Showing paper detailed information
Citation Information
Sci Rep. 2015 Nov 12;5:16491. doi: 10.1038/srep16491.
The lung cancer breath signature: a comparative analysis of exhaled breath and air sampled from inside the lungs.
Capuano R, Santonico M, Pennazza G, Ghezzi S, Martinelli E, Roscioni C, Lucantoni G, Galluccio G, Paolesse R, Di Natale C, D'Amico A.
Analytical methods | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comparative study | #1 | |
| Chromatography | GC | |
| Ion source | EI | |
| Positive/Negative mode | – | |
| Mass analyzer | quadrupole | |
| Identification level | – | |
Sample information | ||
|---|---|---|
| Comparative study | #1 | |
| Country | Italy | |
| Specimen | exhaled breath (air) | |
| Marker function | – | |
| Participants(Case) | Cancer type | adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma |
| Stage | – | |
| Number | 20 | |
| Gender (M,F) | 13, 7 | |
| Mean age (range) (M,F) | 67 ± 9 | |
| Smoking status | former, current, non-smoker | |
| Participants(Control) | Type | other lung diseases |
| Number | 10 | |
| Gender (M,F) | 4, 6 | |
| Mean age (range) (M,F) | 64 ± 7 | |
| Smoking status | former, current, non-smoker | |
Data processing and metabolite identification | |
|---|---|
| Data processing software | GC-MS solutions software |
| Database search | NIST 127, NIST 147 |
Statistical analysis | |
|---|---|
| Differential analysis method | Kruskal-Wallis rank test, PLS-DA |
| Classification method | – |
| Survival analysis method | – |
Lung cancer-related metabolites identified in the paper
| Metabolite | Author-emphasized biomarkers | Mean concentration (case) | Mean concentration (control) | Fold change (case/control) | P-value | FDR | VIP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-decanol, 2-methyl- | V | – | – | – | 0.96 | – | – |
| octane, 2,2,6-trimethyl- | V | – | – | – | 0.94 | – | – |
| decane, 3,7-dimethyl- | V | – | – | – | 0.91 | – | – |
| 2-butanone | V | – | – | – | 0.89 | – | – |
| 1-hexanol, 2-ethyl- | V | – | – | – | 0.89 | – | – |
| undecane | V | – | – | – | 0.83 | – | – |
| pentane, 1-(1-ethoxyethoxy)- | V | – | – | – | 0.79 | – | – |
| 4-heptanone | V | – | – | – | 0.70 | – | – |
| acetic acid, (acetyloxy)- | V | – | – | – | 0.62 | – | – |
| bicyclo[3.1.0]hexane, 4-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-, didehydro deriv | V | – | – | – | 0.42 | – | – |
| cyclohexanone | V | – | – | – | 0.41 | – | – |
| thiophene | V | – | – | – | 0.32 | – | – |
| thymol | V | – | – | – | 0.28 | – | – |
| ethanol | V | – | – | – | 0.23 | – | – |
| hexanal, 2,2-dimethyl- | V | – | – | – | 0.07 | – | – |
| butanoic acid, ethyl ester | V | – | – | – | 0.07 | – | – |
| butane, 1,1-diethoxy-3-methyl- | V | – | – | – | 0.04 | – | – |
| Metabolite | Author-emphasized biomarkers | Cutoff value | AUROC (95%CI) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-decanol, 2-methyl- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| octane, 2,2,6-trimethyl- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| decane, 3,7-dimethyl- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2-butanone | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| 1-hexanol, 2-ethyl- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| undecane | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| pentane, 1-(1-ethoxyethoxy)- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| 4-heptanone | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| acetic acid, (acetyloxy)- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| bicyclo[3.1.0]hexane, 4-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-, didehydro deriv | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| cyclohexanone | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| thiophene | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| thymol | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| ethanol | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| hexanal, 2,2-dimethyl- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| butanoic acid, ethyl ester | V | – | – | – | – | – |
| butane, 1,1-diethoxy-3-methyl- | V | – | – | – | – | – |
Paper graphical summary
