Back to Authors

Kerlikowske, Karla M

0000-0001-8793-8779

Mayo Clinic

Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States.

Citations 4

Performance of clinical breast cancer risk prediction models vs a mammography-based artificial intelligence risk model
Kaul, M., Scott, C., Wadzinske, Alena , Banerjee, Imon, Hursh, Dan, Norman, Aaron, Wu, Fang-Fang, Medero, Ramon Correa, Couch, Fergus, Pruthi, Sandhya , Olson, JA, Kerlikowske, Karla, Vachon, Celine M, Scott, Christopher G. , Couch, Fergus J. , Norman, Aaron D. , Banerjee, Imon , Correa, Ramón , Couch, Fergus J. , Kaul, Medha , Scott, Christopher , Banerjee, Imon , Norman, Aaron D , Correa-Medero, Ramon Luis , Kontos, Despina , McCarthy, Anne Marie , Winham, Stacey J , Kerlikowske, Karla M , Vachon, Celine M. , Pruthi, Sandhya , Hursh, Dan, Winham, Stacey J. , Kerlikowske, Karla

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | March 24, 2026 | Volume: 118 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1485-1495

10.1093/jnci/djag083 Get It

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.
Current state of mammography-based artificial intelligence for future breast cancer risk prediction: a systematic review
Lowry, Kathryn P. , Jeong, Han Eol , Kim, Ki Hwan , Hughes, Kevin S. , Lee, Christoph I. , Kerlikowske, Karla, Vachon, CM, Kerlikowske, Karla , Kerlikowske, Karla M , Vachon, Celine M. , Hughes, Kevin , Yala, Adam

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute | January 6, 2026 | Volume: 118 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 392-403

10.1093/jnci/djag002 Get It

Abstract Background There is growing interest in artificial intelligence (AI) models for predicting future breast cancer. We performed a systematic review of studies of mammography-based AI models for future breast cancer risk prediction to summarize current evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and inform future research directions. Methods We searched 6 databases for studies from January 1, 2012, to February 28, 2025, that evaluated mammography-based AI models for future breast cancer risk prediction. We extracted study design, participants’ race and ethnicity, geographic origin, mammogram type, vendor, prediction time frame, breast cancer type predicted, external validation, and exclusion of cancers diagnosed on the index screening mammogram. Areas under the receiver operating curve (AUCs) were summarized overall and by study characteristics. Results A total of 41 studies met our inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective, and most used 2D mammograms (n = 37 studies) acquired using Hologic equipment (n = 25) and performed in the United States (n = 17); White, non-Hispanic women were most represented. Nearly all (n = 40) studies assessed discrimination performance with a median AUC of 0.71 for no longer than 2-year risk prediction, 0.72 for 3-4 years, and 0.71 for 5 years or more prediction. Median AUC was 0.75 for studies including index cancers vs 0.68 when excluded. Six studies reported model calibration performance ranging from good to overestimation of risk. Conclusion Future studies should evaluate models using digital breast tomosynthesis, examine performance for aggressive or advanced breast cancer, include diverse populations, and evaluate both discrimination and model calibration. Prospective evaluations are needed to determine the clinical utility of mammography-based AI models for personalized risk-based breast cancer screening before implementation.
Radiomic Parenchymal Phenotypes of Breast Texture from Mammography and Association with Risk of Breast Cancer
Winham, Stacey J. , Scott, Christopher G. , Gastounioti, Aimilia , Horng, Hannah , Norman, Aaron D. , Mankowski, Walter C. , Pantalone, Lauren , Jensen, Matthew R. , Acciavatti, Raymond J. , Cohen, Eric A. , Brandt, Kathleen R. , Vachon, Celine M. , Scott, Christopher , Gastounioti, Aimilia , Horng, Hannah , Norman, Aaron D , Mankowski, Walter C , Jensen, Matthew R , Acciavatti, Raymond J , Maidment, Andrew D A , Brandt, Kathleen R , Conant, Emily F , Kerlikowske, Karla M , Kontos, Despina , Vachon, Celine M. , Winham, Stacey J , McCarthy, Anne Marie , Maidment, Andrew D. A. , Conant, Emily F. , Kerlikowske, Karla

Radiology | May 13, 2025 | Volume: 315 | Issue: 2 | Pages: No page available

10.1148/radiol.240281 Get It

Radiomic parenchymal phenotypes on mammograms were used to predict breast cancer risk among both Black and White women, notably for false-negative findings and symptomatic interval cancer.
Impact of Artificial Intelligence System and Volumetric Density on Risk Prediction of Interval, Screen-Detected, and Advanced Breast Cancer
Vachon, Celine M. , Scott, Christopher G. , Norman, Aaron D. , Khanani, Sadia, Jensen, Matthew R. , Hruska, Carrie B. , Brandt, Kathleen R. , Winham, Stacey J. , Kerlikowske, Karla , Khanani, Sadia A, Winham, Stacey J , Hruska, Carrie B , Scott, Christopher , Norman, Aaron D , Kerlikowske, Karla M , Vachon, Celine M.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | April 27, 2023 | Volume: 41 | Issue: 17 | Pages: 3172-3183

10.1200/jco.22.01153 Get It

PURPOSE Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms improve breast cancer detection on mammography, but their contribution to long-term risk prediction for advanced and interval cancers is unknown. METHODS We identified 2,412 women with invasive breast cancer and 4,995 controls matched on age, race, and date of mammogram, from two US mammography cohorts, who had two-dimensional full-field digital mammograms performed 2-5.5 years before cancer diagnosis. We assessed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density, an AI malignancy score (1-10), and volumetric density measures. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs), 95% CIs, adjusted for age and BMI, and C-statistics (AUC) to describe the association of AI score with invasive cancer and its contribution to models with breast density measures. Likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) and bootstrapping methods were used to compare model performance. RESULTS On mammograms between 2-5.5 years prior to cancer, a one unit increase in AI score was associated with 20% greater odds of invasive breast cancer (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.22; AUC, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.64) and was similarly predictive of interval (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.27; AUC, 0.63) and advanced cancers (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.31; AUC, 0.64) and in dense (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.22; AUC, 0.66) breasts. AI score improved prediction of all cancer types in models with density measures ( P LRT values < .001); discrimination improved for advanced cancer (ie, AUC for dense volume increased from 0.624 to 0.679, Δ AUC 0.065, P = .01) but did not reach statistical significance for interval cancer. CONCLUSION AI imaging algorithms coupled with breast density independently contribute to long-term risk prediction of invasive breast cancers, in particular, advanced cancer.