ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Prostate cancer risk stratification via eNose urine odor analysis: a preliminary report.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Olfactory Science and Technology in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: From Invertebrate Models to Artificial Intelligence.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) is known for its highly diverse clinical behavior, ranging from low-risk, slow-growing tumors to aggressive and life-threatening forms. To avoid over-treatment of low-risk PCa patients, it would be very important prior to any therapeutic intervention to appropriately classify subjects based on tumor aggressiveness. Unfortunately, there is currently no reliable test available for this purpose. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ability of risk stratification of PCa subjects using an electronic nose (eNose) detecting PCa-specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in urine samples. Methods: The study involved 120 participants who underwent diagnostic prostate biopsy followed by robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PCa risk was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on the D'Amico risk classification and the pathological grade (PG) assessed after RARP. The eNose's ability to categorize subjects for PCa risk stratification was evaluated based on accuracy and recall metrics. Results: The study population comprised 120 participants. When comparing eNose predictions with PG an accuracy of 79.2% (95%CI 70.8 - 86%) was found, while an accuracy of 74.2% (95%CI 65.4 - 81.7%) was found when compared to D'Amico risk classification system. Additionally, if compared low- versus -intermediate-/high-risk PCa, the eNose achieved an accuracy of 87.5% (95%CI 80.2-92.8%) based on PG or 90.8% (95%CI 84.2-95.3%) based on D'Amico risk classification. However, when using low-/-intermediate versus -high-risk PCa for PG, the accuracy was found to be 91.7% (95%CI 85.2-95.9%). Finally, an accuracy of 80.8% (95%CI72.6-87.4%) was found when compared with D'Amico risk classification. Discussion: The findings of this study indicate that eNose may represent a valid alternative not only for early and non-invasive diagnosis of PCa, but also to categorize patients based on tumor aggressiveness. Further studies including a wider sample population will be necessary to confirm the potential clinical impact of this new technology.
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.