SynthesisBMC cancer2024
Exhaled VOC detection in lung cancer screening: a comprehensive meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Exhaled breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detection methods: GC-MS versus eNose in COPD diagnosis-a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Volatile organic compounds in exhaled human breath for the diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Exhaled Breath Analysis for Lung Cancer Detection: From VOCs Signatures to EBC-Based Liquid Biopsy and Clinical Translation.Thoracic cancer · 2026Review
- Refining Lung Cancer Care: The Emerging Role of Liquid Biopsy in Screening, Diagnosis, and Precision Oncology.Cancers · 2026Review
- Article
- Understanding LUng Cancer risk factors and their Impact Assessment (LUCIA): protocol for multicentre observational cohort study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Innovative approaches for lung cancer screening and interception.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Real-time breath metabolomics as catalyst for personalized lung cancer diagnostics: prospective matched case-control trial (LUCAbreath).Translational lung cancer research · 2026Article
- A lightweight intelligent model for VOC mixture analysis: toward preclinical breath biomarker analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Bridging the lung cancer screening eligibility gap: evaluation of guideline applicability in asymptomatic patients.Military Medical Research · 2026Observational
- Intermittent Hypoxia-Induced Inflammation and the Formation of Exhaled Volatile Organic Compound Profiles in Obstructive Sleep Apnea-Hypopnea Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Nature and science of sleep · 2026Review
- Exploratory analysis of exhaled volatile organic compounds for binary discrimination between lung cancer, pneumonia, and healthy controls using machine learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Breath-based lung cancer detection using an ML-driven low-cost sensor array.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Redefining the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Landscape of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Early Detection of Lung Cancer: A Review of Innovative Milestones and Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Structured narrative review on lung cancer screening: current evidence, clinical practice implications and implementation insights from a multidisciplinary task force and patient representatives.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025Review
- The Role of Breath Analysis in the Non-Invasive Early Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) and the Management of At-Risk Individuals.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Observational
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer (LC), characterized by high incidence and mortality rates, presents a significant challenge in oncology. Despite advancements in treatments, early detection remains crucial for improving patient outcomes. The accuracy of screening for LC by detecting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath remains to be determined.
methodsOur systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines and analyzing data from 25 studies up to October 1, 2023, evaluates the effectiveness of different techniques in detecting VOCs. We registered the review protocol with PROSPERO and performed a systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Reviewers screened the studies' titles/abstracts and full texts, and used QUADAS-2 tool for quality assessment. Then performed meta-analysis by adopting a bivariate model for sensitivity and specificity.
resultsThis study explores the potential of VOCs in exhaled breath as biomarkers for LC screening, offering a non-invasive alternative to traditional methods. In all studies, exhaled VOCs discriminated LC from controls. The meta-analysis indicates an integrated sensitivity and specificity of 85% and 86%, respectively, with an AUC of 0.93 for VOC detection. We also conducted a systematic analysis of the source of the substance with the highest frequency of occurrence in the tested compounds. Despite the promising results, variability in study quality and methodological challenges highlight the need for further research.
conclusionThis review emphasizes the potential of VOC analysis as a cost-effective, non-invasive screening tool for early LC detection, which could significantly improve patient management and survival rates.
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.