ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2024
Automated Identification of Breast Cancer Relapse in Computed Tomography Reports Using Natural Language Processing.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of cancer recurrence from Thai-English electronic medical records using sentence embeddings.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Natural language processing for local, regional, and distant breast cancer relapse identification in pathology reports.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Deep Learning Model for Natural Language to Assess Effectiveness of Patients With Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Receiving Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Therapy.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Accurate Information and Tasks in Gynecologic Oncology and Clinical Medicine-Dunning-Kruger Effects and Ultracrepidarianism.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer relapses are rarely collected by cancer registries because of logistical and financial constraints. Hence, we investigated natural language processing (NLP), enhanced with state-of-the-art deep learning transformer tools and large language models, to automate relapse identification in the text of computed tomography (CT) reports.
methodsWe analyzed follow-up CT reports from patients diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014. The reports were curated and annotated for the presence or absence of local, regional, and distant breast cancer relapses. We performed 10-fold cross-validation to evaluate models identifying different types of relapses in CT reports. Model performance was assessed with classification metrics, reported with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsIn our data set of 1,445 CT reports, 799 (55.3%) described any relapse, 72 (5.0%) local relapses, 97 (6.7%) regional relapses, and 743 (51.4%) distant relapses. The any-relapse model achieved an accuracy of 89.6% (87.8-91.1), with a sensitivity of 93.2% (91.4-94.9) and a specificity of 84.2% (80.9-87.1). The local relapse model achieved an accuracy of 94.6% (93.3-95.7), a sensitivity of 44.4% (32.8-56.3), and a specificity of 97.2% (96.2-98.0). The regional relapse model showed an accuracy of 93.6% (92.3-94.9), a sensitivity of 70.1% (60.0-79.1), and a specificity of 95.3% (94.2-96.5). Finally, the distant relapse model demonstrated an accuracy of 88.1% (86.2-89.7), a sensitivity of 91.8% (89.9-93.8), and a specificity of 83.7% (80.5-86.4).
conclusionWe developed NLP models to identify local, regional, and distant breast cancer relapses from CT reports. Automating the identification of breast cancer relapses can enhance data collection about patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.