Performance of breast cancer risk prediction algorithms across mammography systems in the UK screening programme

Thirty percent of interval breast cancers, diagnosed between routine screening mammograms, have a poorer prognosis than screen-detected cancers. Deep learning algorithms can estimate short-term risk from negative mammograms to guide supplemental imaging or screening intervals, but comparative validation on complete national screening data is lacking. We retrospectively evaluated four risk algorithms (Mirai, iCAD, Transpara, and Google) using 112,621 negative mammograms from two UK NHS Breast Screening Programme sites with different mammography systems (Philips, GE) over one screening round (2014-2017) with five-year follow-up, including 1225 future cancers. There was a distinct ranking in discriminative ability; overall AUCs ranged 0.65-0.72, only one algorithm significantly differed between systems. For interval cancers, AUCs ranged 0.67-0.77. Within the highest 4.0% of risk scores, top algorithms identified ~20% of future cancers, including ~27% of interval cancers, doubling at the 14.0% threshold. These differences highlight the need for multi-algorithm prospective trials and potential fine-tuning to improve generalisation across unseen systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2026-03-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-02507-7
Primary Topic
AI in cancer detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance of breast cancer risk prediction algorithms across mammography systems in the UK screening programme

Sarah Hickman, Fleur Kilburn‐Toppin, Bahman Kasmai, Yuan Huang et al.
npj Digital Medicine
AI in cancer detection
article

Performance of breast cancer risk prediction algorithms across mammography systems in the UK screening programme

Sarah Hickman, Fleur Kilburn‐Toppin, Bahman Kasmai, Yuan Huang, Fiona J. Gilbert, Joshua Kaggie, Joshua Rothwell, Nicholas Roy Payne, Richard Black, Arne Juette
article en

Abstract

Thirty percent of interval breast cancers, diagnosed between routine screening mammograms, have a poorer prognosis than screen-detected cancers. Deep learning algorithms can estimate short-term risk from negative mammograms to guide supplemental imaging or screening intervals, but comparative validation on complete national screening data is lacking. We retrospectively evaluated four risk algorithms (Mirai, iCAD, Transpara, and Google) using 112,621 negative mammograms from two UK NHS Breast Screening Programme sites with different mammography systems (Philips, GE) over one screening round (2014-2017) with five-year follow-up, including 1225 future cancers. There was a distinct ranking in discriminative ability; overall AUCs ranged 0.65-0.72, only one algorithm significantly differed between systems. For interval cancers, AUCs ranged 0.67-0.77. Within the highest 4.0% of risk scores, top algorithms identified ~20% of future cancers, including ~27% of interval cancers, doubling at the 14.0% threshold. These differences highlight the need for multi-algorithm prospective trials and potential fine-tuning to improve generalisation across unseen systems.

npj Digital Medicine
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (GB), Barts Health NHS Trust (GB), University of Cambridge (GB), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital (GB), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, JST-Mirai Program
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 34%
AI in cancer detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.