INTRODUCTION: The pattern of exhaled breath volatile organic compounds represents a metabolic biosignature with the potential to identify and characterize lung cancer. Breath biosignature-based classification of homogeneous subgroups of lung cancer may be more accurate than a global breath signature. Combining breath biosignatures with clinical risk factors may improve the accuracy of the signature. OBJECTIVES: To develop an exhaled breath biosignature of lung cancer using a colorimetric sensor array and to determine the accuracy of breath biosignatures of lung cancer characteristics with and without the inclusion of clinical risk factors. METHODS: The exhaled breath of 229 study subjects, 92 with lung cancer and 137 controls, was drawn across a colorimetric sensor array. Logistic prediction models were developed and statistically validated based on the color changes of the sensor. Age, sex, smoking history, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were incorporated in the prediction models. RESULTS: The validated prediction model of the combined breath and clinical biosignature was moderately accurate at distinguishing lung cancer from control subjects (C-statistic 0.811). The accuracy improved when the model focused on only one histology (C-statistic 0.825-0.890). Individuals with different histologies could be accurately distinguished from one another (C-statistic 0.864 for adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma). Moderate accuracies were noted for validated breath biosignatures of stage and survival (C-statistic 0.785 and 0.693, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A colorimetric sensor array is capable of identifying exhaled breath biosignatures of lung cancer. The accuracy of breath biosignatures can be optimized by evaluating specific histologies and incorporating clinical risk factors.
INTRODUCTION: The pattern of exhaled breath volatile organic compounds represents a metabolic biosignature with the potential to identify and characterize lung cancer. Breath biosignature-based classification of homogeneous subgroups of lung cancer may be more accurate than a global breath signature. Combining breath biosignatures with clinical risk factors may improve the accuracy of the signature. OBJECTIVES: To develop an exhaled breath biosignature of lung cancer using a colorimetric sensor array and to determine the accuracy of breath biosignatures of lung cancer characteristics with and without the inclusion of clinical risk factors. METHODS: The exhaled breath of 229 study subjects, 92 with lung cancer and 137 controls, was drawn across a colorimetric sensor array. Logistic prediction models were developed and statistically validated based on the color changes of the sensor. Age, sex, smoking history, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were incorporated in the prediction models. RESULTS: The validated prediction model of the combined breath and clinical biosignature was moderately accurate at distinguishing lung cancer from control subjects (C-statistic 0.811). The accuracy improved when the model focused on only one histology (C-statistic 0.825-0.890). Individuals with different histologies could be accurately distinguished from one another (C-statistic 0.864 for adenocarcinoma versus squamous cell carcinoma). Moderate accuracies were noted for validated breath biosignatures of stage and survival (C-statistic 0.785 and 0.693, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A colorimetric sensor array is capable of identifying exhaled breath biosignatures of lung cancer. The accuracy of breath biosignatures can be optimized by evaluating specific histologies and incorporating clinical risk factors.
Authors: Roberto F Machado; Daniel Laskowski; Olivia Deffenderfer; Timothy Burch; Shuo Zheng; Peter J Mazzone; Tarek Mekhail; Constance Jennings; James K Stoller; Jacqueline Pyle; Jennifer Duncan; Raed A Dweik; Serpil C Erzurum Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2005-03-04 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Wojciech Filipiak; Andreas Sponring; Anna Filipiak; Clemens Ager; Jochen Schubert; Wolfram Miekisch; Anton Amann; Jakob Troppmair Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amel Bajtarevic; Clemens Ager; Martin Pienz; Martin Klieber; Konrad Schwarz; Magdalena Ligor; Tomasz Ligor; Wojciech Filipiak; Hubert Denz; Michael Fiegl; Wolfgang Hilbe; Wolfgang Weiss; Peter Lukas; Herbert Jamnig; Martin Hackl; Alfred Haidenberger; Bogusław Buszewski; Wolfram Miekisch; Jochen Schubert; Anton Amann Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti; Purvish Parikh; Joachim von Pawel; Bonne Biesma; Johan Vansteenkiste; Christian Manegold; Piotr Serwatowski; Ulrich Gatzemeier; Raghunadharao Digumarti; Mauro Zukin; Jin S Lee; Anders Mellemgaard; Keunchil Park; Shehkar Patil; Janusz Rolski; Tuncay Goksel; Filippo de Marinis; Lorinda Simms; Katherine P Sugarman; David Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael Phillips; Nasser Altorki; John H M Austin; Robert B Cameron; Renee N Cataneo; Joel Greenberg; Robert Kloss; Roger A Maxfield; Muhammad I Munawar; Harvey I Pass; Asif Rashid; William N Rom; Peter Schmitt Journal: Cancer Biomark Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.388
Authors: Peter J Mazzone; Xiao-Feng Wang; Sung Lim; James Jett; Humberto Choi; Qi Zhang; Mary Beukemann; Meredith Seeley; Ray Martino; Paul Rhodes Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2015-05
Authors: Nichole T Tanner; Alexander Porter; Michael K Gould; Xiao-Jun Li; Anil Vachani; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 9.410