4.7 Article

Investigation of potential breath biomarkers for the early diagnosis of breast cancer using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 436, 期 -, 页码 59-67

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2014.04.030

关键词

Breast cancer; Early diagnosis; Noninvasive diagnosis; Biomarkers; Breath analysis

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [21305095]
  2. National Recruitment Program of Global Experts (NRPGE)
  3. Hundred Talents Program of Sichuan Province (HTPSP)
  4. Startup Funding of Sichuan University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Breast cancer (BC) remains the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women. We investigated 4 straight aldehydes in the exhaled breath as potential early BC diagnostic biomarkers. Methods: End-tailed breath were collected by Bio-VOC (R) sampler and assayed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance test and binary logistic regression were used for data analysis. The diagnostic accuracies were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curves. A predictive model/equation was generated using the 4 biomarkers and validated by leave-one-out cross-validation. Results: All four potential biomarkers demonstrated significant differences in concentrations between BC and healthy controls (HC) (p < 0.05). The areas under the curves (AUCs) in HC vs BCI-II model using hexanal, heptanal, octanal, and nonanal were 0.816, 0.809, 0.731, and 0.830, respectively. The AUC for their combined use was 0.934 (sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 95.8%) in the early diagnosis of BC The predictive model/equation exhibited good sensitivity (72.7%) and specificity (91.7%) in distinguishing between HC and BC (cross-validation: sensitivity 682% and specificity 91.7%). Conclusions: The diagnostic values of 4 exhaled straight aldehydes as early diagnostic biomarkers for BC were successfully verified and the diagnostic accuracy improved in their combined use. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.7
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