Exploration of Digital Health Technologies

Table 1. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort.

Variable	Overall (n = 139)	Non-recurrence (n = 34)	Recurrence (n = 105)	P-value
Marital status
Unmarried	6 (4.3%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (5.7%)	0.014
Married	109 (78.4%)	23 (67.6%)	86 (81.9%)
Divorced	24 (17.3%)	11 (32.4%)	13 (12.4%)
Education level
Primary	27 (19.4%)	2 (5.9%)	25 (23.8%)
Secondary	80 (57.6%)	22 (64.7%)	58 (55.2%)
Certificate	1 (0.7%)	1 (2.9%)	0 (0.0%)
Diploma	2 (1.4%)	0 (0.0%)	2 (1.9%)
Degree	29 (20.9%)	9 (26.5%)	20 (19.0%)
Occupation
Housewife	65 (46.8%)	19 (55.9%)	46 (43.8%)	0.395
Entrepreneur	35 (25.2%)	6 (17.6%)	29 (27.6%)
Others	39 (28.1%)	9 (26.5%)	30 (28.6%)
Insurance	42 (30.2%)	13 (38.2%)	29 (27.6%)	0.339
Alcohol consumption	30 (21.6%)	7 (20.6%)	23 (21.9%)	> 0.999
Smoking consumption	8 (5.8%)	2 (5.9%)	6 (5.7%)	> 0.999
Past history of other cancer	12 (8.6%)	3 (8.8%)	9 (8.6%)	> 0.999
Exposure to drug	17 (12.2%)	3 (8.8%)	14 (13.3%)	0.692
BC detection mode	62 (44.6%)	14 (41.2%)	48 (45.7%)	0.792
Chemotherapy	133 (95.7%)	33 (97.1%)	100 (95.2%)	> 0.999
Palliative	2 (1.4%)	2 (5.9%)	0 (0.0%)	0.094
Radiotherapy	6 (4.3%)	0 (0.0%)	6 (5.7%)	0.347
Hormonal therapy	1 (0.7%)	1 (2.9%)	0 (0.0%)	0.551
Name of operation
Radical mastectomy	124 (89.2%)	31 (91.2%)	93 (88.6%)	0.521
Simple mastectomy	13 (9.4%)	2 (5.9%)	11 (10.5%)
Partial mastectomy	2 (1.4%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (1.0%)
Personal history of breast conditions
Breast swollen	34 (24.5%)	10 (29.4%)	24 (22.9%)	0.677
Breast mass	97 (69.8%)	22 (64.7%)	75 (71.4%)
Breast discharge	6 (4.3%)	1 (2.9%)	5 (4.8%)
Breast itching	2 (1.4%)	1 (2.9%)	1 (1.0%)
Other surgical history	25 (18.0%)	7 (20.6%)	18 (17.1%)	0.843
Family history of BC	19 (13.7%)	4 (11.8%)	15 (14.3%)	0.932
Family history of other cancer	11 (7.9%)	3 (8.8%)	8 (7.6%)	> 0.999
Beginning period before 12 years	17 (12.2%)	5 (14.7%)	12 (11.4%)	0.837
Beginning menopause after 60 years	17 (12.2%)	3 (8.8%)	14 (13.3%)	0.692
Having first child after age 30	15 (10.8%)	4 (11.8%)	11 (10.5%)	> 0.999
Never been pregnant	9 (6.5%)	1 (2.9%)	8 (7.6%)	0.574
Received hormone therapy before menopause	30 (21.6%)	13 (38.2%)	17 (16.2%)	0.013
Received hormone therapy after menopause	16 (11.5%)	3 (8.8%)	13 (12.4%)	0.798
Tumour marker after surgery
CA_15_3	79 (56.8%)	20 (58.8%)	59 (56.2%)	0.271
CA_27_29	36 (25.9%)	11 (32.4%)	25 (23.8%)
CA_125	24 (17.3%)	3 (8.8%)	21 (20.0%)
Abdominopelvic imaging, n (%)	80 (57.6%)	22 (64.7%)	58 (55.2%)	0.441
Distant organ metastasis, n (%)	42 (30.2%)	8 (23.5%)	34 (32.4%)	0.446
Estrogen receptor (ER+), n (%)	55 (39.6%)	10 (29.4%)	45 (42.9%)	0.233
Progesterone receptor (PR+), n (%)	48 (34.5%)	10 (29.4%)	38 (36.2%)	0.607
HER2/neu overexpressed or amplified, n (%)	65 (46.8%)	15 (44.1%)	50 (47.6%)	0.875
Tumour grade
Grade 1	60 (43.2%)	27 (79.4%)	33 (31.4%)	< 0.001
Grade 2	34 (24.5%)	7 (20.6%)	27 (25.7%)
Grade 3	36 (25.9%)	0 (0.0%)	36 (34.3%)
Grade 4	9 (6.5%)	0 (0.0%)	9 (8.6%)
Lymph node metastasis, n (%)	86 (61.9%)	6 (17.6%)	80 (76.2%)	< 0.001
Invasive ductal carcinoma, n (%)	127 (91.4%)	30 (88.2%)	97 (92.4%)	0.692
Invasive lobular carcinoma, n (%)	6 (4.3%)	3 (8.8%)	3 (2.9%)	0.316
Mixed ductal lobular, n (%)	3 (2.2%)	1 (2.9%)	2 (1.9%)	> 0.999
Age (years), median [IQR]	55.0 [47.0, 63.5]	56.0 [45.0, 63.0]	55.0 [48.0, 64.0]	0.553
BMI (kg/m²), median [IQR]	32.7 [28.2, 36.7]	32.3 [28.4, 36.5]	32.7 [28.1, 36.7]	0.899
Time since diagnosis (months), median [IQR]	12.0 [6.0, 24.0]	16.0 [9.8, 24.0]	12.0 [6.0, 24.0]	0.080
Hemoglobin (g/dL), median [IQR]	11.6 [10.6, 12.6]	11.4 [10.5, 12.4]	11.8 [10.6, 12.7]	0.263
RBC (× 10¹²/L), mean (SD)	4.41 (0.70)	4.38 (0.68)	4.42 (0.71)	0.763
WBC (× 10⁹/L), median [IQR]	5.0 [3.9, 6.9]	4.7 [3.6, 6.0]	5.0 [4.1, 7.2]	0.214
NLR, median [IQR]	1.74 [1.21, 2.48]	1.71 [1.21, 2.50]	1.76 [1.22, 2.42]	0.788
PLR, median [IQR]	282 [193, 377]	256 [166, 363]	287 [204, 393]	0.449
Tumour size within 2 years (mm), median [IQR]	25.0 [20.2, 30.0]	26.0 [23.1, 30.0]	24.5 [19.9, 30.0]	0.029
Tumour size at diagnosis (mm), median [IQR]	23.7 [12.9, 28.2]	21.8 [10.4, 25.2]	24.2 [15.9, 28.7]	0.060
Number of lymph nodes involved, median [IQR]	2.0 [0.0, 4.0]	0.0 [0.0, 2.0]	3.0 [1.0, 5.0]	< 0.001
Number of positive nodes, median [IQR]	2.0 [1.0, 4.0]	1.0 [0.3, 3.0]	3.0 [1.0, 4.0]	0.014

Return to article view

ER: estrogen receptor; HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; IQR: interquartile range; PR: progesterone receptor; SD: standard deviation.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to appreciate all the clinicians who helped to collect the data in the various hospitals. During the preparation of this work, we used ChatGPT for polishing the language of some sections. After using it, we thoroughly reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Author contributions

TMG and CSB: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. ZB: Methodology, Software, Formal analysis. AKI, SE, NK, BTB, SFO: Writing—review & editing. JZ: Supervision, Writing—review & editing. All authors read and approved the submitted version.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This study involved a secondary analysis of fully anonymized data from an investigation that had received ethical approval from Dar-es-Salaam City in Tanzania (document number: 10/VOL.XXI/213B) and Zanzibar Health Research Ethics Committee (ZAHREC) from Zanzibar city in Tanzania (document number: ZAHREC/05/ST/OCT/2023/180). No direct patient contact occurred and all data were de-identified; no additional ethical approval or informed consent was required. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and applicable ethical guidelines and regulations.

Consent to participate

Not required as no direct patient contact occurred and all data were de-identified. This study involved a secondary analysis of fully anonymized data from an investigation that had received ethical approval.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed in this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. [DOI] [PubMed]

WHO. Cancer United Republic of Tanzania 2020 country profile [Internet]. WHO; c2026 [cited 2020 Jan 1]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/cancer-tza-2020

Anderson BO, Ilbawi AM, Fidarova E, Weiderpass E, Stevens L, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. The Global Breast Cancer Initiative: a strategic collaboration to strengthen health care for noncommunicable diseases. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:578–81. [DOI]

Jedy-Agba E, McCormack V, Adebamowo C, Dos-Santos-Silva I. Stage at diagnosis of breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2016;4:e923–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Pace LE, Shulman LN. Breast Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and Opportunities to Reduce Mortality. Oncologist. 2016;21:739–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Kantelhardt EJ, Muluken G, Sefonias G, Wondimu A, Gebert HC, Unverzagt S, et al. A Review on Breast Cancer Care in Africa. Breast Care (Basel). 2015;10:364–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Mayor S. Service review: improving breast cancer care in Tanzania. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:430. [DOI] [PubMed]

Galukande M, Wabinga H, Mirembe F. Breast cancer survival experiences at a tertiary hospital in sub-Saharan Africa: a cohort study. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13:220. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

Kourou K, Exarchos TP, Exarchos KP, Karamouzis MV, Fotiadis DI. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2014;13:8–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

10.

Deo RC. Machine Learning in Medicine. Circulation. 2015;132:1920–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

11.

Zeng L, Liu L, Chen D, Lu H, Xue Y, Bi H, et al. The innovative model based on artificial intelligence algorithms to predict recurrence risk of patients with postoperative breast cancer. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1117420. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

12.

Wu X, Ye Y, Barcenas CH, Chow WH, Meng QH, Chavez-MacGregor M, et al. Personalized Prognostic Prediction Models for Breast Cancer Recurrence and Survival Incorporating Multidimensional Data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017;109:djw314. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

13.

Bi WL, Hosny A, Schabath MB, Giger ML, Birkbak NJ, Mehrtash A, et al. Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:127–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

14.

Duggan C, Trapani D, Ilbawi AM, Fidarova E, Laversanne M, Curigliano G, et al. National health system characteristics, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1632–42. [DOI] [PubMed]

15.

Iddi AK, Zhang S, Mbambara B, Jubilate A, Basinda MSA, Malugulu PM, et al. Risk Prediction Model and Early Recommendation for Postoperative Recurrence of Breast Cancer Patients in Tanzania. OALib. 2025;12:1–22. [DOI]

16.

Freijeiro-González L, Febrero-Bande M, González-Manteiga W. A Critical Review of LASSO and Its Derivatives for Variable Selection Under Dependence Among Covariates. Int Stat Rev. 2022;90:118–45. [DOI]

17.

Rahman F, Hossain S, Tiang JJ, Nahid AA. Diabetes Prediction Using Feature Selection Algorithms and Boosting-Based Machine Learning Classifiers. Diagnostics (Basel). 2025;15:2622. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

18.

Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Altman DG, Moons KG. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:55–63. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Kursa MB, Jankowski A, Rudnicki WR. Boruta – A System for Feature Selection. Fundam Inform. 2010;101:271–85.

20.

Jiang C, Xiu Y, Qiao K, Yu X, Zhang S, Huang Y. Prediction of lymph node metastasis in patients with breast invasive micropapillary carcinoma based on machine learning and SHapley Additive exPlanations framework. Front Oncol. 2022;12:981059. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

21.

Peng Y, Zhang C, Zhou B. A cross-sectional study comparing machine learning and logistic regression techniques for predicting osteoporosis in a group at high risk of cardiovascular disease among old adults. BMC Geriatr. 2025;25:209. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

22.

Ma L, Zhang B, Wu X, Li X, Song D, Jiang Z, et al. Comparison of the predictive performance of machine learning and conventional logistic regression models for poor discharge outcomes in patients with Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: A retrospective cohort study. Neurosurg Rev. 2026;49:174. [DOI] [PubMed]

23.

Hong S, Lu B, Wang S, Jiang Y. Comparison of logistic regression and machine learning methods for predicting depression risks among disabled elderly individuals: results from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. BMC Psychiatry. 2025;25:128. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

24.

Labory J, Njomgue-Fotso E, Bottini S. Benchmarking feature selection and feature extraction methods to improve the performances of machine-learning algorithms for patient classification using metabolomics biomedical data. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:1274–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

25.

Koroltchouk V, Stanley K, Stjernswärd J. The control of breast cancer. A World Health Organization perspective. Cancer. 1990;65:2803–10. [DOI] [PubMed]