4.7 Article

Breath biomarkers for lung cancer detection and assessment of smoking related effects - confounding variables, influence of normalization and statistical algorithms

Journal

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
Volume 411, Issue 21-22, Pages 1637-1644

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2010.06.005

Keywords

Breath gas analysis; Lung cancer; SPME-GC-MS; Data processing; Inspired concentrations; Confounding variables

Funding

  1. European Commission [LSHC-CT-2005-019031]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Up to now, none of the breath biomarkers or marker sets proposed for cancer recognition has reached clinical relevance Possible reasons are the lack of standardized methods of sampling, analysis and data processing and effects of environmental contaminants Methods Concentration profiles of endogenous and exogenous breath markers were determined in exhaled breath of 31 lung cancer patients, 31 smokers and 31 healthy controls by means of SPME-GC-MS. Different correcting and normalization algorithms and a principal component analysis were applied to the data Results Differences of exhalation profiles in cancer and non-cancer patients did not persist if physiology and confounding variables were taken into account. Smoking history, inspired substance concentrations, age and gender were recognized as the most important confounding variables Normalization onto PCO2 or BSA or correction for inspired concentrations only partially solved the problem In contrast, previous smoking behaviour could be recognized unequivocally Conclusion: Exhaled substance concentrations may depend on a variety of parameters other than the disease under investigation. Normalization and correcting parameters have to be chosen with care as compensating effects may be different from one substance to the other. Only well-founded biomarker identification, normalization and data processing will provide clinically relevant information from breath analysis (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved

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