| Literature DB >> 35740593 |
Alessio Filianoti1,2, Manuela Costantini1, Alfredo Maria Bove1, Umberto Anceschi1, Aldo Brassetti1, Mariaconsiglia Ferriero1, Riccardo Mastroianni1, Leonardo Misuraca1, Gabriele Tuderti1, Gennaro Ciliberto3, Giuseppe Simone1.
Abstract
Urine analysis via an electronic nose provides volatile organic compounds easily usable in the diagnosis of urological diseases. Although challenging and highly expensive for health systems worldwide, no useful markers are available in clinical practice that aim to anticipate prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis in the early stages in the context of wide population screening. Some previous works suggested that dogs trained to smell urine could recognize several types of cancers with various success rates. We hypothesized that urinary volatilome profiling may distinguish PCa patients from healthy controls. In this study, 272 individuals, 133 patients, and 139 healthy controls participated. Urine samples were collected, stabilized at 37 °C, and analyzed using a commercially available electronic nose (Cyranose C320). Statistical analysis of the sensor responses was performed off-line using principal component (PCA) analyses, discriminant analysis (CDA), and ROC curves. Principal components best discriminating groups were identified with univariable ANOVA analysis. groups were identified with univariable ANOVA analysis. Here, 110/133 and 123/139 cases were correctly identified in the PCa and healthy control cohorts, respectively (sensitivity 82.7%, specificity 88.5%; positive predictive value 87.3%, negative predictive value 84.2%). The Cross Validated Accuracy (CVA 85.3%, p < 0.001) was calculated. Using ROC analysis, the area under the curve was 0.9. Urine volatilome profiling via an electronic nose seems a promising non-invasive diagnostic tool.Entities:
Keywords: cancer screening; electronic nose; gas sensor array; prostate cancer; tumor biomarkers; volatilome
Year: 2022 PMID: 35740593 PMCID: PMC9220860 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14122927
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.575
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Variable | PCa Group | HC Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 133 | 139 | |
| Age (years), mean ± SD (range) | 67.37 ± 6.10 (46–82) | 65.97 ± 12.99 (42–90) | 0.259 |
| Psa (ng/mL), mean ± SD (range) | 12.65 ± 37.05 (0.5–425) | 3.34 ± 4.64 (0.5–425) | 0.004 |
| Smokers, N (%) | 27 (20.3%) | 22 (15.8%) | 0.339 |
| Comorbidities, N (%) | |||
| - Arterial hypertension | 69 (51.8%) | 60 (43.1%) | 0.15 |
| - History of AMI | 4 (3%) | 2 (1.4%) | 0.38 |
| - COPD | 4 (3%) | 4 (2.8%) | 0.94 |
| - Dyslipidemia | 23 (17.2%) | 27 (19.4%) | 0.65 |
Tumor classification after surgery.
| Prostate Cancer Histopathological Results (TNM and Gleason Score) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| TNM Stage | Gleason Score | ||
| T2a | 8 (6) | 3 + 3 | 30 (22.6) |
| T2b | 4 (3) | 3 + 4 | 52 (39.1) |
| T2c | 71 (53.4) | 4 + 3 | 25 (18.8) |
| T3a | 38 (28.6) | 4 + 4 | 21 (15.8) |
| T3b | 12 (9) | 4 + 5 | 3 (2.2) |
| 5 + 4 | 2 (1.5) | ||
| Total | 133 (100) | 133 (100) | |
Figure 1Two-dimensional principal component analysis plot. The two-dimensional PCA plot showed that patients with prostate cancer could be distinguished from healthy controls. Results obtained with CDA demonstrated correct classification in 85.3% of cases (p < 0.001). In ROC analysis, discrimination accuracy between PCa patients and healthy controls was 0.90. Repeated analysis using the second measure of each collected urine sample provided comparable findings. Sensitivity and specificity were 83.1% and 87.6%, respectively.
Group classification.
| Expected Group Membership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | HC | PCa | Total | |
| Count | HC | 123 | 16 | 139 |
| PCa | 23 | 110 | 133 | |
| % | HC | 88.5 | 11.5 | 100 |
| PCa | 17.3 | 82.7 | 100 | |
Based on 2D-PCA, 110/133 and 123/139 cases were correctly identified in the PCa and healthy control cohorts, respectively. For PCa group, canonical discriminant analysis (CDA) showed a CVA% of 85.3 (p < 0.001) with SE of 82.7%, SP 88.5%, VPP 87.3%, and VPN 84.2%.
Figure 2ROC curve analysis. In ROC analysis, discrimination accuracy (area under the curve (AUC)) was 0.9.