4.6 Article

Measurement of Exhaled Nitric Oxide in 456 Lung Cancer Patients Using a Ringdown FENO Analyzer

Journal

METABOLITES
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo11060352

Keywords

exhaled NO; lung cancer; breath biomarkers; cavity ringdown spectroscopy (CRDS)

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation of China [81471701]
  2. CAMS Initiative for Innovative Medicine [2018-I2M-AI-012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Exhaled nitric oxide levels showed clinical value in diagnosing lung cancer patients, but are not sufficient as a standalone diagnostic tool. Other factors should be considered in developing a diagnostic model for lung cancer using breath analysis.
The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical value of exhaled nitric oxide (NO) for diagnosing lung cancer patients by using a relatively large sample. An online and near-real-time ringdown exhaled NO analyzer calibrated by an electrochemical sensor at clinical was used for breath analysis. A total of 740 breath samples from 284 healthy control subjects (H) and 456 lung cancer patients (LC) were collected. The recorded data included exhaled NO, medications taken within the last half month, demographics, fasting status and smoking status. The LC had a significantly higher level of exhaled NO than the H (H: 21.0 +/- 12.1 ppb vs. LC: 34.1 +/- 17.2 ppb). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for exhaled NO predicting LC and H was 0.728 (sensitivity was 0.798; specificity was 0.55). There was no significant difference in exhaled NO level between groups divided by different types of LC, tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage, sex, smoking status, age, body mass index (BMI) or fasting status. Exhaled NO level alone is not a useful clinical tool for identifying lung cancer, but it should be considered when developing a diagnosis model of lung cancer by using breath analysis.

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