The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Noninvasive detection of lung cancer by analysis of exhaled breath
Open accessAbstract
Background: Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Europe and the western world. At present, diagnosis of lung cancer very often happens late in the course of the disease since inexpensive, non-invasive and sufficiently sensitive and specific screening methods are not available. Even though the CT diagnostic methods are good, it must be assured that "screening benefit outweighs risk, across all individuals screened, not only those with lung cancer". An early non-invasive diagnosis of lung cancer would improve prognosis and enlarge treatment options. Analysis of exhaled breath would be an ideal diagnostic method, since it is non-invasive and totally painless. Methods: Exhaled breath and inhaled room air samples were analyzed using proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) and solid phase microextraction with subsequent gas chromatography mass spectrometry (SPME-GCMS). For the PTR-MS measurements, 220 lung cancer patients and 441 healthy volunteers were recruited. For the GCMS measurements, we collected samples from 65 lung cancer patients and 31 healthy volunteers. Lung cancer patients were in different disease stages and under treatment with different regimes. Mixed expiratory and indoor air samples were collected in Tedlar bags, and either analyzed directly by PTR-MS or transferred to glass vials and analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS). Only those measurements of compounds were considered, which showed at least a 15% higher concentration in exhaled breath than in indoor air. Compounds related to smoking behavior such as acetonitrile and benzene were not used to differentiate between lung cancer patients and healthy volunteers. Results: Isoprene, acetone and methanol are compounds appearing in everybody's exhaled breath. These three main compounds of exhaled breath show slightly lower concentrations in lung cancer patients as compared to healthy volunteers (p < 0.01 for isoprene and acetone, p = 0.011 for methanol; PTR-MS measurements). A comparison of the GCMS-results of 65 lung cancer patients with those of 31 healthy volunteers revealed differences in concentration for more than 50 compounds. Sensitivity for detection of lung cancer patients based on presence of (one of) 4 different compounds not arising in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers was 52% with a specificity of 100%. Using 15 (or 21) different compounds for distinction, sensitivity was 71% (80%) with a specificity of 100%. Potential marker compounds are alcohols, aldehydes, ketones and hydrocarbons. Conclusion: GCMS-SPME is a relatively insensitive method. Hence compounds not appearing in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers may be below the limit of detection (LOD). PTR-MS, on the other hand, does not need preconcentration and gives much more reliable quantitative results then GCMS-SPME. The shortcoming of PTR-MS is that it cannot identify compounds with certainty. Hence SPME-GCMS and PTR-MS complement each other, each method having its particular advantages and disadvantages. Exhaled breath analysis is promising to become a future non-invasive lung cancer screening method. In order to proceed towards this goal, precise identification of compounds observed in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients is necessary. Comparison with compounds released from lung cancer cell cultures, and additional information on exhaled breath composition in other cancer forms will be important.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A review of the volatiles from the healthy human body
de Lacy Costello, B., Amann, A., Al-Kateb, H., Flynn, C., Filipiak, W., Khalid, T., Osborne, D., & Ratcliffe, N. M. (2014) · Journal of Breath Research · doi:10.1088/1752-7155/8/1/014001 · Cited by 1,042
Self-citationVolatile Organic Compounds of Lung Cancer and Possible Biochemical Pathways
Hakim, M., Broza, Y. Y., Barash, O., Peled, N., Phillips, M., Amann, A., & Haick, H. (2012) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr300174a · Cited by 953
Self-citationAmann, A., Costello, B. D. L., Miekisch, W., Schubert, J., Buszewski, B., Pleil, J., Ratcliffe, N., & Risby, T. (2014) · Journal of Breath Research · doi:10.1088/1752-7155/8/3/034001 · Cited by 804
Self-citationSensors for Breath Testing: From Nanomaterials to Comprehensive Disease Detection
Konvalina, G., & Haick, H. (2014) · Accounts of Chemical Research · doi:10.1021/ar400070m · Cited by 561
Nondestructive Sampling of Living Systems Using in Vivo Solid-Phase Microextraction
Ouyang, G., Vuckovic, D., & Pawliszyn, J. (2011) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr100203t · Cited by 426
Metadata
- Authors
- Bajtarevic, A., Ager, C., Pienz, M., Klieber, M., Schwarz, K., Ligor, M., Ligor, T., Filipiak, W., Denz, H., Fiegl, M., Hilbe, W., Weiss, W., Lukas, P., Jamnig, H., Hackl, M., Haidenberger, A., Buszewski, B., Miekisch, W., Schubert, J., & Amann, A.
- Venue
- BMC Cancer
- Published
- 2009-09-29
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 348-348
- ISSN
- 1471-2407 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148765323
- Cited by
- 597
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Noninvasive detection of lung cancer by analysis of exhaled breath. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2407-9-348
- The paper
- Bajtarevic, A., Ager, C., Pienz, M., Klieber, M., Schwarz, K., Ligor, M., Ligor, T., Filipiak, W., Denz, H., Fiegl, M., Hilbe, W., Weiss, W., Lukas, P., Jamnig, H., Hackl, M., Haidenberger, A., Buszewski, B., Miekisch, W., Schubert, J., & Amann, A. (2009). Noninvasive detection of lung cancer by analysis of exhaled breath. BMC Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-348
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.