Advancing oncology with federated learning: transcending boundaries in breast, lung, and prostate cancer. A systematic review

Literature review strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Figure 1) [10]. We systematically reviewed the literature published on FL techniques in breast, lung, and prostate cancer ML analysis, from January 1, 2020 to September 1, 2023. This period captures recent developments in FL, reflecting its transition to an established practice amid tightening data privacy regulations [6–9]. Despite initiating our literature review in early 2020, we found no publications matching our criteria until 2021 (Figures 2-3). Database searches included PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, utilising a combination of keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms related to oncology, FL and ML. An expert librarian from the University of Oxford specified the keyword space.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

PRISMA flow of the systematic review process. The flow presents inclusion and exclusion of papers at each review stage.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2

Publication record over time for all machine learning (ML) types (a) and technical tasks (b) identified. In a), “Other” included recurrent neural network, capsule neural network and region-based CNN.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3

Publication record over time for all clinical applications addressed (a) and FL scopes (b) identified. In a), “Other” included side effect prediction (1) and tumour recurrence assessment (1). In b), “Other” involved domain adaptation (1) and training time reduction (1). NM: not mentioned; FL: federated learning.

Initial searches using broad keywords in abstracts, titles, and manuscript keywords related to oncology and ML yielded 5,766 papers. These keywords were: Oncology OR Cancer OR Carcinoma OR Malignant OR Neoplasm OR Tumor OR Tumour; Machine Learning OR Deep Learning OR Convolutional Neural Network OR CNN OR Generative Adversarial Network OR GAN OR Variational Autoencoder OR VAE OR Diffusion OR Transformer.

Subsequently, to focus the search, we mined only publications relevant to the 3 oncology areas of interest, FL and all possible patient-level data types involved in oncology. Specifically, we added the following keywords in the abstract, title, and manuscript keywords: Breast OR Mammary OR Prostate OR Lung Oncology OR Cancer OR Carcinoma OR Malignant OR Neoplasm OR Tumor OR Tumour; Federated Learning; Real World Evidence OR Real World Data OR Medical Imaging OR Magnetic Resonance Imaging OR Computed Tomography OR Positron Emission Tomography OR Ultrasound OR Echo OR Digital Breast Tomography OR Digital Pathology OR Genetic OR Genomics OR Transcriptomics OR Electronic Health Records OR Clinical Data OR Hospital Data OR Primary Care Data OR Secondary Care Data OR Computational Biology. By adding these terms, we removed all irrelevant publications to the 3 oncology areas, FL and patient-level data types, leaving 81 papers for screening (Figure 1).

Non-journal publications and duplicates were removed by 6 authors (AA, MA, EG, SB, SAH, GP), resulting in 40 papers. These authors screened further for relevance focusing on FL methods in the specified cancer types using ML for analysis. We excluded non-English publications, studies outside the specified data types and oncology areas, and studies not focusing on FL applications, leaving 31 papers for full-text review. Following full-text review by the same 6 authors (in groups of 2 researchers per publication) and inclusion/exclusion criteria, we removed 6 more papers. Conflicts between authors were resolved through consensus with the rest of the review team. In total, 25 journal papers were included in our review analysis.

Review aspects

During full paper review, we considered the following aspects: (1) year of publication; (2) central ML technical task addressed; (3) clinical application addressed; (4) central ML model architecture used; (5) FL method; (6) aggregation strategies for FL; (7) device types; (8) datasets used for analysis (imaging, electronic health records, and other); (9) privacy method; (10) FL evaluation; (11) scope of FL; (12) oncology area. We also evaluated data diversity by (13) patient size and (14) data size. Furthermore, to assess whether it is possible to reproduce these FL techniques, we considered (15) data type per publication (private, public or both).

For clinical applications (3), we categorised: disease type differentiation, tumour identification, treatment response prediction, severity assessment, side effect prediction, survival analysis, and assessment of tumour recurrence. To improve clarity, we categorise all published work on cancer diagnosis against benign tumours and diseases other than cancer as “disease type differentiation”, on tumour classification, segmentation or detection from (bio-)medical imaging data as “tumour identification” and on staging as “severity assessment”. For ML models (4), we categorised: Classic ML: logistic regression, support vector machine, extremely randomised tree, random survival forest, random forest; Convolutional Neural Network (other than UNets and pre-trained models) (CNN ALL): CNN (Encoder-Decoder, E-D), 2D CNN (E-D), 3D CNN (E-D), CNN (E-D) with multiple instance learning; Large Pre-trained (ALL): 2D ResNet, 3D ResNet, ResNet-201, ResNet-18, Mobilenet-v3, Xception-v3; GAN (ALL): GAN, WGAN, CycleGAN; UNet (ALL): 2D UNet, nnUNet, 3D UNet; Other: capsule neural network, recurrent neural network and region-based CNN.

In (5), we considered the 2 major FL methods: model-centric and data-centric [1]. In (6), aggregation strategy refers to the method by which updates or model parameters from participating devices are combined to generate a global FL model [1, 6–9]. This process involves aggregating local model updates or parameters, to balance the contributions of individual devices while preserving the privacy of the local data. Aggregation strategies play a pivotal role in FL by ensuring that the global model accurately represents the collective knowledge of all participating devices [1, 6]. For (7), the term “device types” refers to different categorisations of “central” devices based on their data distribution and functionality within the FL framework [1, 6]. In our reviewed work, we identified 2 device types: cross-device and cross-silo. In (11), the “scope of FL” encompasses all major end goals of scientific and clinical impact identified in our review: ML model generalisability (to unseen data instances from various local devices), ML model prediction improvement (by potentially learning from a broad range of data patterns and insights across devices), data privacy, disease understanding improvement (through the analysis of multiple device data), domain adaptation and training time reduction. Note that apart from data privacy, all other scopes benefit from increased data heterogeneity and patterns provided by FL/ML.

We assessed FL rigour based on 2 objective criteria across all FL scopes: a) whether a comparison framework was involved to evaluate the proposed FL technique against central ML baselines developed on the same datasets (either directly evaluated in the study or by reporting literature values); and b) if they outperformed or showed comparable results to these baselines.

Research trends

Our review of FL publications in breast, lung, and prostate cancer research from 2020 to 2023 reveals a growing interest, with none, 4, 8 and 13 papers identified respectively.

We observed a diverse exploration of ML techniques including Large Pre-trained (10 papers), UNet (7), CNN (6), Classic ML (6), GAN (2), and Other (3). The majority addressed classification (14 papers), followed by segmentation (5), detection (5), and regression (1) (Figure 2b). Table 1 details technical tasks, ML algorithms, and evaluation metrics across studies.

In terms of clinical application, most studies focused on tumour identification (8 papers) and disease type differentiation (7), followed by severity assessment (4), treatment response prediction (2), survival analysis (2), and Other (2) (Figure 3a). Five studies did not mention their clinical application. On FL scope, the majority of FL techniques focused on improving ML model generalisability (14 papers), followed by ML prediction improvement (13), data privacy (8), disease understanding improvement (2), and Other (2) (Figure 3b). Table 2 details FL scopes and oncology areas.

Federated machine learning

We analysed combinations of datasets, central ML models, technical tasks, and FL methods (Figure 4). The Large Pre-trained models were used for (bio-)medical imaging data: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), whole-slide imaging (WSI), and X-ray. The UNet models were developed for MRI, CT, hybrid positron emission tomography-CT (PET-CT), and X-ray. The CNN models analysed diverse datasets including WSI, digital mammography, MRI, CT, and electronic health records (EHR). The Classic ML models were primarily used for EHR and imaging features extracted from CT [11, 13, 22] and MRI [22]. GAN models were only developed for MRI and CT [19, 22] and Other models for EHR, CT, and digital mammography [18, 31].

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4

Sankey diagram depicting relationships (combinations) between the following technical aspects extracted across studies (represented as nodes): data, central ML model, technical task addressed and FL method. The width of each flow is proportional to the quantity being represented: thicker width corresponds to a higher combination prevalence across the reviewed papers, and vice versa. EHR: electronic health records; CT: computed tomography; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; PET-CT: hybrid positron emission tomography-computed tomography; WSI: whole slide imaging; ML: machine learning; FL: federated learning; NM: not mentioned.

All ML model types addressed classification, with Large Pre-trained, Classic ML, and CNN (ALL), being the 3 most frequently used models (Figure 4, Table 1). Classification tasks were mainly addressed for (bio-)medical imaging data followed by EHR (Figure 4) [11–14, 16, 18–21, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32–35]. Segmentation and detection tasks were mainly approached through UNet variants [15, 22, 25, 28, 34] and Large Pre-trained models [17, 20], respectively. Some studies addressed multiple tasks (Table 1).

Federated cancer research

Subsequently, we analysed combinations of clinical applications, datasets, FL scope, and organ areas (Figure 5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5

Sankey diagram illustrating combinations between the following application aspects extracted across studies (represented as nodes): data, clinical application, FL scope and organ area. EHR: electronic health records; CT: computed tomography; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; PET-CT: hybrid positron emission tomography-computed tomography; WSI: whole slide imaging; FL: federated learning; NM: not mentioned.

Tumour identification was addressed using (bio-)medical imaging data: CT [17, 18, 22], MRI [22, 34], X-ray [25, 35], PET-CT [15] and WSI [16]. Disease type differentiation was addressed using X-ray [35], WSI [16, 30], digital mammography [29, 31] and EHR data [14]. Severity assessment (staging) was investigated through (bio-)medical imaging data [18–20, 34]. Two pairs of studies explored the combination of tumour identification with other clinical applications: 1 pair focused on disease type differentiation (using WSI and X-ray respectively) [16, 35], while the other examined severity assessment (CT and MRI respectively) [18, 34]. Treatment response prediction (CT, MRI, WSI) [12] and survival analysis (clinical data, genomics) [27] were also examined as standalone tasks, and in combination (EHR, CT) [13]. Side effect prediction (EHR, CT) [11] and tumour recurrence (EHR) [26] were examined in 1 paper each.

In terms of FL scopes, most articles focused on model generalisability and ML prediction improvement (Figures 3b and 5, Table 2). For both ML model generalisability and prediction improvement, tumour identification was the predominant task (Figure 5). Breast and lung cancer research were the most frequent (8 studies each, Table 2).

Data diversity

The size of patient cohorts and data volumes varied considerably (Table 3). Most studies had cohorts of 100-1,500 patients, with data sizes (images or samples) in the range 1-5,000 [12, 19] and 5,000-1,000,000 [17, 27, 28]. Six papers analysed data from ≥1,500 patients, with 3 of these having explored data from >10,000 [13, 24] and >100,000 [32] patients, respectively. Two papers had small patient sizes of ≤100, corresponding to data sizes of 5,000-10,000 [16, 30]. Seven papers did not mention their patient size.

Datasets across studies were mostly public (18 papers) than private (9 papers), with 5 studies using a mixture of the 2 (Table 3; [15, 18, 22, 29, 32]).

FL implementation details

Most papers did not specify the FL method used (Figure 4). Among those that did, horizontal FL was the most frequent (11 papers), with only 2 papers referring to vertical FL [25, 27]. The remaining papers did not specify the model-centric technique employed. Horizontal FL was used mainly for classification tasks [14, 18–20, 24, 26, 33, 35], followed by detection [17, 20, 22], segmentation [22, 23] and regression [26].

Most papers did not report their aggregation strategy, with only 5 studies explicitly mentioning the techniques used: federated averaging [12, 16, 17, 29] and consensus model ensemble [11]. Device subtype information was limited, with only 4 papers referencing cross-silo FL [31, 32, 34, 35] and 1 referencing cross-device FL [30]. Only 5 papers explicitly reported their privacy method: differential privacy [26, 29], secure aggregation [14], secure multi-party computation [33] and homomorphic encryption [28].

Evaluating FL scope rigour

We evaluated articles for FL rigour based on 2 objective evaluation criteria: a) whether a comparison framework was used to evaluate FL against with central ML baselines on the same datasets, and/or b) whether FL outperformed or showed comparable results to these baselines. The following paragraphs are organised as follows: we start by describing the most frequent FL scopes identified in our review. When more than 1 FL scope is involved across papers, all scopes are explicitly detailed at the time each paper is first introduced under the relevant subsection.

ML model generalisability

FL can enhance model generalisability by using diverse data sources. For example, Agbley et al. used federated averaging with a pre-trained ResNet on histopathology images to classify breast tumours [16]. To overcome the challenge of dataset variability, the authors integrated various image magnification factors using self-attention. Their FL approach achieved 95.95% accuracy, surpassing various baseline models and demonstrating improved ML generalisability and prediction while protecting data privacy.

In the context of lung cancer, a paper by Zhu et al. presents a novel knowledge-sharing model for pulmonary nodule pre-segmentation and detection from CT data [22]. It uses a 3-stage framework with a) a UNet based mask generator, b) a discriminator with knowledge from electronic medical records and c) a random forest-based lung nodule detector. The system iteratively shares knowledge between a central server and client devices to improve the quality of generated masks and to normalise data distribution, addressing the challenge of non-independent and identically distributed (non-IID) data. Their FL technique outperformed a number of central ML baselines reaching a mean competition performance metric of 89% and a mean Dice score of 76% on non-IID data across each client, therefore improving model generalisability. In [24], the authors explored EHR for lung cancer classification, by developing single and cyclic weight FL using 2 underlying ML models: artificial neural network and logistic regression. By comparing their FL models against the same central ML models across 2 institutions, they showed that FL improved only the artificial neural network-derived results (accuracy ranged from 68-74%). Another collaborative learning method used a federated ResNet model for image classification of lung cancer using large data from 5 institutions with differing labels [32]. In total, they analysed >695,000 thoracic radiographs. The authors proposed a “flexible” FL architecture in which they divide the ResNet model into a classification head and a feature extraction backbone. The feature extraction backbone was shared across all sites, with weights jointly trained under a single FL scheme. Using their “flexible” FL method, the authors showed that model generalisability and classification accuracy were improved against locally trained ResNet models and conventional FL that used only uniformly annotated images.

In prostate cancer, Yan et al. developed a variation-aware FL (VAFL) method which aimed to assess tumour severity, through MRI classification [19]. The authors introduced VAFL to mitigate cross-client image variation. To perform VAFL, the client with the least complex data was selected to define the target image common space. A privacy-preserving GAN model was trained on these data to synthesise target MR images. A subset of these synthesised MR images was then shared with all clients and each client utilised a modified CycleGAN to map their own images onto this standardised target image space. Using synthetic MRI data, the authors improved both model generalisability and ML classification accuracy in identifying clinically significant prostate cancer, outperforming local classifiers by reaching an accuracy of 98.75%. Data privacy also remained secured. In a multi-cancer work, the authors used a pre-trained ResNet-18 model to perform image detection and a CNN model to classify clinically significant against non-significant prostate cancer (from MRI data) and malignant against benign skin lesions [20]. They report that their FL model secured data privacy, and enhanced both model generalisability and ML classification accuracy, by outperforming locally trained classifiers and other FL model techniques. The diagnostic accuracy ranged from 95.6% to 82.9% on private data and from 88.7% to 73.4% on public data when their FL method was evaluated on 2 up to 32 clients, respectively. Another work focused on developing a federated 3D Anisotropic Hybrid Network for CT image segmentation in prostate cancer [23]. When tested on unseen data, this FL model consistently outperformed 3 local (private) models trained at individual institutions, reaching a Dice score of 89,5% on private data and 88.9% on public data, demonstrating superior generalisability and performance. Gao et al. proposed a novel swarm learning method for MRI and CT image segmentation in multi-disease data (cardiac, brain and prostate tumours), which could train UNet models using partially labelled images from multiple centres [28]. To tackle inhomogeneous label distributions across centres, they introduced a label skew-awared loss by consolidating global from local knowledge of partial labels. The authors demonstrated Dice scores in the range of 81.1-92.5% on non-IID data (across all disease areas), outperforming other FL methods and showing comparable results to centralised fully-supervised UNet models. In [34], the authors employed a FL approach to train a 3D UNet model with a region-of-interest classification head on diverse annotated prostate MRI data. This collaborative training approach led to substantial improvements in performance compared to local training, boosting lesion classification accuracy by 9.5-14.8% and nearly doubling lesion segmentation accuracy.

Improving ML prediction

FL harnesses the collective strength of diverse data sources, mitigating data biases and enabling the model to learn intricate patterns, potentially deriving more accurate predictions. In the following paragraphs, we detail articles which were designed to improve ML predictions through FL. Since there were studies that evaluated both FL/ML model predictions and generalisability, we have already detailed these overlaps in the previous subsection [16, 19, 20, 32]. Here below, we highlight the remaining articles that satisfied our 2 criteria.

Breast cancer was the most frequent area in which FL was used for ML performance improvements [12, 14, 16, 27, 31, 33]. Study [12] applied federated averaging and multiple instance learning to WSI and clinical data, to predict the histological response to chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. The authors aimed to improve ML predictions as well as disease understanding and achieved a mean AUC of 66% (range: 57-78%), outperforming central ML baselines. Study [14] focused on federating extremely randomised trees, to analyse distributed structured health data for disease classification, reporting an accuracy of 95.3% and an F1 score of 95.4%. It showed comparable results to central ML baselines. Another work expanded the application of privacy-preserving FL to survival analysis, assessing its potential in breast cancer genomics, with reported accuracies ranging from 81-92.5% across all 4 datasets explored [27]. The proposed FL outperformed all central ML baselines. In [31], the authors used a DenseNet feature extractor which fed an RNN-based classifier for breast cancer classification, from digital mammography data. The authors trained the model using a hybrid optimisation algorithm, achieving an accuracy of 94.22%, outperforming 3 central ML and 1 FL baselines. Another breast cancer work focused on enhancing model prediction and protecting data privacy by using a simple neural network classifier on clinical datasets, reaching an accuracy of 99% and outperforming a number of central ML baselines [33].

In lung cancer, we found 2 papers that applied FL to enhance ML predictions [17, 18]. The first study showcased an FL model employing a 3D ResNet18 for lung nodule detection, achieving an accuracy of 83.41% [17]. Although the proposed FL model was compared against previous FL methods, there was no comparison against central ML baselines. Study [18] combined FL with blockchain to create a collaborative, privacy-preserving model for lung cancer classification, demonstrating a high detection accuracy of 99.69% which outperformed central ML methods. The authors also reported that their FL method led to reduced training time, compared to central ML models.

In a multi-cancer study (including breast cancer) [26], the authors performed differential privacy to predict tumour recurrence from clinical data, by using a CNN model. The authors focused to improve ML predictions and disease understanding, demonstrating high FL accuracy (>90%) and outperforming central ML baselines.

Data privacy

Although data privacy is a core aspect of FL, only 8 papers explicitly mentioned it within their scope. Most of these papers were covered in the subsections “Model generalisability” [16, 19, 20] and “Improving ML prediction” [18, 27, 33], as their data privacy considerations were intertwined with those topics. In 2 publications, data privacy was addressed as a standalone focus and these are further discussed below [11, 30].

Peta and Koppu developed an automated breast cancer classification system using FL combined with deep learning to enhance diagnostic accuracy from histopathological images [30]. The authors compared the performance of their proposed Convolutional Capsule Twin Attention Tuna Optimal Network against existing deep learning models (i.e., CNN, BiLSTM, DNN, CapsuleNet), using the public BreakHis dataset. The authors reported superior performance with an accuracy of 95.68%, outperforming all previous centralised ML models.

In their lung cancer classification work, Field et al. developed a federated consensus model ensemble using logistic regression on private clinical data [11]. Their technique demonstrated comparable accuracy to their central baselines, reaching a mean AUC of 70%.

Improving disease understanding

Three of the papers reviewed used FL to improve disease understanding: 2 papers were about breast cancer [12, 29] and 1 was on multiple cancers [26]. Two of these papers have already been detailed in the “Improving ML prediction” subsection [12, 26]. In the remaining paper, the authors used federated averaging and a memory-aware CNN to refine breast cancer classification from digital mammography data [29]. This approach was shown to prioritise challenging instances that often experience prediction inconsistencies, thereby contributing to a more refined understanding of disease characteristics and diagnostic accuracy.

Other FL scopes

Two further FL scopes, reduced training time [18] and domain adaptation [21], were each the subject of 1 paper in our review. The study by Heidary et al has been previously described in the “Model generalisability” and “Improving ML prediction” subsections [11]. Although the authors in [21] describe that their FL methods outperformed conventional deep learning models, there was no such comparison identified in their study [21]. Therefore, their work did not meet our criteria for rigorous FL research and are not further described herein.