Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 1;40(16):1732-1740.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01337. Epub 2021 Nov 12.

Multi-Institutional Validation of a Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Risk Model

Affiliations

Multi-Institutional Validation of a Mammography-Based Breast Cancer Risk Model

Adam Yala et al. J Clin Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: Accurate risk assessment is essential for the success of population screening programs in breast cancer. Models with high sensitivity and specificity would enable programs to target more elaborate screening efforts to high-risk populations, while minimizing overtreatment for the rest. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based risk models have demonstrated a significant advance over risk models used today in clinical practice. However, the responsible deployment of novel AI requires careful validation across diverse populations. To this end, we validate our AI-based model, Mirai, across globally diverse screening populations.

Methods: We collected screening mammograms and pathology-confirmed breast cancer outcomes from Massachusetts General Hospital, USA; Novant, USA; Emory, USA; Maccabi-Assuta, Israel; Karolinska, Sweden; Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan; and Barretos, Brazil. We evaluated Uno's concordance index for Mirai in predicting risk of breast cancer at one to five years from the mammogram.

Results: A total of 128,793 mammograms from 62,185 patients were collected across the seven sites, of which 3,815 were followed by a cancer diagnosis within 5 years. Mirai obtained concordance indices of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.78), 0.75 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.80), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.79), 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.81), 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.82), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.83), and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.88) at Massachusetts General Hospital, Novant, Emory, Maccabi-Assuta, Karolinska, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, and Barretos, respectively.

Conclusion: Mirai, a mammography-based risk model, maintained its accuracy across globally diverse test sets from seven hospitals across five countries. This is the broadest validation to date of an AI-based breast cancer model and suggests that the technology can offer broad and equitable improvements in care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Adam YalaHonoraria: SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Research & Development Peter G. MikhaelConsulting or Advisory Role: Outcomes4Me Fredrik StrandHonoraria: LunitUncompensated Relationships: Lunit Gigin LinResearch Funding: Quanta Computer (Inst) Siddharth SatuluruEmployment: Amerimed EMSStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sorrento Therapeutics (I), Moderna Therapeutics (I) Constance D. LehmanHonoraria: GE HealthcareConsulting or Advisory Role: GE Healthcare, Clairity, IncResearch Funding: GE Healthcare, HologicTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Clairity, IncOther Relationship: Clairity, Inc Kevin HughesStock and Other Ownership Interests: CRA HealthHonoraria: Hologic, Myriad GeneticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Targeted Medical Education, Inc, MedNeon,Other Relationship: Ask2Me.Org Regina BarzilayConsulting or Advisory Role: J&J, Bayer, Moderna Therapeutics, Amgen, VertexResearch Funding: BayerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: J&J, Bayer, Novo NordiskNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
Data set construction flowcharts. CGMH, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital; MGH, Massachusetts General Hospital.
FIG 2.
FIG 2.
Receiver operating curves for Mirai in selecting high-risk cohorts across all test sets: (A) MGH, (B) Novant, (C) Emory, (D) Maccabi-Assuta, (E) Barretos, (F) Karolinska, and (G) CGMH. These data sets are restricted to include patients who were screening negative and either had cancer within 5 years or 5 years of negative follow-up. AUC, area under the curve; CGMH, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital; MGH, Massachusetts General Hospital.

Comment in

References

    1. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:184–210. - PubMed
    1. Bevers TB, Ward JH, Arun BK, et al. Breast cancer risk reduction, version 2. 2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13:880–915. - PubMed
    1. Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23:1111–1130. - PubMed
    1. Yala A, Mikhael PG, Strand F, et al. Toward robust mammography-based models for breast cancer risk. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13:eaba4373. - PubMed
    1. Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1782–1792. - PubMed

Publication types