A D Asimakopoulos1, D Del Fabbro2, R Miano2, M Santonico3, R Capuano4, G Pennazza3, A D'Amico4, E Finazzi-Agrò2. 1. UOC of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata-Policlinico Casilino, Rome, Italy. 2. UOC of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Tor Vergata, Policlinico Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. 3. Center for Integrated Research-CIR, Unit of Electronics for Sensor Systems, Università Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Electronic Engineering, University of Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of prostate cancer (PCa) detection by the electronic nose (EN) on human urine samples. METHODS: Urine samples were obtained from candidates of prostate biopsy (PB). Exclusion criteria were a history of urothelial carcinoma or other malignant disease, urine infection, fasting for <12 h before PB or ingestion of alcohol or foods that might alter the urine smell in the last 24 h. The initial part of the voided urine and the midstream were collected separately in two sterile containers. Both samples were analyzed by the EN immediately after the collection. All patients underwent a standard transperineal, transrectal-ultrasound-guided PB. The pathological results were compared with the outcomes of the EN. Sensitivity and specificity of EN were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-one men were included in the study. Fourteen out of the 41 patients were positive for PCa. Midstream urine did not correlate significantly neither with a positive nor with a negative PB. Instead, significantly different results on the initial part of the urine stream between positive and negative PBs were obtained. The EN correctly recognized 10 out of the 14 cases (that is, sensitivity 71.4% (confidence interval (CI) 42-92%)) of PCa while four were false negatives. Moreover, the device recognized as negative 25 out of the 27 (that is, specificity 92.6% (CI 76-99%)) samples of negative PBs, with only two false positives. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is the first demonstration of an olfactory imprinting of the initial part of the urine stream in patients with PCa that was revealed by an EN, with high specificity.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy of prostate cancer (PCa) detection by the electronic nose (EN) on human urine samples. METHODS: Urine samples were obtained from candidates of prostate biopsy (PB). Exclusion criteria were a history of urothelial carcinoma or other malignant disease, urine infection, fasting for <12 h before PB or ingestion of alcohol or foods that might alter the urine smell in the last 24 h. The initial part of the voided urine and the midstream were collected separately in two sterile containers. Both samples were analyzed by the EN immediately after the collection. All patients underwent a standard transperineal, transrectal-ultrasound-guided PB. The pathological results were compared with the outcomes of the EN. Sensitivity and specificity of EN were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-one men were included in the study. Fourteen out of the 41 patients were positive for PCa. Midstream urine did not correlate significantly neither with a positive nor with a negative PB. Instead, significantly different results on the initial part of the urine stream between positive and negative PBs were obtained. The EN correctly recognized 10 out of the 14 cases (that is, sensitivity 71.4% (confidence interval (CI) 42-92%)) of PCa while four were false negatives. Moreover, the device recognized as negative 25 out of the 27 (that is, specificity 92.6% (CI 76-99%)) samples of negative PBs, with only two false positives. CONCLUSIONS: We believe this is the first demonstration of an olfactory imprinting of the initial part of the urine stream in patients with PCa that was revealed by an EN, with high specificity.
Authors: Raphael B M Aggio; Ben de Lacy Costello; Paul White; Tanzeela Khalid; Norman M Ratcliffe; Raj Persad; Chris S J Probert Journal: J Breath Res Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.262
Authors: Laura Capelli; Gianluigi Taverna; Alessia Bellini; Lidia Eusebio; Niccolò Buffi; Massimo Lazzeri; Giorgio Guazzoni; Giorgio Bozzini; Mauro Seveso; Alberto Mandressi; Lorenzo Tidu; Fabio Grizzi; Paolo Sardella; Giuseppe Latorre; Rodolfo Hurle; Giovanni Lughezzani; Paolo Casale; Sara Meregali; Selena Sironi Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Jillian N Eskra; Daniel Rabizadeh; Christian P Pavlovich; William J Catalona; Jun Luo Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Tanzeela Khalid; Raphael Aggio; Paul White; Ben De Lacy Costello; Raj Persad; Huda Al-Kateb; Peter Jones; Chris S Probert; Norman Ratcliffe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Raphael B M Aggio; Arno Mayor; Séamus Coyle; Sophie Reade; Tanzeela Khalid; Norman M Ratcliffe; Chris S J Probert Journal: Chem Cent J Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 4.215
Authors: Ana Rita Lima; Joana Pinto; Ana Isabel Azevedo; Daniela Barros-Silva; Carmen Jerónimo; Rui Henrique; Maria de Lourdes Bastos; Paula Guedes de Pinho; Márcia Carvalho Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2019-10-07 Impact factor: 7.640