Advances in Breast Cancer Risk Modeling: Integrating Clinics, Imaging, Pathology and Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Risk Assessment

References

• World Cancer Research Fund International . BreastCancer Statistics (2023). www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/breast-cancer-statistics/#:~:text=Latest%20breast%20cancer%20data&text=There%20were%20more%20than%202.26,ASR%20%3D%20age%2Dstandardised%20rates
   Google Scholar
• Sunshine JH , ApplegateKE. Technology assessment for radiologists. Radiology230(2), 309–314 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo F , KuoYF, ShihYCT, GiordanoSH, BerensonAB. Trends in breast cancer mortality by stage at diagnosis among young women in the United States. Cancer124(17), 3500–3509 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy K , HulbertA, PasquinelliM, FeldmanLE. Impact of CT screening in lung cancer: scientific evidence and literature review. Semin. Oncol.doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.06.013 (2022) ( Epub ahead of print).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabavizadeh N . The clinical and economic benefits associated with novel multi-cancer early detection tests: conference highlights from the 2022 ISPOR Annual Meeting. Am. J. Manag. Care28(Suppl. 7), S123–S132 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marmot M , IndependentUK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening, AltmanGet al. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening replies to Michael Baum. BMJ346, f873 (2013).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tosteson AN , FrybackDG, HammondCSet al. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern. Med.174(6), 954–961 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren W , ChenM, QiaoY, ZhaoF. Global guidelines for breast cancer screening: a systematic review. Breast64, 85–99 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashayan N , AntoniouAC, IvanusUet al. Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol.17(11), 687–705 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesapane F , CodariM, SardanelliF. Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine. Eur. Radiol. Exp.2(1), 35 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sechopoulos I , TeuwenJ, MannR. Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art. Semin. Cancer Biol.72, 214–225 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gastounioti A , DesaiS, AhluwaliaVS, ConantEF, KontosD. Artificial intelligence in mammographic phenotyping of breast cancer risk: a narrative review. Breast Cancer Res.24(1), 14 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicosia L , BozziniAC, PesapaneFet al. Breast digital tomosynthesis versus contrast-enhanced mammography: comparison of diagnostic application and radiation dose in a screening setting. Cancers (Basel)15(9), 2413 (2023).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suter MB , PesapaneF, AgazziGMet al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast53, 8–17 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesapane FTC , MontesanoM, FerrariF, LiguoriA, CassanoE. Mammography in 2022, from computer-aided detection to artificial intelligence. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol.49(11), 237 (2022).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gail MH , BrintonLA, ByarDPet al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J. Natl Cancer Inst.81(24), 1879–1886 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tyrer J , DuffySW, CuzickJ. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat. Med.23(7), 1111–1130 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breast Cancer RiskReduction (Version 1.2023). National Comprehensive Cancer Network, PA, USA (2022).
   Google Scholar
• Brentnall AR , CuzickJ. Risk models for breast cancer and their validation. Stat. Sci.35(1), 14–30 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeter LK , MorelloR, RivereAEet al. Impact of launching a high-risk breast cancer screening program using the Tyrer–Cuzick model. Am. Surg.doi: 10.1177/0003134820956922 (2020) ( Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vilmun BM , VejborgI, LyngeEet al. Impact of adding breast density to breast cancer risk models: a systematic review. Eur. J. Radiol.127, 109019 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim G , BahlM. Assessing risk of breast cancer: a review of risk prediction models. J. Breast Imaging3(2), 144–155 (2021).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Paquin M , FasolinoT, SteckMB. Breast cancer risk prediction models: challenges in clinical application. Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs.23(3), 256–259 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TerryMB, LiaoY, WhittemoreASet al. 10-year performance of four models of breast cancer risk: a validation study. Lancet Oncol.20(4), 504–517 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li SX , MilneRL, Nguyen-DumontTet al. Prospective evaluation of the addition of polygenic risk scores to breast cancer risk models. JNCI Cancer Spectr.5(3), pkab021 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pal Choudhury P , BrookMN, HursonANet al. Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer–Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry. Breast Cancer Res.23(1), 22 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trentham-Dietz A , AlagozO, ChapmanCet al. Reflecting on 20 years of breast cancer modeling in CISNET: recommendations for future cancer systems modeling efforts. PLOS Comput. Biol.17(6), e1009020 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plevritis SK , MunozD, KurianAWet al. Association of screening and treatment with breast cancer mortality by molecular subtype in US women, 2000–2012. JAMA319(2), 154–164 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Ravesteyn NT , vanden Broek JJ, LiXet al. Modeling ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): an overview of CISNET model approaches. Med. Decis. Making38(Suppl. 1), S126–S139 (2018).
   Google Scholar
• Barnard ME , BoekeCE, TamimiRM. Established breast cancer risk factors and risk of intrinsic tumor subtypes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1856(1), 73–85 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesapane F , RotiliA, AgazziGMet al. Recent radiomics advancements in breast cancer: lessons and pitfalls for the next future. Curr. Oncol.28(4), 2351–2372 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michailidou K , LindstromS, DennisJet al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature551(7678), 92–94 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henneman L , TimmermansDR, BouwmanCM, CornelMC, Meijers-HeijboerH. ‘A low risk is still a risk’: exploring women’s attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention. Public Health Genomics14(4–5), 238–247 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pesapane F , RotiliA, ValconiEet al. Women’s perceptions and attitudes to the use of AI in breast cancer screening: a survey in a cancer referral centre. Br. J. Radiol.96(1141), 20220569 (2023).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derevianko A , PizzoliSFM, PesapaneFet al. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the radiology field: what is the state of doctor–patient communication in cancer diagnosis? Cancers (Basel) 15(2), 470 (2023).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorthie S , Babbde Villiers C, BurtonHet al. Towards implementation of comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction tools in health care for personalised prevention. Prev. Med.159, 107075 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann RM , AthanasiouA, BaltzerPATet al. Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Eur. Radiol.32(6), 4036–4045 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd NF , LockwoodGA, MartinLJet al. Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Breast Dis.10(3–4), 113–126 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• D’Orsi CJSE , MendelsonEB, MorrisEAet al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology (2013). www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Bi-Rads#:~:text=The%20BI%2DRADS%20atlas%20provides,and%20MRI%20of%20the%20breast
   Google Scholar
• Rao AA , FeneisJ, LalondeC, Ojeda-FournierH. A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. Radiographics36(3), 623–639 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J , NishikawaRM. Automated mammographic breast density estimation using a fully convolutional network. Med. Phys.45(3), 1178–1190 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byng JW , BoydNF, FishellE, JongRA, YaffeMJ. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys. Med. Biol.39(10), 1629–1638 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed AA , BergWA, PengH, LuoY, JankowitzRC, WuS. A deep learning method for classifying mammographic breast density categories. Med. Phys.45(1), 314–321 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman CD , YalaA, SchusterTet al. Mammographic breast density assessment using deep learning: clinical implementation. Radiology290(1), 52–58 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morton MJ , WhaleyDH, BrandtKR, AmramiKK. Screening mammograms: interpretation with computer-aided detection – prospective evaluation. Radiology239(2), 375–383 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phi XA , TagliaficoA, HoussamiN, GreuterMJW, de BockGH. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer18(1), 380 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheung YC , LinYC, WanYLet al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur. Radiol.24(10), 2394–2403 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicosia L , BozziniAC, PalmaSet al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and tumor size assessment: a valuable tool for appropriate surgical management of breast lesions. Radiol. Med.127(11), 1228–1234 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angerilli V , GaluppiniF, PagniF, FuscoN, MalapelleU, FassanM. The role of the pathologist in the next-generation era of tumor molecular characterization. Diagnostics11(2), 339 (2021).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henry NL , SomerfieldMR, DayaoZet al. Biomarkers for systemic therapy in metastatic breast cancer: ASCO guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol.40(27), 3205–3221 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fusco N , MalapelleU, CriscitielloC. Editorial: diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in 2022: the rise of novel molecular biomarkers. Front. Mol. Biosci.9, 1117323 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cimino-Mathews A . Novel uses of immunohistochemistry in breast pathology: interpretation and pitfalls. Mod. Pathol.34(Suppl. 1), 62–77 (2021).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chung C , YeungVTY, WongKCW. Prognostic and predictive biomarkers with therapeutic targets in breast cancer: a 2022 update on current developments, evidence, and recommendations. J. Oncol. Pharm. Pract.29(6), 1343–1360 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeke AL , XiuJ, ElliottAet al. Actionable co-alterations in breast tumors with pathogenic mutations in the homologous recombination DNA damage repair pathway. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.184(2), 265–275 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venetis K , PepeF, MunzoneEet al. Analytical performance of next-generation sequencing and RT-PCR on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissues for PIK3CA testing in HR+/HER2- breast cancer. Cells11(22), 3545 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fusco N , MalapelleU, FassanMet al. PIK3CA mutations as a molecular target for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Front. Oncol.11, 562 (2021).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razavi P , DicklerMN, ShahPDet al. Alterations in PTEN and ESR1 promote clinical resistance to alpelisib plus aromatase inhibitors. Nat. Cancer1(4), 382–393 (2020).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Criscitiello C , Guerini-RoccoE, VialeGet al. Immunotherapy in breast cancer patients: a focus on the use of the currently available biomarkers in oncology. Anticancer Agents Med. Chem.22(4), 787–800 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sajjadi E , VenetisK, PiciottiRet al. Mismatch repair-deficient hormone receptor-positive breast cancers: biology and pathological characterization. Cancer Cell Int.21(1), 266 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Punturi NB , SekerS, DevarakondaVet al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response to HER2 blockade in HER2-negative breast cancer. Nat. Commun.12(1), 2940 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts ME , JacksonSA, SussweinLRet al. MSH6 and PMS2 germ-line pathogenic variants implicated in Lynch syndrome are associated with breast cancer. Genet. Med.20(10), 1167–1174 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso F , Paluch-ShimonS, SenkusEet al. 5th ESO–ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 5). Ann. Oncol.31(12), 1623–1649 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso F , CataliottiL, CostaAet al. European Breast Cancer Conference manifesto on breast centres/units. Eur. J. Cancer72, 244–250 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machado LB , BrodyMB, RotenbergSE, StachelekGC, FernandezJG. Breast cancer tumor board: a radiologist’s guide to postmastectomy radiation therapy. Radiographics43(3), e220086 (2023).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dal Maso L , SantoroA, IannelliEet al. Cancer cure and consequences on survivorship care: position paper from the Italian Alliance Against Cancer (ACC) Survivorship Care Working Group. Cancer Manag. Res.14, 3105–3118 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viale G , FuscoN. Pathology after neoadjuvant treatment – how to assess residual disease. Breast62(Suppl. 1), S25–S28 (2021).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Balaya V , Bonsang-KitzisH, NgoCet al. What about sentinel lymph node biopsy for early breast cancer during pregnancy? J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 47(5), 205–207 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Garcia MA , GeyerFC, Lacroix-TrikiM, MarchióC, Reis-FilhoJS. Breast cancer precursors revisited: molecular features and progression pathways. Histopathology57(2), 171–192 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fusco N , SajjadiE, VenetisKet al. Low-risk triple-negative breast cancers: clinico-pathological and molecular features. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol.172, 103643 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim GH , AlcantaraVS, NgRPet al. Patterns of breast cancer second recurrences in patients after mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.196(3), 583–589 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta RK , RoyAM, GuptaAet al. Systemic therapy de-escalation in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: dawn of a new era? Cancers (Basel) 14(8), 1856 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Agency for Research on Cancer . Breast Tumours World Classification of Tumours, (V edition) (2019). https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Who-Classification-Of-Tumours/Breast-Tumours-2019
   Google Scholar
• Corso G , D’EcclesiisO, MagnoniFet al. Metaplastic breast cancers and triple-negative breast cancers of no special type: are they prognostically different? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer Prev.31(5), 459–466 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Faria Bessa J , MartaGN. Triple-negative breast cancer and radiation therapy. Rep. Pract. Oncol. Radiother.27(3), 545–551 (2022).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Venetis K , SajjadiE, IvanovaMet al. The molecular landscape of breast mucoepidermoid carcinoma. Cancer Med.12(9), 10725–10737 (2023).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dill EA , GruAA, AtkinsKAet al. PD-L1 expression and intratumoral heterogeneity across breast cancer subtypes and stages: an assessment of 245 primary and 40 metastatic tumors. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.41(3), 334–342 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sajjadi E , GaudiosoG, TerrasiAet al. Osteoclast-like stromal giant cells in breast cancer likely belong to the spectrum of immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages. Front. Mol. Biosci.9, 894247 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pruneri G , VingianiA, DenkertC. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in early breast cancer. Breast37, 207–214 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakha EA , El-SayedME, LeeAHet al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol.26(19), 3153–3158 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venetis K , CriminiE, SajjadiEet al. HER2 low, ultra-low, and novel complementary biomarkers: expanding the spectrum of HER2 positivity in breast cancer. Front. Mol. Biosci.9, 834651 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Memon R , PrietoGranada CN, HaradaSet al. Discordance between immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization to detect HER2 overexpression/gene amplification in breast cancer in the modern age: a single institution experience and pooled literature review study. Clin. Breast Cancer22(1), e123–e133 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorns JM . Breast cancer biomarkers: challenges in routine estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2/neu evaluation. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.143(12), 1444–1449 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnoni F , CorsoG. Progress in breast cancer surgical management. Eur. J. Cancer Prev.31(6), 551–553 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corso G , MaisonneuveP, MassariGet al. Validation of a novel nomogram for prediction of local relapse after surgery for invasive breast carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol.27(6), 1864–1874 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevilacqua JL , KattanMW, FeyJV, CodyHS3rd, BorgenPI, Van ZeeKJ. Doctor, what are my chances of having a positive sentinel node? A validated nomogram for risk estimation. J. Clin. Oncol.25(24), 3670–3679 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverstein MJ . The University of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am. J. Surg.186(4), 337–343 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudloff U , JacksLM, GoldbergJIet al. Nomogram for predicting the risk of local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. J. Clin. Oncol.28(23), 3762–3769 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zon RT , GossE, VogelVGet al. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: the role of the oncologist in cancer prevention and risk assessment. J. Clin. Oncol.27(6), 986–993 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel WH , PaceH, BrignolaM. Oncology advanced practitioners and breast cancer prevention. J. Adv. Pract. Oncol.11(8), 863–870 (2020).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Visvanathan K , FabianCJ, BantugEet al. Use of endocrine therapy for breast cancer risk reduction: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol.37(33), 3152–3165 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toomey S , CarrA, MezynskiMJet al. Identification and clinical impact of potentially actionable somatic oncogenic mutations in solid tumor samples. J. Transl. Med.18(1), 99 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forman A , SoteloJ. Tumor-based genetic testing and familial cancer risk. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med.10(8), a036590 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee J , HamJY, ParkHYet al. Feasibility of targeted cascade genetic testing in the family members of BRCA1/2 gene pathogenic variant/likely pathogenic variant carriers. Sci. Rep.12(1), 1842 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly MB , PilarskiR, YurgelunMBet al. NCCN guidelines insights: genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, version 1.2020. J. Natl Compr. Canc. Netw.18(4), 380–391 (2020).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Raccomandazioni 2019 per l’implementazione del test BRCA nelle pazienti con carcinoma mammario e nei familiari a rischio elevato di neoplasia (2019). www.aiom.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019_Raccomandazione-mammellaBRCA.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Azzollini J , ScuveraG, BrunoEet al. Mutation detection rates associated with specific selection criteria for BRCA1/2 testing in 1854 high-risk families: a monocentric Italian study. Eur. J. Intern. Med.32, 65–71 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee A , MavaddatN, WilcoxANet al. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet. Med.21(8), 1708–1718 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antoniou AC , HardyR, WalkerLet al. Predicting the likelihood of carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: validation of BOADICEA, BRCAPRO, IBIS, Myriad and the Manchester scoring system using data from UK genetics clinics. J. Med. Genet.45(7), 425–431 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzola E , BlackfordA, ParmigianiG, BiswasS. Recent enhancements to the genetic risk prediction model BRCAPRO. Cancer Inform.14(Suppl. 2), 147–157 (2015).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garber JE , OffitK. Hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes. J. Clin. Oncol.23(2), 276–292 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner SA , RaoSK, MorganRH, Vnencak-JonesCL, WiesnerGL. The impact of variant classification on the clinical management of hereditary cancer syndromes. Genet. Med.21(2), 426–430 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mersch J , BrownN, Pirzadeh-MillerSet al. Prevalence of variant reclassification following hereditary cancer genetic testing. JAMA320(12), 1266–1274 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mighton C , CharamesGS, WangMet al. Variant classification changes over time in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Genet. Med.21(10), 2248–2254 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabiei R , AyyoubzadehSM, SohrabeiS, EsmaeiliM, AtashiA. Prediction of breast cancer using machine learning approaches. J. Biomed. Phys. Eng.12(3), 297–308 (2022).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kalafi EY , NorNAM, TaibNA, GanggayahMD, TownC, DhillonSK. Machine learning and deep learning approaches in breast cancer survival prediction using clinical data. Folia Biol. (Praha)65(5–6), 212–220 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stark GF , HartGR, NartowtBJ, DengJ. Predicting breast cancer risk using personal health data and machine learning models. PLOS ONE14(12), e0226765 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yala A , LehmanC, SchusterT, PortnoiT, BarzilayR. A deep learning mammography-based model for improved breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology292(1), 60–66 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ming C , ViassoloV, Probst-HenschN, DinovID, ChappuisPO, KatapodiMC. Machine learning-based lifetime breast cancer risk reclassification compared with the BOADICEA model: impact on screening recommendations. Br. J. Cancer123(5), 860–867 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards S , AzizN, BaleSet al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med.17(5), 405–424 (2015).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favalli V , TiniG, BonettiEet al. Machine learning-based reclassification of germline variants of unknown significance: the RENOVO algorithm. Am. J. Hum. Genet.108(4), 682–695 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin HH , XuH, HuH, MaZ, ZhouJ, LiangQ. Predicting ovarian/breast cancer pathogenic risks of human BRCA1 gene variants of unknown significance. Biomed. Res. Int.2021, 6667201 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karalidou V , KalfakakouD, PapathanasiouA, FostiraF, MatsopoulosGK. MARGINAL: an automatic classification of variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes using a machine learning model. Biomolecules12(11), 1552 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senturk N , TuncelG, DoganBet al. BRCA variations risk assessment in breast cancers using different artificial intelligence models. Genes (Basel)12(11), 1774 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar