IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0142484.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blinded Validation of Breath Biomarkers of Lung Cancer, a Potential Ancillary to Chest CT Screening

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Phillips
  • Thomas L Bauer
  • Renee N Cataneo
  • Cassie Lebauer
  • Mayur Mundada
  • Harvey I Pass
  • Naren Ramakrishna
  • William N Rom
  • Eric Vallières

Abstract

Background: Breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been reported as biomarkers of lung cancer, but it is not known if biomarkers identified in one group can identify disease in a separate independent cohort. Also, it is not known if combining breath biomarkers with chest CT has the potential to improve the sensitivity and specificity of lung cancer screening. Methods: Model-building phase (unblinded): Breath VOCs were analyzed with gas chromatography mass spectrometry in 82 asymptomatic smokers having screening chest CT, 84 symptomatic high-risk subjects with a tissue diagnosis, 100 without a tissue diagnosis, and 35 healthy subjects. Multiple Monte Carlo simulations identified breath VOC mass ions with greater than random diagnostic accuracy for lung cancer, and these were combined in a multivariate predictive algorithm. Model-testing phase (blinded validation): We analyzed breath VOCs in an independent cohort of similar subjects (n = 70, 51, 75 and 19 respectively). The algorithm predicted discriminant function (DF) values in blinded replicate breath VOC samples analyzed independently at two laboratories (A and B). Outcome modeling: We modeled the expected effects of combining breath biomarkers with chest CT on the sensitivity and specificity of lung cancer screening. Results: Unblinded model-building phase. The algorithm identified lung cancer with sensitivity 74.0%, specificity 70.7% and C-statistic 0.78. Blinded model-testing phase: The algorithm identified lung cancer at Laboratory A with sensitivity 68.0%, specificity 68.4%, C-statistic 0.71; and at Laboratory B with sensitivity 70.1%, specificity 68.0%, C-statistic 0.70, with linear correlation between replicates (r = 0.88). In a projected outcome model, breath biomarkers increased the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of chest CT for lung cancer when the tests were combined in series or parallel. Conclusions: Breath VOC mass ion biomarkers identified lung cancer in a separate independent cohort, in a blinded replicated study. Combining breath biomarkers with chest CT could potentially improve the sensitivity and specificity of lung cancer screening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00639067

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Phillips & Thomas L Bauer & Renee N Cataneo & Cassie Lebauer & Mayur Mundada & Harvey I Pass & Naren Ramakrishna & William N Rom & Eric Vallières, 2015. "Blinded Validation of Breath Biomarkers of Lung Cancer, a Potential Ancillary to Chest CT Screening," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0142484
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142484
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142484
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0142484&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0142484?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0142484. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.