4.5 Article

Detection of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) in exhaled breath as a potential diagnostic method for oral squamous cell carcinoma

Journal

BMC ORAL HEALTH
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02301-3

Keywords

Volatile sulfur compounds; Exhaled breath; Oral squamous cell carcinoma; Halitosis; Gas chromatography

Funding

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea [HI20C2114]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the potential of exhaled breath analysis as a non-invasive method for diagnosing oral squamous cell carcinoma. Results showed elevated levels of hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan in the exhaled breath of OSCC patients, suggesting that gas chromatography could serve as an accessory diagnostic tool for OSCC.
Background Oral squamous cell carcinoma causes a significant proportion of global cancer morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the exhaled breath test can be a new, non-invasive, and effective method for diagnosing oral squamous cell carcinoma. Methods A comparative analysis of exhaled breath between patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and healthy controls (HC) was performed with the Twin Breasor II (TM), a simple gas chromatography system. Results Both hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and methyl mercaptan (Ch(3)SH) were significantly higher in the OSCC group than in the HC group. The total sulfur concentration was also higher in the OSCC group, but there was no significant difference in the ratio of Ch(3)SH to H2S between the two groups. Using logistic regression, we constructed a new variable with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.740, 68.0% sensitivity, and 72.0% specificity. Conclusions Exhaled gas analysis via simple gas chromatography can potentially serve as an accessory non-invasive method for OSCC diagnosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available