Abstract
Key Results In an independent test set, a longitudinal DBT-based deep learning model achieved higher 5-year risk discrimination than the FFDM-based Mirai model (AUC, 0.720 vs 0.687; p < 0.001) and, in a matched case-control cohort, higher discrimination than the Tyrer–Cuzick model (AUC, 0.676 vs 0.567; p < 0.001).
Importance Longitudinal DBT-based AI improves individualized breast cancer risk assessment beyond FFDM-based AI and clinical risk models.
Background Imaging-based breast cancer risk prediction models primarily use full-field digital mammography (FFDM). As digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a predominant screening modality in the United States, its potential for long-term breast cancer risk prediction remains under-explored.
Objective To develop and evaluate a deep learning model that uses longitudinal DBT exams to predict long-term breast cancer risk.
Methods This retrospective study included 313,531 DBT exams from 161,165 women (mean age, 58.5 ± 11.7 years) between January 2016 and August 2020 at Institute A. A risk prediction (DRP) model was developed to estimate 2–5 year breast cancer risk using longitudinal DBT exams, patient age and breast density. Model performance was compared with a single-time point DBT model, the Mirai model using same-day FFDM, and the Tyrer-Cuzick model using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), time-dependent concordance index, and integrated Brier score.
Results In an independent test set (n = 34,580), the longitudinal DRP model achieved a 5-year AUC of 0.720 (95% CI, 0.703–0.738), improving on the single time point DRP model (AUC, 0.706; 95% CI, 0.687–0.724; p < 0.001) and the Mirai model (AUC, 0.687; 95% CI, 0.668–0.705; p < 0.001). In a matched case-control cohort (n=432), the DRP model achieved a 5-year AUC of 0.676 (95% CI, 0.626–0.727), compared with 0.567 (95% CI, 0.514–0.621; p < 0.001) for the Tyrer-Cuzick model. The model reclassified 37.6% (705/1,877) of women with extremely dense breasts as average risk, with a 5-year cancer incidence of 0.7% (5/705), and identified 15.5% (404/2,605) of women with fatty breasts as high risk, with a 5-year cancer incidence of 2.5% (10/404).
Conclusion A deep learning model using longitudinal DBT examinations improved long-term breast cancer risk prediction compared with FFDM-based and clinical risk models.
Clinical Impacts Longitudinal DBT-based risk prediction may enable dynamic risk assessment using screening images, supporting personalized screening strategies and more targeted use of supplemental imaging.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation (1922658) and the National Institute of Health (1R01EB036530-01A1).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This retrospective study was approved by New York University Langone Institutional Review Board, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. All patient data were fully de-identified in accordance with the HIPAA guidelines.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data analyzed during the study were provided by a third party. Requests for data should be directed to the provider indicated in the Acknowledgements.
