4.5 Article

Application of laser spectroscopy for measurement of exhaled ethane in patients with lung cancer

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 300-306

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2005.05.006

关键词

breath test; ethane; lung cancer; oxidative stress; lipid peroxidation; laser spectroscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is increasing interest in ethane (CA) in exhaled breath as a noninvasive marker of oxidative stress (OS) and thereby a potential indicator of disease. However, the lack of real-time measurement techniques has limited progress in the field. Here we report on a novel Tunable Diode Laser Spectrometer (TDLS) applied to the analysis of exhaled ethane in patients with lung cancer. The patient group (n = 52) comprised randomly selected patients presenting at a respiratory clinic. Of these, a sub-group (n = 12) was subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer. An age-matched group (n = 12) corresponding to the lung cancer group was taken from a larger control group of healthy adults (n = 58). The concentration of ethane in a single exhaled breath sample collected from all subjects was later measured using the TDLS. This technique is capable of real-time analysis of samples with accuracy 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), over 10 times less than typical ambient levels in the northern hemisphere. After correcting for ambient background, ethane in the control group (26% smokers) ranged from 0 to 10.54 ppb (median of 1.9 ppb) while ethane in the lung cancer patients (42% smokers) ranged from 0 to 7.6 ppb (median of 0.7 ppb). Ethane among the non-lung cancer patients presenting for investigation of respiratory disease ranged from 0 to 25 ppb (median 1.45 ppb). We conclude that, white the TDLS proved effective for accurate and rapid sample analysis, there was no significant difference in exhaled ethane among any of the subject groups. Comments are made on the suitability of the technique for monitoring applications. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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