| Literature DB >> 32429446 |
Alessia Di Gilio1,2, Annamaria Catino2,3, Angela Lombardi4, Jolanda Palmisani1,2, Laura Facchini1,2, Teresa Mongelli1,2, Niccolò Varesano2,3, Roberto Bellotti5, Domenico Galetta2,3, Gianluigi de Gennaro1,2, Sabina Tangaro4,6.
Abstract
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare neoplasm, mainly caused by asbestos exposure, with a high mortality rate. The management of patients with MPM is controversial due to a long latency period between exposure and diagnosis and because of non-specific symptoms generally appearing at advanced stage of the disease. Breath analysis, aimed at the identification of diagnostic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) pattern in exhaled breath, is believed to improve early detection of MPM. Therefore, in this study, breath samples from 14 MPM patients and 20 healthy controls (HC) were collected and analyzed by Thermal Desorption-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (TD-GC/MS). Nonparametric test allowed to identify the most weighting variables to discriminate between MPM and HC breath samples and multivariate statistics were applied. Considering that MPM is an aggressive neoplasm leading to a late diagnosis and thus the recruitment of patients is very difficult, a promising data mining approach was developed and validated in order to discriminate between MPM patients and healthy controls, even if no large population data are available. Three different machine learning algorithms were applied to perform the classification task with a leave-one-out cross-validation approach, leading to remarkable results (Area Under Curve AUC = 93%). Ten VOCs, such as ketones, alkanes and methylate derivates, as well as hydrocarbons, were able to discriminate between MPM patients and healthy controls and for each compound which resulted diagnostic for MPM, the metabolic pathway was studied in order to identify the link between VOC and the neoplasm. Moreover, five breath samples from asymptomatic asbestos-exposed persons (AEx) were exploratively analyzed, processed and tested by the validated statistical method as blinded samples in order to evaluate the performance for the early recognition of patients affected by MPM among asbestos-exposed persons. Good agreement was found between the information obtained by gold-standard diagnostic methods such as computed tomography CT and model output.Entities:
Keywords: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM); TD-GC/MS; Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs); breath analysis; machine learning; metabolic pathways
Year: 2020 PMID: 32429446 PMCID: PMC7280981 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12051262
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Patient characteristics.
| Variation | MPM * | HC * | AEx * |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | 14 | 20 | 5 |
| Male/female | 6/8 | 10/10 | 2/3 |
| Age | 73.6 (57–82) | 53.6 (37–68) | 63.5 (53–81) |
| Body Mass Index | 24.9 | 24.0 | 24.4 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | (19.2–29.4) | (21.6–27.8) | (20.8–25.9) |
| Smoking status | |||
| Current | 0 | 3 (15%) | 0 |
| Ex | 4 (29%) | 4(20%) | 2 (40%) |
| Never | 10 (71%) | 13 (65%) | 3 (60%) |
| Pack/years | 34.7 (19–62) | 40.5 (21–73) | 36.2 (32–55) |
* MPM: malignant pleural mesothelioma patients; HC: healthy controls; AEx: asymptomatic former asbestos-exposed individual.
Operative condition of TD-GC/MS analysis.
| Step | Parameters | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Tube desorption | Purge time | 3 min at 5 mL/min–trap in line |
| Desorption time | 10 min | |
| Desorption temperature | 300 °C | |
| Temperature of cold trap | 20 °C | |
| Desorption flow | 30 mL/min, no split | |
| Focusing trap desorption | Temperature of cold trap desorption | 300 °C |
| Split low | 5 mL/min | |
| Transfer Line Temperature | 200 °C | |
| GC analysis | Gas carrier | He |
| Gas flow | 1.7 mL/min | |
| Analytical column | VOCOL® (Supelco), diphenyl dimethyl polysiloxane with crosslinking moieties, 60 m × 0.25 mm ID, 1.5 μm stationary phase thickness | |
| Oven temperature | 37 °C hold for 5 min | |
| 37–190 °C at 6 °C/min | ||
| 190–200 °C at 2 °C/min | ||
| 220–220 °C at 15 °C/min | ||
| 220 °C hold for 3 min |
Figure 1Overview of the machine learning framework.
Figure 2ROC curves of the best models for the three classifiers Naive Bayes, SVM and RF.
AUC values resulting from the three classification models.
| Naive Bayes | SVM | RF |
|---|---|---|
| 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
Figure 3AUC values resulted from incremental ranked features of the RF model.
Figure 4The first 10 ranked features of the RF classifier.
Figure 5Probability scores for exposed subjects.