4.7 Article

Investigation of urinary volatile organic compounds as novel diagnostic and surveillance biomarkers of bladder cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 127, Issue 2, Pages 329-336

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-022-01785-8

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the VOC profiles of patients with and without UBC and found that UBC patients have distinct VOC profiles. These VOC profiles can be used for the diagnosis and surveillance of UBC.
Background The diagnosis and surveillance of urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) require cystoscopy. There is a need for biomarkers to reduce the frequency of cystoscopy in surveillance; urinary volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis could fulfil this role. This cross-sectional study compared the VOC profiles of patients with and without UBC, to investigate metabolomic signatures as biomarkers. Methods Urine samples were collected from haematuria clinic patients undergoing diagnostic cystoscopy and UBC patients undergoing surveillance. Urinary headspace sampling utilised solid-phase microextraction and VOC analysis applied gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; the output underwent metabolomic analysis. Results The median participant age was 70 years, 66.2% were male. Of the haematuria patients, 21 had a new UBC diagnosis, 125 had no cancer. In the surveillance group, 75 had recurrent UBC, 84 were recurrence-free. A distinctive VOC profile was observed in UBC patients compared with controls. Ten VOCs had statistically significant abundances useful to classify patients (false discovery rate range 1.9 x 10(-7)-2.8 x 10(-2)). Two prediction models were evaluated using internal validation. An eight-VOC diagnostic biomarker panel achieved AUROC 0.77 (sensitivity 0.71, specificity 0.72). A six-VOC surveillance biomarker panel obtained AUROC 0.80 (sensitivity 0.71 and specificity 0.80). Conclusions Urinary VOC analysis could aid the diagnosis and surveillance of UBC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available