cs.CVJul 28, 2026

Comparing the Performance of Foundation Model Derived Embeddings with Traditional Approaches for Distant Metastasis Prediction in Head and Neck Cancer

Authors: Erich SchmitzMeixu ChenBowen JingJing Wang

Organizations: Advanced Imaging and Informatics for Radiation Therapy (AIRT) and Medical Artificial Intelligence and Automation (MAIA) Laboratory, Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

Abstract

Background: Early prediction of distant metastasis (DM) risk in head and neck cancer (HNC) can enable timely interventions that may improve treatment outcomes. Many current machine learning methods rely on prior knowledge of the region of interest such as tumor segmentations, which require expert knowledge, is time-consuming and introduces user-dependent variability. Medical image-based foundation models have recently been developed for specific imaging modalities to streamline down-stream prediction tasks by extracting modality-relevant features. Purpose: In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of using a foundation model as the feature extractor to predict DM risk in HNC patients and compare its performance with traditional approaches that require prior knowledge on the regions of interest. Methods: Preoperative CT images of 2327 patients from the RADCURE dataset were used. Three features-sets were created including radiomics, deep-learning based features, and CT Foundation derived features. The feature-sets were used individually in a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) to predict DM risk. Results: The model using CT Foundation embeddings outperformed the radiomics and deep learning-based models, achieving a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.791, compared to AUC values of 0.772 and 0.753 for the radiomics and deep learning-based models, respectively. The CT Foundation based model had similar performance to a model that combined the use of radiomics and deep learning-based features that achieved an AUC of 0.794. Conclusions: Features based on foundation models offer a promising alternative to traditional radiomics while reducing the need for domain expertise and extensively annotated datasets. Their minimal preprocessing requirements also make them a more accessible and scalable option.

Explore similar work

Jul 29, 2026cs.CV

Empirical investigation of 3D CT Foundation Models and Unsupervised Adaptation for Head and Neck Cancer Recurrence Prediction

The rapid emergence of 3D CT foundation models has opened new avenues for predictive modeling from CT imaging, offering a compelling alternative to traditional radiomics which is known to suffer from reproducibility issues and sensitivity to acquisition protocol variations. Yet, as these models grow in availability, a critical need arises to evaluate how well their learned representations generalize across diverse clinical settings and whether adaptation to specific downstream tasks is necessary to unlock their full potential. To address these questions, we benchmarked several 3D CT foundation models for predicting recurrence-free survival in head and neck cancer across two public datasets totaling 3,644 patients, evaluating various adaptation strategies and modality fusion mechanisms. Our findings reveal persistent difficulty in identifying features that generalize consistently across different imaging distributions, as evidenced by significant performance drops on external validation cohorts. Ultimately, the integration of imaging features with clinical data remains the most accurate approach for prognostic prediction, though achieving universal generalization across varied clinical contexts continues to represent a substantial challenge for the current generation of models.
Bilel Guetarni, Feryal Windal, David Pasquier +1
Aug 8, 2026cs.CV

Distilling CT Foundation Models into Editable Concept Bottlenecks for Lung Nodule Malignancy Prediction

Foundation models provide transferable CT representations, but predictions based directly on these embeddings are difficult to interpret. We developed concept bottleneck models that map two frozen CT foundation-model representations to eight radiologist-defined pulmonary-nodule attributes and predict malignancy from the estimated concepts and nodule size. The models included CT-FM, a whole-CT self-supervised encoder using a 96^3-voxel nodule-centered patch, and FMCIB, a nodule-focused contrastive encoder using a 50-mm crop. Eight ridge-regression concept heads were trained on 2,610 LIDC-IDRI nodules. Malignancy models were trained on LUNA25 and evaluated on a held-out internal test set and the external DLCS cohort. Concept fidelity was assessed using five-fold cross-validated R^2, and malignancy discrimination was assessed using AUROC with 95% confidence intervals estimated by patient-grouped bootstrap resampling. Concept fidelity was modest but higher for FMCIB than CT-FM for subtlety (R2, 0.24 vs. 0.11), spiculation (0.17 vs. 0.08), texture (0.17 vs. 0.07), and lobulation (0.15 vs. 0.05). Internally, the CT-FM and FMCIB concept+size models achieved AUROCs of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) and 0.86 (0.79-0.92), respectively. Externally, AUROCs were 0.72 (0.68-0.75) and 0.73 (0.70-0.76), compared with 0.73 for nodule size alone and 0.60 and 0.67 for the corresponding embedding only probes. Additive predictions could be decomposed into feature-level contributions and modified through controlled concept interventions. Concept bottlenecks provided transparent malignancy predictions with discrimination similar to nodule size alone, while differences in concept fidelity suggest that concept recovery depends on the underlying foundation-model representation.
Fakrul Islam Tushar, Stephen Adamo, Geoffrey D. Rubin
Jul 1, 2026cs.CV

Foundation Models vs. Radiomics for Lung Computed Tomography: A Benchmark of Feature Extractors, Classification Heads, and Segmentation Choices

Radiomics is the established approach for CT-based lung cancer phenotyping, yet comparisons with foundation models rarely isolate contributions of feature extractor, classification head, and segmentation choice, or test cross-cohort robustness. We benchmark five feature extractors (Curia, Curia-2, DINOv3, Radiomics2D, Radiomics3D), seven classification heads (TabPFN, TabICL, XGBoost, CatBoost, Random Forest, logistic regression, Ridge), and three segmentation regimes on five tasks: tumor volume and stage classification, 2-year survival prediction, histology classification, and age prediction. Models are trained on LUNG1 (n=338) and evaluated on an internal test set (n=84) and the external LUNG2 cohort (n=211), with worst-case cross-cohort performance as the primary metric. The dominant design factor is task-dependent: segmentation drives volume and stage classification, while classifier choice drives survival, histology, and age prediction. Radiomics is competitive for tumor volume, tumor stage and survival (partly due to label-derivation effects for the former); Curia variants reach comparable peak scores for survival; DINOv3 falls slightly short across tasks. Patch and slice aggregation have negligible impact. We recommend Curia with tumor segmentation and a CatBoost head as a safe default, achieving the best mean rank across the three primary clinical tasks, though task-specific selection consistently outperforms any cross-task default. When tumor delineations are unavailable, Curia-2 with lung segmentation and logistic regression offers a competitive alternative. All pipelines use a two-stage design suited to small cohort sizes where end-to-end fine-tuning would risk overfitting.
Nils Neukirch, Martin Maurer, Nils Strodthoff