Cited by 43Digital Radiography and Breast ImagingAI in cancer detectionRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging

Long-term performance of an image-based short-term risk model for breast cancer

Open access
Eriksson, Mikael, Czene, Kamila, Vachon, Celine, Conant, Emily F., Hall, Per·2023·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE Image-derived artificial intelligence–based short-term risk models for breast cancer have shown high discriminatory performance compared with traditional lifestyle/familial-based risk models. The long-term performance of image-derived risk models has not been investigated. METHODS We performed a case-cohort study of 8,604 randomly selected women within a mammography screening cohort initiated in 2010 in Sweden for women age 40-74 years. Mammograms, age, lifestyle, and familial risk factors were collected at study entry. In all, 2,028 incident breast cancers were identified through register matching in May 2022 (206 incident breast cancers were found in the subcohort). The image-based model extracted mammographic features (density, microcalcifications, masses, and left-right breast asymmetries of these features) and age from study entry mammograms. The Tyrer-Cuzick v8 risk model incorporates self-reported lifestyle and familial risk factors and mammographic density to estimate risk. Absolute risks were estimated, and age-adjusted AUC model performances (aAUCs) were compared across the 10-year period. RESULTS The aAUCs of the image-based risk model ranged from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.78) to 0.65 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.66) for breast cancers developed 1-10 years after study entry; the corresponding Tyrer-Cuzick aAUCs were 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.67) to 0.60 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61). For symptomatic cancers, the aAUCs for the image-based model were ≥0.75 during the first 3 years. Women with high and low mammographic density showed similar aAUCs. Throughout the 10-year follow-up, 20% of all women with breast cancers were deemed high-risk at study entry by the image-based risk model compared with 7.1% using the lifestyle familial-based model ( P < .01). CONCLUSION The image-based risk model outperformed the Tyrer-Cuzick v8 model for both short-term and long-term risk assessment and could be used to identify women who may benefit from supplemental screening and risk reduction strategies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.22.01564

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [15]National Collaborating Centre for Cancer: Familial Breast Cancer: Classification and Care of People at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer and Management of Breast Cancer and Related Risks in People with a Family History of Breast Cancer. Cardiff, UK, NCCC, 2013 25340237
  2. [19]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Familial Breast Cancer: Classification, Care and Managing Breast Cancer and Related Risks in People with a Family History of Breast Cancer, London, UK, NICE, 2013 31940157

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eriksson, M., Czene, K., Vachon, C., Conant, E. F., & Hall, P.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Eriksson, Mikael
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2023-05-10
Volume
41
Issue
14
Pages
2536-2545
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W4327697245
Cited by
43
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7
FWCI
7.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancerfonden (CAN 2015/649, 19 0267)
  • Stockholms Läns Landsting (20200102)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Keywords
breast cancer risk prediction, breast density, microcalcifications, breast mass, breast asymmetry, mammography screening, supplemental screening
MeSH terms
Breast Density, Adult, Aged, Artificial Intelligence, Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Mammography, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, Risk Assessment, Genetic Predisposition to Disease

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