Table 7 Published studies on VOCs on breast cancer.
From: A prediction model using 2-propanol and 2-butanone in urine distinguishes breast cancer
Authors | Sample | Methods, results |
|---|---|---|
Phillips et al. (2003)25 | Breath | GCMS, methylated alkane contour |
BC (51) vs abnormal MG (50) | Sensitivity 62.7%(32/51), specificity 84.0% (42/50) | |
BC (51) vs healthy (42) | Sensitivity 94.1% (48/51), specificity 73.8% (31/42) | |
Phillips et al. (2006)22 | Breath (re-analysis of ref.#24) | GCMS |
BC (51) vs abnormal MG (50) | 2-propanol, 2,3-dihydro-1-phenyl-4(1H)-quinazolinone, | |
BC (51) vs healthy (42) | 1-phenyl-ethanone, heptanal, and isopropyl myristate | |
Sensitivity 93.8%, specificity 84.6% | ||
Phillips et al. (2010)24 | Breath | GCMS |
BC (54) vs healthy (204) | Training set: Sensitivity 78.5%, specificity 88.3% | |
Test set: sensitivity 75.3%, specificity 84.8% | ||
Patterson et al. (2011)48 | Breath | GCMS |
BC (20) vs healthy (20) | Sensitivity 72%, specificity 64% | |
Silva et al. (2012)36 | Urine | GCMS |
BC (26) vs healthy (21) | ↓dimethyl disulfide | |
↑4-carene, 3-heptanone, phenol, | ||
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, 2-methoxythiophene, | ||
Sensitivity/Specificity NA | ||
Mangler et al. (2012)26 | Breath | GCMS |
BC (10) vs healthy (10) | ↓3-methylhexane, decene, caryophyllene, naphthalene | |
↑trichlorethylene | ||
Sensitivity/Specificity NA | ||
Li et al. (2014)46 | Breath | GCMS |
BC (22) vs healthy (24) | Hexanal, heptanal, octanal, | |
vs Breast benign tumor (17) | and nonanal, | |
Sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 91.7% | ||
Wang et al. (2014)47 | Breath | GCMS |
BC (39) vs healthy (45) | 2,5,6-trimethyloctane, | |
vs cyclomastopathy (25) | 1,4-dimethoxy-2,3-butanediol, cyclohexanone | |
vs mammary gland fibroma (21) | Sensitivity/specificity NA | |
Barash et al. (2015)20 | Breath | GCMS |
BC (90) vs benign (13) vs healthy (23) | 23 compounds | |
Sensitivities 81–88%, specificities 76–96% | ||
Silva et al. (2017)49 | BC cell lines | GCMS |
2-Pentanone, 2-heptanone, 3-methyl-3-buten-1-ol, | ||
ethyl acetate, | ||
ethyl propanoate and 2-methyl butanoate | ||
Sensitivity/Specificity NA | ||
Phillips et al. (2017)19 | Breath | GCMS |
BC (54) vs healthy (214) | 21 compounds, | |
Training set: AUC = 0.79, | ||
Test set: AUC = 0.77 | ||
Cavaco (2018)50 | Saliva | GCMS |
BC (66) vs healthy (40) | 3-methyl-pentanoic acid, 4-methyl-pentanoic acid, | |
phenol, acetic acid, propanic acid, 1,2-decanediol | ||
Sensitivity/specificity NA | ||
Porto-Figueira et al. (2018)34 | Urine | Needle Trap Microextraction (NTME)/GCMS |
BC vs healthy | 2-bromophenol, octanoic acid, phenol, | |
Sensitivity/specificity NA | ||
Phillips et al. (2018)21 | Breath | -GCMS: test accuracy = 90% |
BC (54) vs healthy (124) | -GC-surface acoustic wave detection (GCSAW): test accuracy = 86% | |
Silva (2019)35 | Urine | GCMS |
BC (31) vs healthy (40) | 10 compounds (sulfur compounds, terpenoids and | |
carbonyl compounds), | ||
Sensitivity/Specificity NA, AUC = 0.842 | ||
de Leon-Martinez et al. (2020)51 | Breath | “Electrical nose”, Compounds NA, |
BC (262) vs healthy (181) | Sensitivity 100%, specificity 100% | |
Zhang et al. (2020)52 | Breath | GCMS, combination of (S)‐1,2‐propanediol, |
BC (78) vs healthy (71) | cyclopentanone, ethylenecarbonate, 3‐methoxy‐1,2 | |
vs gastric cancer (54) | propanediol, 3‐methylpyridine, phenol, | |
and tetramethylsilane | ||
Sensitivity 93.36%, specificity 71.6% |
