Artificial intelligence in breast imaging: potentials and challenges.

Breast cancer, which is the most common type of malignant tumor among humans, is a leading cause of death in females. Standard treatment strategies, including neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, postoperative chemotherapy, targeted therapy, endocrine therapy, and radiotherapy, are tailored for individual patients. Such personalized therapies have tremendously reduced the threat of breast cancer in females. Furthermore, early imaging screening plays an important role in reducing the treatment cycle and improving breast cancer prognosis. The recent innovative revolution in artificial intelligence (AI) has aided radiologists in the early and accurate diagnosis of breast cancer. In this review, we introduce the necessity of incorporating AI into breast imaging and the applications of AI in mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography/computed tomography based on published articles since 1994. Moreover, the challenges of AI in breast imaging are discussed.

Survival outcome assessment for triple-negative breast cancer: a nomogram analysis based on integrated clinicopathological, sonographic, and mammographic characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to incorporate clinicopathological, sonographic, and mammographic characteristics to construct and validate a nomogram model for predicting disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with TNBC at our institution between 2011 and 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. A nomogram model was generated based on clinicopathological, sonographic, and mammographic variables that were associated with 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis in the training set. The nomogram model was validated according to the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves in the validation set. RESULTS: A total of 636 TNBC patients were enrolled and divided into training cohort (n = 446) and validation cohort (n = 190). Clinical factors including tumor size > 2 cm, axillary dissection, presence of LVI, and sonographic features such as angular/spiculated margins, posterior acoustic shadows, and presence of suspicious lymph nodes on preoperative US showed a tendency towards worse DFS. The multivariate analysis showed that no adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 6.7, 95% CI: 2.6, 17.5, p < 0.0005), higher axillary tumor burden (HR = 2.7, 95% CI: 1.0, 7.1, p = 0.045), and ≥ 3 malignant features on ultrasound (HR = 2.4, CI: 1.1, 5.0, p = 0.021) were identified as independent prognostic factors associated with poorer DFS outcomes. In the nomogram, the C-index was 0.693 for the training cohort and 0.694 for the validation cohort. The calibration plots also exhibited excellent consistency between the nomogram-predicted and actual survival probabilities in both the training and validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical variables and sonographic features were correlated with the prognosis of TNBCs. The nomogram model based on three variables including no adjuvant chemotherapy, higher axillary tumor load, and more malignant sonographic features showed good predictive performance for poor survival outcomes of TNBC. KEY POINTS: • The absence of adjuvant chemotherapy, heavy axillary tumor load, and malignant-like sonographic features can predict DFS in patients with TNBC. • Mammographic features of TNBC could not predict the survival outcomes of patients with TNBC. • The nomogram integrating clinicopathological and sonographic characteristics is a reliable predictive model for the prognostic outcome of TNBC.