Correa, Ramón

e16017 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common form of pancreatic cancer and remains one of the deadliest malignancies worldwide, largely due to late-stage diagnosis. Early-stage PDAC is frequently asymptomatic, limiting opportunities for timely detection and intervention. We aimed to develop prognostic models using routinely acquired pre-diagnostic clinical data to identify individuals at high risk for PDAC prior to clinical manifestation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients treated at Mayo Clinic sites in Rochester, MN; Phoenix, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL between January 2011 and February 2023. The cohort included 1,151 patients with PDAC and 3,745 noncancer controls. CT scans were standardized to axial abdominal acquisitions with slice thickness between 0.8–3.0 mm. Radiology reports were de-identified, normalized, and parsed into structured sections (Indications, Findings, Impression), with an additional pancreas-specific section aggregating pancreas-related sentences. Demographic and clinical variables, e.g., age, sex, race, etc., were encoded using a templated sentence representation. All textual inputs were embedded using a Sentence-BERT model. A multimodal deep learning survival model was developed to integrate CT imaging, radiology report embeddings, and demographic features. The model was trained using a negative log-likelihood loss to estimate patient-specific PDAC risk scores. Model performance was assessed using the concordance index (C-index). Internal validation included patients from MN and AZ sites, while external validation used the FL cohort. Results: We evaluated unimodal (imaging, text, and demographics) and multimodal inputs. Fusion of imaging, radiology report, and demographic features achieved the highest performance, with internal and external validation C-indices of 0.885 (95% CI, 0.856–0.908) and 0.751 (95% CI, 0.719–0.783), respectively. Subgroup analysis by tumor location demonstrated differential performance. For pancreatic head tumors, internal and external C-indices were 0.916 (95% CI, 0.841–0.960) and 0.778 (95% CI, 0.730–0.823). For pancreatic body tumors, C-indices were 0.954 (95% CI, 0.897–0.997) internally and 0.929 (95% CI, 0.897–0.953) externally. For pancreatic tail tumors, internal and external C-indices were 0.903 (95% CI, 0.830–0.974) and 0.789 (95% CI, 0.689–0.874). Conclusions: A multimodal deep survival model leveraging pre-diagnostic CT imaging, radiology report embeddings, and demographic data can effectively identify individuals at high risk for PDAC prior to clinical diagnosis. Differences in performance were observed across pancreatic head, body, and tail tumors. This approach highlights the potential of opportunistic cancer risk stratification from routine imaging to enable earlier detection and targeted intervention strategies.

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI)-scores estimated from digital mammograms predict future breast cancer (BC) risk. MIRAI is a deep learning BC risk model that provides a continuous 5-year risk of overall BC from four screening full field digital mammograms. Common germline genetic variation in the form of a polygenic risk score (BC-PRS) is associated with increased BC risk and may improve MIRAI’s 5-year risk prediction. Our goal was to develop an updated MIRAI 5-year risk model that incorporates the BC-PRS (MIRAI+PRS) and to evaluate its discriminatory accuracy and calibration for both overall and invasive BC compared to MIRAI alone. We developed the MIRAI+PRS model by multiplying each woman’s 5-year MIRAI risk estimate by their relative risk based on their BC-PRS relative to the population mean. We evaluated the models within the Mayo Clinic Biobank mammography cohort, comprised of 12,307 women without a prior history of BC; 176 invasive and 250 overall BC were diagnosed within 5 years. MIRAI was estimated on screening mammograms closest to enrollment but at least 6 months prior to BC. Discriminatory accuracy, assessed by C-statistic, was high and similar for MIRAI+PRS vs. MIRAI models, for overall BC and invasive BC (Table). Calibration assessed by observed to expected (O/E) ratios was also similar for MIRAI+PRS compared to MIRAI predictions for BC outcomes (Table), although there was improvement in decile-specific O/E ratios across the lowest risk deciles (<1.67%) for MIRAI+PRS. Calibration for invasive cancer was poor for MIRAI with or without PRS. In summary, the MIRAI+PRS risk model did not result in significant difference of discriminatory accuracy or overall calibration compared to the MIRAI model, but there was evidence for improved calibration for women with 5-year risk below 1.67%. For invasive BC, the model had poor calibration regardless of whether PRS was included, underscoring the importance of training AI models for BC outcomes that are associated with a clinical intervention. Citation Format: Christopher G. Scott, Peter Kraft, Imon Banerjee, Ramon Correa Medero, Aaron D. Norman, Fergus J. Couch, Karla Kerlikowske, Stacey J. Winham, Celine M. Vachon. Development and evaluation of a MIRAI 5-year risk model with a breast cancer polygenic risk score [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2779.

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI)–based, mammography breast cancer risk prediction models show improved discriminatory accuracy relative to clinical risk models. However, data on their calibration are limited. This study compared model performance of 3 clinical breast cancer risk models: Gail, Tyrer–Cuzick v8, and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium v3 with the MIRAI AI-risk model. Methods Digital mammograms were ascertained from a screening mammography cohort of 12 308 women within the Mayo Clinic Biobank with 250 incident breast cancers (176 invasive) within 5 years. We predicted 5-year breast cancer risk, estimated discriminatory accuracy (C-index), and calibration (observed-to-expected ratio) of both overall and invasive breast cancer and compared estimates using bootstrapping approaches. Results MIRAI demonstrated similar or improved discriminatory accuracy of overall breast cancer (C-index = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.74) and invasive breast cancer (C-index = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.75) compared with clinical models (overall breast cancer: C-index = 0.59-0.68; invasive breast cancer: C-index = 0.60-0.68). MIRAI’s calibration for risk of overall breast cancer (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.08) was improved compared with Gail (observed-to-expected ratio = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.38) and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (observed-to-expected ratio = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.22 to 1.56) but similar to TC with volumetric percent density and polygenic risk score (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.13). However, for low-risk women (approximately 50%), MIRAI overestimated risk of overall breast cancer. MIRAI also overestimated risk of invasive breast cancer across the risk spectrum (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.78), whereas clinical models had good calibration (observed-to-expected ratio = 0.86–0.99). Conclusion MIRAI demonstrated stronger discriminatory accuracy than clinical models for 5-year overall and invasive breast cancer risk prediction but overestimated risk for both breast cancer endpoints. AI-based risk models should consider discriminatory accuracy and calibration for invasive cancer before implementation.

Background: Differential kidney function assessment is an important part of preoperative evaluation of various urological interventions. It is obtained through dedicated nuclear medical imaging and is not yet implemented through conventional Imaging. Objective: We assess if differential kidney function can be obtained through evaluation of contrast-enhanced computed tomography(CT) using a combination of deep learning and (2D and 3D) radiomic features. Methods: All patients who underwent kidney nuclear scanning at Mayo Clinic sites between 2018–2022 were collected. CT scans of the kidneys were obtained within a 3-month interval before or after the nuclear scans were extracted. Patients who underwent a urological or radiological intervention within this time frame were excluded. A segmentation model was used to segment both kidneys. 2D and 3D radiomics features were extracted and compared between the two kidneys to compute delta radiomics and assess its ability to predict differential kidney function. Performance was reported using receiver operating characteristics, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: Studies from Arizona & Rochester formed our internal dataset ( n = 1,159). Studies from Florida were separately processed as an external test set to validate generalizability. We obtained 323 studies from our internal sites and 39 studies from external sites. The best results were obtained by a random forest model trained on 3D delta radiomics features. This model achieved an area under curve (AUC) of 0.85 and 0.81 on internal and external test sets, while specificity and sensitivity were 0.84,0.68 on the internal set, 0.70, and 0.65 on the external set. Conclusion: This proposed automated pipeline can derive important differential kidney function information from contrast-enhanced CT and reduce the need for dedicated nuclear scans for early-stage differential kidney functional assessment. Clinical Impact: We establish a machine learning methodology for assessing differential kidney function from routine CT without the need for expensive and radioactive nuclear medicine scans.