4.3 Article

Breath analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and electronic nose to screen for pleural mesothelioma: a cross-sectional case-control study

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 8, Issue 53, Pages 91593-91602

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21335

Keywords

mesothelioma; breath tests; volatile organic compounds; gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; electronic nose

Funding

  1. Belgian Foundation against Cancer [STK 2010-205, STK 2012-223]
  2. 'Emmanuel van der Schueren' grant from the Flemish League against Cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is mainly caused by previous exposure to asbestos fibers and has a poor prognosis. Due to a long latency period between exposure and diagnosis, MPM incidence is expected to peak between 2020-2025. Screening of asbestos-exposed individuals is believed to improve early detection and hence, MPM management. Recent developments focus on breath analysis for screening since breath contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which reflect the cell's metabolism. Objectives: The goal of this cross-sectional, case-control study is to identify VOCs in exhaled breath of MPM patients with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GCMS) and to assess breath analysis to screen for MPM using an electronic nose (eNose). Methods: Breath and background samples were taken from 64 subjects: 16 healthy controls (HC), 19 asymptomatic former asbestos-exposed (AEx) individuals, 15 patients with benign asbestos-related diseases (ARD) and 14 MPM patients. Samples were analyzed with both GC-MS and eNose. Results: Using GC-MS, AEx individuals were discriminated from MPM patients with 97% accuracy, with diethyl ether, limonene, nonanal, methylcyclopentane and cyclohexane as important VOCs. This was validated by eNose analysis. MPM patients were discriminated from AEx+ARD participants by GC-MS and eNose with 94% and 74% accuracy, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 100%, 91%, 82%, 100% for GC-MS and 82%, 55%, 82%, 55% for eNose, respectively. Conclusion: This study shows accurate discrimination of patients with MPM from asymptomatic asbestos-exposed persons at risk by GC-MS and eNose analysis of exhaled VOCs and provides proof-of-principle of breath analysis for MPM screening.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available