4.6 Article

Normalization of Exhaled Carbonyl Compounds After Lung Cancer Resection

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 102, Issue 4, Pages 1095-1100

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.04.068

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Coulter Foundation
  2. V Foundation
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  6. Directorate For Engineering [1159829] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Quantitative analysis of specific exhaled carbonyl compounds (ECCs) has shown promise for the detection of lung cancer. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the normalization of ECCs in patients after lung cancer resection. Methods. Patients from a single center gave consent and were enrolled in the study from 2011 onward. Breath analysis was performed on lung cancer patients before and after surgical resection of their tumors. One liter of breath from a single exhalation was collected and evacuated over a silicon microchip. Carbonyls were captured by oximation reaction and analyzed by mass spectrometry. Concentrations of four cancer-specific ECCs were measured and compared by using the Wilcoxon test. A given cancer marker was considered elevated at 1.5 or more standard deviations greater than the mean of the control population. Results. There were 34 cancer patients with paired samples and 187 control subjects. The median values after resection were significantly lower for all four ECCs and were equivalent to the control patient values for three of the four ECCs. Conclusions. The analysis of ECCs demonstrates reduction to the level of control patients after surgical resection for lung cancer. This technology has the potential to be a useful tool to detect disease after lung cancer resection. Continued follow-up will determine whether subsequent elevation of ECCs is indicative of recurrent disease. (C) 2016 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available