Back

Five-Year Breast Cancer Risk Prediction From Screening Breast Ultrasound Using Deep Learning

Chen, Y.; Yang, H.; Xu, Y.; Soni, R.; Heacock, L.; Lis, M.; Stanek, A.; Puto, T.; Lewin, A. A.; Moy, L.; Schnabel, F. R.; Shen, Y.

2026-06-24 oncology
10.64898/2026.06.21.26356188 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: To develop and evaluate a deep learning model for five-year breast cancer risk prediction from screening breast ultrasound (BUS) examinations. Methods: This retrospective study included 295,298 breast ultrasound examinations from 122,072 women imaged between 2012 and 2020. Patients were split into training, validation, and test sets; the test set included screening examinations only. BUS-Risk-Net aggregated image features using attention-based multiple instance learning and combined them with age and ultrasound-estimated breast density to predict 2- to 5-year risk. Performance was compared with the full Tyrer-Cuzick model in a matched case-control cohort and with a reduced Tyrer-Cuzick model in the held-out test set. Risk stratification was evaluated within BI-RADS density categories. Results: In the matched case-control cohort (n = 240 women), BUS-Risk-Net achieved a 5-year AUC of 0.632 (95% CI, 0.562-0.702), versus 0.514 for the full Tyrer-Cuzick model (95% CI, 0.440-0.588; p = 0.04). Among 19,548 examinations from 9,015 women eligible for 5-year evaluation in the test set, BUS-Risk-Net achieved an AUC of 0.679 (95% CI, 0.653-0.706), versus 0.594 for the reduced Tyrer-Cuzick model (95% CI, 0.564-0.623; P < .001). Observed 5-year cancer incidence increased across AI-defined risk tiers within each BI-RADS density category, ranging from 0.0% to 5.8% after AI stratification, compared with 2.1% to 3.6% across density categories alone. Discussion: Deep learning models applied to screening breast ultrasound could enable long-term breast cancer risk prediction and stratify risk beyond breast density alone. External and prospective validation is needed before clinical use.

Matching journals

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

1
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
2
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.2%
3
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.1%
4
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
8.1%
5
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.4%
7
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
8
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
9
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.7%
10
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.7%
11
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
12
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
13
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 33%
1.2%
17
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
18
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
19
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
20
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
21
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
22
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.9%
23
The American Journal of Pathology
32 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.6%
25
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%