4.6 Article

Normalization of Exhaled Carbonyl Compounds After Lung Cancer Resection

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 102, 期 4, 页码 1095-1100

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.04.068

关键词

-

资金

  1. Coulter Foundation
  2. V Foundation
  3. National Science Foundation
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  6. Directorate For Engineering [1159829] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Quantitative analysis of specific exhaled carbonyl compounds (ECCs) has shown promise for the detection of lung cancer. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the normalization of ECCs in patients after lung cancer resection. Methods. Patients from a single center gave consent and were enrolled in the study from 2011 onward. Breath analysis was performed on lung cancer patients before and after surgical resection of their tumors. One liter of breath from a single exhalation was collected and evacuated over a silicon microchip. Carbonyls were captured by oximation reaction and analyzed by mass spectrometry. Concentrations of four cancer-specific ECCs were measured and compared by using the Wilcoxon test. A given cancer marker was considered elevated at 1.5 or more standard deviations greater than the mean of the control population. Results. There were 34 cancer patients with paired samples and 187 control subjects. The median values after resection were significantly lower for all four ECCs and were equivalent to the control patient values for three of the four ECCs. Conclusions. The analysis of ECCs demonstrates reduction to the level of control patients after surgical resection for lung cancer. This technology has the potential to be a useful tool to detect disease after lung cancer resection. Continued follow-up will determine whether subsequent elevation of ECCs is indicative of recurrent disease. (C) 2016 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

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