Cargando…

Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE: There has been a growing interest in the use of electronic noses (e-noses) in detecting volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath for the diagnosis of cancer. However, no systematic evaluation has been performed of the overall diagnostic accuracy and methodologic challenges of using e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scheepers, Max H. M. C., Al-Difaie, Zaid, Brandts, Lloyd, Peeters, Andrea, van Grinsven, Bart, Bouvy, Nicole D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Medical Association 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9244610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35767259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.19372
_version_ 1784738562641494016
author Scheepers, Max H. M. C.
Al-Difaie, Zaid
Brandts, Lloyd
Peeters, Andrea
van Grinsven, Bart
Bouvy, Nicole D.
author_facet Scheepers, Max H. M. C.
Al-Difaie, Zaid
Brandts, Lloyd
Peeters, Andrea
van Grinsven, Bart
Bouvy, Nicole D.
author_sort Scheepers, Max H. M. C.
collection PubMed
description IMPORTANCE: There has been a growing interest in the use of electronic noses (e-noses) in detecting volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath for the diagnosis of cancer. However, no systematic evaluation has been performed of the overall diagnostic accuracy and methodologic challenges of using e-noses for cancer detection in exhaled breath. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the diagnostic accuracy and methodologic challenges of using e-noses for the detection of cancer. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases (January 1, 2000, to July 1, 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were the following: (1) use of e-nose technology, (2) detection of cancer, and (3) analysis of exhaled breath. Exclusion criteria were (1) studies published before 2000; (2) studies not performed in humans; (3) studies not performed in adults; (4) studies that only analyzed biofluids; and (5) studies that exclusively used gas chromatography–mass spectrometry to analyze exhaled breath samples. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: PRISMA guidelines were used for the identification, screening, eligibility, and selection process. Quality assessment was performed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Generalized mixed-effects bivariate meta-analysis was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: This review identified 52 articles with a total of 3677 patients with cancer. All studies were feasibility studies. The sensitivity of e-noses ranged from 48.3% to 95.8% and the specificity from 10.0% to 100.0%. Pooled analysis resulted in a mean (SE) area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%), a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI, 88%-92%), and a specificity of 87% (95% CI, 81%-92%). Considerable heterogeneity existed among the studies because of differences in the selection of patients, endogenous and exogenous factors, and collection of exhaled breath. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this review indicate that e-noses have a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of cancer in exhaled breath. However, most studies were feasibility studies with small sample sizes, a lack of standardization, and a high risk of bias. The lack of standardization and reproducibility of e-nose research should be addressed in future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9244610
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92446102022-07-14 Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Scheepers, Max H. M. C. Al-Difaie, Zaid Brandts, Lloyd Peeters, Andrea van Grinsven, Bart Bouvy, Nicole D. JAMA Netw Open Original Investigation IMPORTANCE: There has been a growing interest in the use of electronic noses (e-noses) in detecting volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath for the diagnosis of cancer. However, no systematic evaluation has been performed of the overall diagnostic accuracy and methodologic challenges of using e-noses for cancer detection in exhaled breath. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the diagnostic accuracy and methodologic challenges of using e-noses for the detection of cancer. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases (January 1, 2000, to July 1, 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were the following: (1) use of e-nose technology, (2) detection of cancer, and (3) analysis of exhaled breath. Exclusion criteria were (1) studies published before 2000; (2) studies not performed in humans; (3) studies not performed in adults; (4) studies that only analyzed biofluids; and (5) studies that exclusively used gas chromatography–mass spectrometry to analyze exhaled breath samples. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: PRISMA guidelines were used for the identification, screening, eligibility, and selection process. Quality assessment was performed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Generalized mixed-effects bivariate meta-analysis was performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Main outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: This review identified 52 articles with a total of 3677 patients with cancer. All studies were feasibility studies. The sensitivity of e-noses ranged from 48.3% to 95.8% and the specificity from 10.0% to 100.0%. Pooled analysis resulted in a mean (SE) area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%), a sensitivity of 90% (95% CI, 88%-92%), and a specificity of 87% (95% CI, 81%-92%). Considerable heterogeneity existed among the studies because of differences in the selection of patients, endogenous and exogenous factors, and collection of exhaled breath. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this review indicate that e-noses have a high diagnostic accuracy for the detection of cancer in exhaled breath. However, most studies were feasibility studies with small sample sizes, a lack of standardization, and a high risk of bias. The lack of standardization and reproducibility of e-nose research should be addressed in future research. American Medical Association 2022-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9244610/ /pubmed/35767259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.19372 Text en Copyright 2022 Scheepers MHMC et al. JAMA Network Open. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Scheepers, Max H. M. C.
Al-Difaie, Zaid
Brandts, Lloyd
Peeters, Andrea
van Grinsven, Bart
Bouvy, Nicole D.
Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_short Diagnostic Performance of Electronic Noses in Cancer Diagnoses Using Exhaled Breath: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
title_sort diagnostic performance of electronic noses in cancer diagnoses using exhaled breath: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9244610/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35767259
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.19372
work_keys_str_mv AT scheepersmaxhmc diagnosticperformanceofelectronicnosesincancerdiagnosesusingexhaledbreathasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT aldifaiezaid diagnosticperformanceofelectronicnosesincancerdiagnosesusingexhaledbreathasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT brandtslloyd diagnosticperformanceofelectronicnosesincancerdiagnosesusingexhaledbreathasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT peetersandrea diagnosticperformanceofelectronicnosesincancerdiagnosesusingexhaledbreathasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vangrinsvenbart diagnosticperformanceofelectronicnosesincancerdiagnosesusingexhaledbreathasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bouvynicoled diagnosticperformanceofelectronicnosesincancerdiagnosesusingexhaledbreathasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis