Benchmarking Pathology Foundation Models for Breast Cancer Survival Prediction
Authors: Fredrik K. Gustafsson, Constance Boissin, Johan Vallon-Christersson, David A. Clifton, Mattias Rantalainen
Organizations: Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden · Division of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden · Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK · Oxford Suzhou Centre for Advanced Research, University of Oxford, Suzhou, China
Abstract
Pathology foundation models (PFMs) have recently emerged as powerful pretrained encoders for computational pathology, enabling transfer learning across a wide range of downstream tasks. However, systematic comparisons of these models for clinically meaningful prediction problems remain limited, especially in the context of survival prediction under external validation. In this study, we benchmark widely used and recently proposed PFMs for breast cancer survival prediction from whole-slide histopathology images. Using a standardized pipeline based on patch-level feature extraction and a unified survival modeling framework, we evaluate model representations across three independent clinical cohorts comprising more than 5,400 patients with long-term follow-up. Models are trained on one cohort and evaluated on two independent external cohorts, enabling a rigorous assessment of cross-dataset generalization. Overall, H-optimus-1 achieves the strongest survival prediction performance. More broadly, we observe consistent generational improvements across model families, with second-generation PFMs outperforming their first-generation counterparts. However, absolute performance differences between many recent PFMs remain modest, suggesting diminishing returns from further scaling of pretraining data or model size alone. Notably, the compact distilled model H0-mini slightly outperforms its larger teacher model H-optimus-0, despite using fewer than 8% of the parameters and enabling significantly faster feature extraction. Together, these results provide the first large-scale, externally validated benchmark of PFMs for breast cancer survival prediction, and offer practical guidance for efficient deployment of PFMs in clinical workflows.
Generalist pathology foundation models (PFMs), pretrained on large-scale multi-organ datasets, have demonstrated remarkable predictive capabilities across diverse clinical applications. However, their proficiency on the full spectrum of clinically essential tasks within a specific organ system remains an open question due to the lack of large-scale validation cohorts for a single organ as well as the absence of a tailored training paradigm that can effectively translate broad histomorphological knowledge into the organ-specific expertise required for specialist-level interpretation. In this study, we propose BRIGHT, the first PFM specifically designed for breast pathology, trained on over 51,000 breast whole-slide images derived from a cohort of over 40,000 patients across 19 hospitals. BRIGHT employs a collaborative generalist-specialist framework to capture both universal and organ-specific features. To comprehensively evaluate the performance of PFMs on breast oncology, we curate the largest multi-institutional cohorts to date for downstream task development and evaluation, comprising over 25,000 WSIs across 10 hospitals. The validation cohorts cover the full spectrum of breast pathology across 25 distinct clinical tasks spanning diagnosis, biomarker prediction, treatment response and survival prediction. Extensive experiments demonstrate that BRIGHT outperforms five leading generalist PFMs, achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance in 25 of 25 internal validation tasks and in 4 of 11 external validation tasks with excellent heatmap interpretability. By evaluating on large-scale validation cohorts, this study not only demonstrates BRIGHT's clinical utility in breast oncology but also validates a collaborative generalist-specialist paradigm, providing a scalable template for developing PFMs on a specific organ system, accelerating the translation of foundation models into ...
Pathology foundation models (PFMs) provide strong tissue representations and have become central to digital pathology. However, deployment in disease-specific settings is limited by 1) the high computational cost of billion-parameter PFMs and 2) distribution mismatch and non-biological bias inherited from pan-cancer, multi-centre pre-training, including site-specific signatures and imbalanced disease prevalence. These factors can encourage shortcut learning and under-emphasise subtle morphology required for reliable modelling of a specific cancer type. We present SmartStu (a Smart Student), a framework to customise compact, breast-cancer-specific PFMs via distillation whilst mitigating confounding. SmartStu distils representations from multiple teacher PFMs into a lightweight student backbone. Crucially, we introduce adversarial distillation that leverages a dedicated noise model trained to predict nuisance, edge-dominated cues on the distillation set. Using this noise model as a counterexample, the adversarial objective encourages the student to recognise, yet suppress, features predictive of nuisance targets. We further incorporate multi-teacher ensemble distillation and an auxiliary self-supervised objective with artefact injection. We validate SmartStu on three external cohorts (Yale HER2, SLN-Breast, and BRACS) with multiple tiny backbones. SmartStu yields breast-cancer-specific PFMs that are over 30× smaller than general PFMs whilst largely preserving, and sometimes improving, downstream performance measured by balanced accuracy (bAcc) and AUC. Code is available at https://github.com/zwchen03/advDistall.
How robust and generalisable are pathology foundation models and have their scaling limites been reached? We benchmarked twelve pathology foundation models (PFMs) and ResNet baselines using our Robustness Evaluation and Enhancement Toolbox (REET) across eleven clinically realistic perturbations and a dissimilarity-driven Non-Redundant K-fold validation (NR-Kfold) protocol. We introduce a Perturbation Performance Index (PPI) to summarise accuracy trends under controlled perturbation sweeps and analyse robustness scaling with parameter count. We show that PFMs consistently outperform CNNs in both robustness and domain generalisation, yet model scaling shows diminishing returns: mid-sized models such (UNI2/Virchow-2 etc.) achieve comparable or greater resilience than larger systems. NR-Kfold analysis further reveals systematic accuracy loss and increased variability when training-test similarity is broken, underscoring the need for explicit distribution-shift evaluation. These findings suggest that the next generation of pathology foundation models must prioritise data quality, multimodality information and domain alignment over parameter count to achieve genuine clinical reliability.