Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2011
An electronic nose distinguishes exhaled breath of patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma from controls.
Контролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dragonieri Silvano, van der Schee Marc P, Massaro Tommaso, Schiavulli Nunzia, Brinkman Paul, Pinca Armando, Carratú Pierluigi, Spanevello Antonio, Resta Onofrio, Musti Marina, Sterk Peter J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is a tumour of the surface cells of the pleura that is highly aggressive and mainly caused by asbestos exposure. Electronic noses capture the spectrum of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) providing a composite biomarker profile (breathprint).
OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that an electronic nose can discriminate exhaled air of patients with MPM from subjects with a similar long-term professional exposure to asbestos without MPM and from healthy controls.
METHODS: 13 patients with a histology confirmed diagnosis of MPM (age 60.9±12.2 year), 13 subjects with certified, long-term professional asbestos exposure (age 67.2±9.8), and 13 healthy subjects without asbestos exposure (age 52.2±16.2) participated in a cross-sectional study. Exhaled breath was collected by a previously described method and sampled by an electronic nose (Cyranose 320). Breathprints were analyzed by canonical discriminant analysis on principal component reduction. Cross-validated accuracy (CVA) was calculated.
RESULTS: Breathprints from patients with MPM were separated from subjects with asbestos exposure (CVA: 80.8%, sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 85.7%). MPM was also distinguished from healthy controls (CVA: 84.6%). Repeated measurements confirmed these results.
CONCLUSIONS: Molecular pattern recognition of exhaled breath can correctly distinguish patients with MPM from subjects with similar occupational asbestos exposure without MPM and from healthy controls. This suggests that breathprints obtained by electronic nose have diagnostic potential for MPM.
OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that an electronic nose can discriminate exhaled air of patients with MPM from subjects with a similar long-term professional exposure to asbestos without MPM and from healthy controls.
METHODS: 13 patients with a histology confirmed diagnosis of MPM (age 60.9±12.2 year), 13 subjects with certified, long-term professional asbestos exposure (age 67.2±9.8), and 13 healthy subjects without asbestos exposure (age 52.2±16.2) participated in a cross-sectional study. Exhaled breath was collected by a previously described method and sampled by an electronic nose (Cyranose 320). Breathprints were analyzed by canonical discriminant analysis on principal component reduction. Cross-validated accuracy (CVA) was calculated.
RESULTS: Breathprints from patients with MPM were separated from subjects with asbestos exposure (CVA: 80.8%, sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 85.7%). MPM was also distinguished from healthy controls (CVA: 84.6%). Repeated measurements confirmed these results.
CONCLUSIONS: Molecular pattern recognition of exhaled breath can correctly distinguish patients with MPM from subjects with similar occupational asbestos exposure without MPM and from healthy controls. This suggests that breathprints obtained by electronic nose have diagnostic potential for MPM.