Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractAn electronic nose in the discrimination of patients with non-small cell lung cancer and COPD    Next AbstractAn electronic nose in the discrimination of obese patients with and without obstructive sleep apnoea »

Lung Cancer


Title:An electronic nose distinguishes exhaled breath of patients with Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma from controls
Author(s):Dragonieri S; van der Schee MP; Massaro T; Schiavulli N; Brinkman P; Pinca A; Carratu P; Spanevello A; Resta O; Musti M; Sterk PJ;
Address:"Department of Respiratory Diseases, University of Bari, Bari, Italy. sdragonieri@hotmail.com"
Journal Title:Lung Cancer
Year:2012
Volume:20110915
Issue:3
Page Number:326 - 331
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.08.009
ISSN/ISBN:1872-8332 (Electronic) 0169-5002 (Linking)
Abstract:"BACKGROUND: Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) is a tumour of the surface cells of the pleura that is highly aggressive and mainly caused by asbestos exposure. Electronic noses capture the spectrum of exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) providing a composite biomarker profile (breathprint). OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that an electronic nose can discriminate exhaled air of patients with MPM from subjects with a similar long-term professional exposure to asbestos without MPM and from healthy controls. METHODS: 13 patients with a histology confirmed diagnosis of MPM (age 60.9+/-12.2 year), 13 subjects with certified, long-term professional asbestos exposure (age 67.2+/-9.8), and 13 healthy subjects without asbestos exposure (age 52.2+/-16.2) participated in a cross-sectional study. Exhaled breath was collected by a previously described method and sampled by an electronic nose (Cyranose 320). Breathprints were analyzed by canonical discriminant analysis on principal component reduction. Cross-validated accuracy (CVA) was calculated. RESULTS: Breathprints from patients with MPM were separated from subjects with asbestos exposure (CVA: 80.8%, sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 85.7%). MPM was also distinguished from healthy controls (CVA: 84.6%). Repeated measurements confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular pattern recognition of exhaled breath can correctly distinguish patients with MPM from subjects with similar occupational asbestos exposure without MPM and from healthy controls. This suggests that breathprints obtained by electronic nose have diagnostic potential for MPM"
Keywords:Aged Asbestos/toxicity Breath Tests/*methods Case-Control Studies Cross-Sectional Studies Female Humans Male Mesothelioma/*diagnosis Middle Aged Occupational Exposure Pleural Neoplasms/*diagnosis Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity;
Notes:"MedlineDragonieri, Silvano van der Schee, Marc P Massaro, Tommaso Schiavulli, Nunzia Brinkman, Paul Pinca, Armando Carratu, Pierluigi Spanevello, Antonio Resta, Onofrio Musti, Marina Sterk, Peter J eng Controlled Clinical Trial Ireland 2011/09/20 Lung Cancer. 2012 Mar; 75(3):326-31. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.08.009. Epub 2011 Sep 15"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 05-11-2024