Back

Histology-Derived Signatures Predict Recurrence Risk and Chemotherapy Benefit in Randomized Trials of Early Breast Cancer

Howard, F. M.; Li, A.; Kochanny, S.; Sullivan, M.; Flores, E. M.; Dolezal, J.; Khramtsova, G.; Hassan, S.; Medenwald, R.; Saha, P.; Fan, C.; McCart, L.; Watson, M.; Teras, L. R.; Bodelon, C.; Patel, A. V.; Symmans, W. F.; Partridge, A.; Carey, L.; Olopade, O. I.; Stover, D.; Perou, C.; Yao, K.; Pearson, A. T.; Huo, D.

2026-04-24 oncology
10.64898/2026.04.23.26351499 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeTo test whether histology-derived gene-expression signatures from routine hematoxylin and eosin slides are prognostic for recurrence and predictive of chemotherapy benefit in early breast cancer. MethodsWe conducted a multi-cohort study including CALGB 9344 (anthracycline {+/-} paclitaxel), CALGB 9741 (standard vs dose-dense chemotherapy), a pooled Chicago real-world cohort, and the American Cancer Society (ACS) Cancer Prevention Studies-II and -3. Whole-slide images were processed with a previously described pipeline to generate 61 histology-derived signatures per patient. The primary endpoint was distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), except in ACS, where breast cancer-specific survival was used. Secondary endpoints include distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) and overall survival. The most prognostic signature in CALGB 9344, selected by Harrells C-index, was evaluated in additional cohorts. Signature-treatment interaction was assessed by likelihood-ratio tests. Multivariable Cox models incorporating age, tumor size, nodal status, estrogen/progesterone receptor status, and signature were fit in CALGB 9344 to improve risk stratification. ResultsA total of 7,170 patients were included across four cohorts. The top histology-derived signature in CALGB 9344 showed strong prognostic performance for 5-year DRFI (C-index 0.63) and performed well across validation cohorts (C-index 0.60, 0.70, and 0.62 in CALGB 9741, Chicago, and ACS, respectively). The strongest predictive signal for treatment benefit was observed for DRFS. High-risk cases identified by the signature demonstrated greater benefit from taxane in CALGB 9344 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76 for DRFS, 95% CI 0.66-0.88; interaction p=0.028), from dose-dense chemotherapy in CALGB 9741 (aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85; interaction p=0.039), and differential chemotherapy benefit in the Chicago cohort (aHR 0.84, 95% CI 0.59-1.21; interaction p=0.009). Combined clinical-histology models improved risk stratification and identified low-risk groups with a 2%-10% risk of distant recurrence or breast cancer death. ConclusionHistology-derived signatures from H&E images are broadly prognostic and, unlike clinical factors, may predict chemotherapy benefit. HighlightsO_LIHistology-derived H&E signatures consistently predicted recurrence risk across randomized trials and real-world cohorts. C_LIO_LIA single cutoff of a low-risk histology signature predicted taxane benefit and dose-dense chemotherapy benefit. C_LIO_LICombined clinical-histology models identified low-risk groups with 2%-10% risk of distant recurrence. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.5%
2
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
3
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.3%
4
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
6
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
8
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
9
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.4%
10
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
11
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.7%
13
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
14
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.6%
16
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
17
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.2%
18
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
21
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 24%
0.8%
22
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
24
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
25
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
26
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%