Back

Development and Validation of a Multimodal Clinical, Pathologic, and Genomic Model for Breast Cancer Recurrence

Nguyen, N.-K.; Li, A.; Kochanny, S.; Dolezal, J.; Ramesh, S.; Shamai, G.; Zhao, J.; Nanda, R.; Chen, N.; Olopade, O. I.; Sullivan, M.; Flores, E. M.; Khramtsova, G.; Jain-Liu, S.; Medenwald, R.; Saha, P.; McCart, L.; Watson, M.; Symmans, W. F.; Kalinsky, K.; Pusztai, L.; Gala, M.; Paul, E. D.; Huraiova, B.; Cekan, P.; Partridge, A. H.; Carey, L.; Stover, D.; Yao, K.; Sparano, J. A.; Huo, D.; Pearson, A. T.; Howard, F. M.

2026-05-12 oncology
10.64898/2026.05.08.26352562 medRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeTo develop and validate a multimodal recurrence-risk model integrating histology, genomic testing, and clinical variables. MethodsWe developed AI-Path, a whole-slide image biomarker for recurrence prediction trained in CALGB 9344, and validated it in three independent cohorts: TAILORx, a multi-site Chicago cohort, and the MDX-BRCA cohort. We then integrated AI-Path with Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (RS), tumor size, and nodal status into a Cox model, PathClinRS, fit using 60% of cases from TAILORx, with the remaining 40% held out for validation. The primary end point was distant recurrence-free interval. Performance was assessed using Harrells concordance index (C-index) and Kaplan-Meier analyses. ResultsA total of 12,418 patients were included. In TAILORx, AI-Path outperformed RS for distant recurrence (C-index, 0.682 vs 0.647; P = .038), driven by superior prediction of late recurrence (0.656 vs 0.567; P < .001). In node-negative disease, PathClinRS outperformed RSClin in the TAILORx fitting (0.72 vs 0.70; P = .016) and validation sets (0.74 vs 0.70; P = .004). In node-positive disease, PathClinRS outperformed RSClinN+ in Chicago (0.94 vs 0.74; P < .001) and MDX-BRCA (0.71 vs 0.66; P = .004) cohorts. Compared with NATALEE eligibility, PathClinRS identified nearly twice as many high-risk node-negative patients while maintaining a comparable 10-year distant recurrence risk (16.7% vs 16.6% per NATALEE eligibility in TAILORx fitting; 21.0% vs 19.4% in TAILORx validation). PathClinRS identified 68% of intermediate risk premenopausal patients as low-risk with no evidence of chemotherapy benefit, compared to only 36% identified as low risk by standard clinicopathologic criteria. ConclusionDigital histopathology provides prognostic information complementary to genomic assays and has the potential to personalize therapy beyond existing clinicogenomic tools.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
2
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.4%
4
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
5
npj Breast Cancer
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
7
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
8
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.9%
9
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
10
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
11
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
12
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
13
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
14
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.7%
15
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
17
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
18
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.2%
19
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
22
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
23
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
24
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
25
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%
26
Molecular Systems Biology
142 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%