| Literature DB >> 27228175 |
Geoffrey Brioude1,2, Fabienne Brégeon2,3, Delphine Trousse1, Christophe Flaudrops2, Véronique Secq4, Florence De Dominicis1, Eric Chabrières2,5, Xavier-Benoit D'journo1,2, Didier Raoult2,5, Pascal-Alexandre Thomas1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite recent advances in imaging and core or endoscopic biopsies, a percentage of patients have a major lung resection without diagnosis. We aimed to assess the feasibility of a rapid tissue preparation/analysis to discriminate cancerous from non-cancerous lung tissue.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27228175 PMCID: PMC4881980 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Global design for developing a database after definitive diagnosis was obtained.
Fig 2Top: representative spectra of each subclass: Cancerous, Non-cancerous (infection) and peripheral lung (good quality spectra). Bottom: example of two visual template of poor quality spectra (in same scale and in zoom scale).
Fig 3Summary of the 3 evaluation steps of our classification strategy.
Fig 4Tissue distribution in the two groups according to the final pathological examination.
Fig 5Flow chart for classification of samples and for MSP class allocation.
A comparison of the population characteristics between the origins of the cancerous and non-cancerous resected tumors, mean (± standard deviation), median [limits] or number of subjects.
| Cancer group n = 127 | Non-Cancer group n = 29 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61.84 (11.15) | 57.75 (11.87) | 0.107 | |
| 0.697 | |||
| Male, n | 72 | 17 | |
| Female, n | 55 | 12 | |
| 35 [0–120] | 30 [0–110] | 0.299 | |
| Mean | 0.076 (0.11) | 0.072 (0.093) | 0.851 |
| 0.017 | |||
| Certain | 56 | 8 | |
| Probable | 57 | 10 | |
| Possible | 14 | 10 |
External validation (database from the 100 first patients, n = 118 samples from the 59 following patients blindly tested).
| Threshold | TP | FN | TN | FP | Se % | Sp % | Accuracy % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/8 | 47 | 1 | 64 | 6 | 97.9 | 91.4 | 94.1 |
| 5/8 | 46 | 2 | 65 | 5 | 95.8 | 92.9 | 94.1 |
| 6/8 | 38 | 10 | 66 | 4 | 79.2 | 94.3 | 88.1 |
TP: true positives, FN: false negatives, TN: true negatives, FP: false positives, Se: sensitivity, Sp: specificity
Diagnostic performance of cancer in the definitive database.
| Threshold | TP | FN | TN | FP | Se % | Sp % | Accuracy % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4/8 | 119 | 8 | 162 | 11 | 93.7 | 93.6 | 93.6 |
| 5/8 | 117 | 10 | 168 | 5 | 92.1 | 97.1 | 95 |
| 6/8 | 104 | 23 | 169 | 4 | 81.9 | 97.7 | 91 |
| 4/8 | 119 | 8 | 19 | 10 | 93.7 | 65.5 | 88.4 |
| 5/8 | 117 | 10 | 24 | 5 | 92.1 | 82.8 | 90.3 |
| 6/8 | 104 | 23 | 25 | 4 | 81.9 | 86.2 | 82.6 |
TP: true positives, FN: false negatives, TN: true negatives, FP: false positives, Se: sensitivity, Sp: specificity
Fig 6ROC representation for the diagnosis of cancer in the whole cohort, including the tumor and non-tumor tissue samples.
Fig 7Comparison of the two ROC analyses for the subgroup of tumoral samples, to determine the usefulness of increasing the database.