Analysis of the current state of breast cancer diagnosis in Bulgaria using artificial intelligence analysis software

Authors

  • D. Dimitrov Department of surgical oncology, University Hospital “Georgi Stranski”, Department of Propedeutics of surgical diseases, Medical University – Pleven, Pleven, Bulgaria Author
  • Martin Karamanliev Department of surgical oncology, University Hospital “Georgi Stranski”, Department of Propedeutics of surgical diseases, Medical University – Pleven, Pleven, Bulgaria Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5166-0752
  • I. Petrova Department of surgical oncology, University Hospital “Georgi Stranski”, Department of Propedeutics of surgical diseases, Medical University – Pleven, Pleven, Bulgaria Author
  • M. Shoshkova Department of surgical oncology, University Hospital “Georgi Stranski”, Department of Propedeutics of surgical diseases, Medical University – Pleven, Pleven, Bulgaria Author
  • D. Boychev Business development, Sqilline, Sofia, Bulgaria Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1486644

Keywords:

breast cancer, platform “Danny”, artificial intelligence, frozen section, biopsy, coreneedle biopsy

Abstract

Breast cancer (BC) is a socially important disease. According to GLOBOCAN for 2020, breast cancer ranks first in the world in the incidence of new cases in both sexes (11.7%) and fourth in mortality (6.9%). According to the latest data from the Bulgarian Cancer Registry from 2015, BC ranks first in the incidence of new cases in women with 26.8% and is first in mortality in women with 17.4%. Data from January 2019 to May 2023 on a national-wide basis were analyzed. Electronic information submitted by hospitals after patient dehospitalization available on the Danny platform by Sqilline is used. It is a software solution that brings together and harmonizes diverse data sources from oncology, cardiology, and other practices using artificial intelligence.
A total of 12,989 surgical interventions were performed during the period into clinical pathway (CP) 193 and clinacal pathway (CP) 194 with patients diagnosed with ICD C50. Breast biopsy was performed in 8,673 patients as follows: coreneedle biopsy (CNB) in 4,915 patients (56.67%), excisional biopsy in 3,051 patients (35.18%), and section was performed in 5,982 patients (46.05%), detected by searching for the keyword "гефрир" in the text of the documents.
In Bulgaria, there are still difficulties in achieving comparable rates of core-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of breast cancer and unacceptably high rates of the use of frozen section in the diagnosis of breast cancer.
The aim of this study is to investigate whether the standards in breast cancer diagnosis in Bulgaria are being met using artificial intelligence analysis software.

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660

2. [Valerianova Z., Atanasov T., Vukov M. (Redaktori). Zabolyaemost Ot Rak v Bŭlgariya, 2014 i 2015. Bŭlgarski Natsionalen Rakov Registŭr. Sofiya, 2017.] Валерианова З., Атанасов Т., Вуков М. (Редактори). Заболяемост От Рак в България, 2014 и 2015. Български Национален Раков Регистър. София, 2017.

3. Wang L. Early Diagnosis of Breast Cancer. Sensors. 2017;17(7). doi:10.3390/s17071572

4. Shieh Y, Eklund M, Madlensky L, et al. Breast Cancer Screening in the Precision Medicine Era: Risk-Based Screening in a Population-Based Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109(5). doi:10.1093/jnci/djw290

5. Cedolini C, Bertozzi S, Londero AP, et al. Type of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Screening, and Survival. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(4):235-240. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2014.02.004

6. Jafari SH, Saadatpour Z, Salmaninejad A, et al. Breast cancer diagnosis: Imaging techniques and biochemical markers. J Cell Physiol. 2018;233(7):5200-5213. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.26379

7. Morris E, Feig SA, Drexler M, Lehman C. Implications of Overdiagnosis: Impact on Screening Mammography Practices. Popul Health Manag. 2015;18 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S3-11. doi:10.1089/pop.2015.29023.mor

8. Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†Ann Oncol. 2019;30(8):1194-1220. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz173

9. Munch-Petersen HD, Rasmussen BB, Balslev E. Reliability of histological malignancy grade, ER and HER2 status on core needle biopsy vs surgical specimen in breast cancer. APMIS. 2014;122(9):750-754. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.12213

10. Kwok TC, Rakha EA, Lee AHS, et al. Histological grading of breast cancer on needle core biopsy: the role of immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation. Histopathology. 2010;57(2):212-219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2010.03620.x

11. Meattini I, Bicchierai G, Saieva C, et al. Impact of molecular subtypes classification concordance between preoperative core needle biopsy and surgical specimen on early breast cancer management: Single-institution experience and review of published literature. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43(4):642-648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.025

12. Shah VI, Raju U, Chitale D, Deshpande V, Gregory N, Strand V. False-negative core needle biopsies of the breast. Cancer. 2003;97(8):1824-1831. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11278

13. Osanai T, Gomi N, Wakita T, et al. Ultrasound-guided Core Needle Biopsy for Breast Cancer: Prelimi-doi:10.1093/jjco/hyd015

14. Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, et al. USguided 14-gauge Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: Results of a Validation Study in 1352 Cases. Radiology. 2008;248(2):406-413. doi:10.1148/radiol.2482071994

15. Stephens ZD, Lee SY, Faghri F, et al. Big Data: Astronomical or Genomical?. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(7):e1002195. Published 2015 Jul 7. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002195

16. Abraham JP, Magee D, Cremolini C, et al. Clinical Validation of a Machine-learning-derived Signature Predictive of Outcomes from First-line Oxaliplatin-based Chemotherapy in Advanced Colorectal Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(4):1174-1183. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-3286

17. Tan P, Chen X, Zhang H, Wei Q, Luo K. Artificial intelligence aids in development of nanomedicines for cancer management. Semin Cancer Biol. 2023;89:61-75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2023.01.005

18. Sechopoulos I, Teuwen J, Mann R. Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: State of the art. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021;72:214-225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.06.002

19. Becker AS, Marcon M, Ghafoor S, Wurnig MC, Frauenfelder T, Boss A. Deep Learning in Mammography: Diagnostic Accuracy of a Multipurpose Image Analysis Software in the Detection of Breast Cancer. Invest Radiol. 2017;52(7). https://journals.lww.com/investigativeradiology/Fulltext/2017/07000/Deep_Learning_in_Mammography__Diagnostic_Accuracy.7.aspx

20. Syed AH, Khan T. Evolution of research trends in artificial intelligence for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis over the past two decades: A bibliometric analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12. doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.854927

21. Urso L, Manco L, Castello A, et al. PET-Derived Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(21). doi:10.3390/ijms232113409

Downloads

Published

01.06.2023

Issue

Vol. 87 No. 2 (2023): Surgery

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2023 D. Dimitrov, Martin Karamanliev, I. Petrova, M. Shoshkova, D. Boychev (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Dimitrov, D., Karamanliev, M., Petrova, I., Shoshkova, M., & Boychev, D. (2023). Analysis of the current state of breast cancer diagnosis in Bulgaria using artificial intelligence analysis software. Surgery, 87(2), 74-81. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1486644