Roche, K., Liu, Y., Patel, D., et al. (2022) · Nature Cancer · doi:10.1038/s43018-022-00388-9 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence predictive model for hormone therapy use in prostate cancer
Spratt, D. E., Tang, S., Sun, Y., Huang, H.-C., Chen, E., Mohamad, O., Armstrong, A. J., Tward, J. D., Nguyen, P. L., Lang, J. M., et al. (2023) · NEJM Evidence · doi:10.1056/evidoa2300023 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hundal, J., Veettil, A. A. V., Chung, C., & Hosseini, M. (2026) · American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book · doi:10.1200/edbk-26-517280 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shamai, G., Cohen, S., Binenbaum, Y., Sabo, E., Cretu, A., Mayer, C., Barshack, I., Goldman, T., Bar-Sela, G., Polónia, A., Howard, F. M., Pearson, A. T., Huo, D., Sparano, J. A., Kimmel, R., & Aran, D.
- Affiliations
- Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (IL)
- Boston Children's Hospital (US)
- Sheba Medical Center (IL)
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Emek Medical Center (IL)
- Fernando Pessoa University (PT)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Tisch Cancer Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shamai, Gil
- ORCID
- Venue
- medRxiv
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2025-05-15
- PMC
- PMC12258777
- OpenAlex
- W4410384614
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (U10CA180820, U10CA180794)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
- Keywords
- breast cancer recurrence risk, chemotherapy benefit prediction, histopathological images, artificial intelligence, Oncotype DX recurrence score, HR+/HER2- early breast cancer, TAILORx trial, chemotherapy decision-making, foundation models, external validation, precision oncology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review