4.6 Article

Elevated Levels of Oxidative Stress Markers in Exhaled Breath Condensate

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 4, 期 2, 页码 172-178

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181949eb9

关键词

Exhaled breath condensate; Lung cancer; Oxidative stress; Smoking

资金

  1. Australian Lung Foundation/Lung Cancer Consultative Group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death an oxidative stress secondary to carcinogens such as cigarette smoke has been implicated in its pathogenesis. Therefore, lung cancer patients were hypothesized to have higher levels of oxidative stress markers in their exhaled breath compared with controls. Methods: Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) was collected from newly diagnosed subjects with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and control subjects in a cross-sectional observational study. The samples were then analyzed for hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), pH, 8-isoprostane, and antioxidant capacity. Results: A total of 71 subjects (21 NSCLC patients, 21 nonsmokers, 13 exsmokers, and 16 smokers) were recruited. NSCLC patients had significantly higher EBC H2O2 concentration (NSCLC subjects versus smokers, 10.28 AM, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.74-22.30 and 2.29 mu M, 95% CI: 1.23-4.25, respectively, p = 0.003) and lower antioxidant capacity (NSCLC versus smokers, 0.051 mM, 95% CI: 0.042-0.063 and 0.110 mM, 95% CI: 0.059-0.206, p = 0.023; NSCLC versus all controls as a group, 0.051 mM, 95% CI: 0.042-0.063 and 0.087 mM, 95% CI: 0.067-0.112, p = 0.001). They also had significantly lower pH (5.9, 3.3-7.3) compared with exsmokers (6.7, 5.8-7, p = 0.009). Conclusion: The significant increase of H2O2 and reduction in antioxidant capacity in the EBC Of lung cancer patients further support the concept of the disequilibrium between levels of oxidants and antioxidants in lung cancer, which leads to increased oxidative stress. These findings suggest oxidative stress is implicated in the development of lung cancer and may be an early marker of the disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据