Back

MuSTAF: Clinically Relevant Multi-task Spatiotemporal Attention Fusion Framework for Breast Cancer Detection with Longitudinal Mammography

Li, Y.; Castelo, A.; Dennison, J. B.; Kettner, N. M.; Sieh, W.; Joseph, J. R.; Castillo, E.; Brock, K.; Weaver, O. O.; Wu, C.

2026-07-09 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.07.07.26357474 medRxiv
Show abstract

Recent NCCN guideline highlighted AI-based mammographic risk prediction, but AI-based breast cancer detection remains questionable to translation. One barrier is current models often do not match routine clinical reasoning, which may add decision burden than benefits. In practice, radiologists compare current and prior mammograms while assessing breast density, bilateral symmetry, and lesion laterality. To align AI with this reasoning, we developed MuSTAF, a multi-task spatiotemporal attention fusion model for patient-level breast cancer classification from longitudinal full-field digital mammography. MuSTAF uses up to three recent mammograms, integrates temporal and cross-view information, refines suspicious-region features, and jointly predicts cancer status, breast density, and bilateral symmetry, with a separate laterality classifier for cancer-positive cases. In an internal case-control cohort (n = 351), MuSTAF achieved a cancer classification (AUC=0.84) exceeding all architecture-level baselines and published mammography AI models adapted to the same task (AUC [≤] 0.81). Simultaneously, it achieved AUCs of 0.83/0.80 for density/laterality assessments, and removing these auxiliary tasks reduced cancer detection performance. On the external CSAW-CC dataset (n = 8,723), model performance improved from 0.72 to 0.88 when restricting cancer cases to those with latest exams within 60 days before diagnosis, showing that temporally distant labels may shift detection evaluation toward risk prediction. Longitudinal analysis further showed that three recent exams outperformed five exams internally (AUC = 0.84 vs 0.80) and externally (0.72 vs 0.66), indicating recent imaging evidence mattered more than remote history. Overall, MuSTAF model improved longitudinal mammographic cancer classification while providing auxiliary outputs, and clarified temporal factors for applying AI to screening detection.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
12.2%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 19%
9.4%
3
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.6%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 11%
6.6%
5
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
6
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
7
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 11%
3.1%
8
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.6%
10
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
12
Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.3%
13
Biomedical Optics Express
95 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
14
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
15
European Radiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
16
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
17
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
18
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
19
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
20
Medical Image Analysis
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
21
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
Photoacoustics
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
23
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
24
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
25
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
26
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.9%
27
Imaging Neuroscience
282 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
28
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
172 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.8%
30
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%