ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2022
Detecting Colorectal Adenomas and Cancer Using Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath: A Proof-of-Principle Study to Improve Screening.
Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of volatile organic compounds analysis and electronic noses for detecting colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath as non-invasive biomarkers for Gastrointestinal motility disorders: an exploratory study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Review
- Colorectal Cancer Detection Through Sweat Volatilome Using an Electronic Nose System and GC-MS Analysis.Cancers · 2025Article
- Volatile Organic Compounds in Biological Matrices as a Sensitive Weapon in Cancer Diagnosis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mechanisms and therapeutic strategies to reveal and overcome T-cell dysfunction in gastric cancer: translation from basic research to clinical application.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Article
- Advancing Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis with AI-Powered Breathomics: Navigating Challenges and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Article
- Differences in the Volatilomic Urinary Biosignature of Prostate Cancer Patients as a Feasibility Study for the Detection of Potential Biomarkers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Systematic Review: Contribution of the Gut Microbiome to the Volatile Metabolic Fingerprint of Colorectal Neoplasia.Metabolites · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) by screening programs is crucial because survival rates worsen at advanced stages. However, the currently used screening method, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), suffers from a high number of false-positives and is insensitive for detecting advanced adenomas (AAs), resulting in false-negatives for these premalignant lesions. Therefore, more accurate, noninvasive screening tools are needed. In this study, the utility of analyzing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath in a FIT-positive population to detect the presence of colorectal neoplasia was studied.
methodsIn this multicenter prospective study, breath samples were collected from 382 FIT-positive patients with subsequent colonoscopy participating in the national Dutch bowel screening program (n = 84 negative controls, n = 130 non-AAs, n = 138 AAs, and n = 30 CRCs). Precolonoscopy exhaled VOCs were analyzed using thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and the data were preprocessed and analyzed using machine learning techniques.
resultsUsing 10 discriminatory VOCs, AAs could be distinguished from negative controls with a sensitivity and specificity of 79% and 70%, respectively. Based on this biomarker profile, CRC and AA combined could be discriminated from controls with a sensitivity and specificity of 77% and 70%, respectively, and CRC alone could be discriminated from controls with a sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 70%, respectively. Moreover, the feasibility to discriminate non-AAs from controls and AAs was shown. DISCUSSION: VOCs in exhaled breath can detect the presence of AAs and CRC in a CRC screening population and may improve CRC screening in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.