Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41130976›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Characterizing volatile organic compound profiles in oral cancer using multiple sample collection approaches by GC-IMS and TD-GC-MS.

Scott A Borden, Kelly Yi Ping Liu, Kristian J Kiland, Lucas Martins, Andrew Huang, Eitan Prisman, J Scott Durham, Catherine F Poh, Renelle Myers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Scott A Borden *Department of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9748-1290
Kelly Yi Ping Liu *Department of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4067-6913
Kristian J KilandDepartment of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4511-8526
Lucas MartinsDepartment of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0065-6407
Andrew HuangDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Eitan PrismanDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7201-6181
J Scott DurhamDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Catherine F PohDepartment of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. cpoh@dentistry.ubc.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2867-9580
Renelle MyersDepartment of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada. renelle.myers@vch.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4898-2229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral cancer (OC) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis due to late-stage diagnosis and limited early detection tools. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have emerged as potential biomarkers for early OC detection, offering a non-invasive approach. However, the optimal sample collection and analytical workflow remains unclear. This study compares the diagnostic potential and clinical feasibility of exhaled breath, lesional air, and lesional brushings using thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (TD-GC-MS) and gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS). Twenty-six participants (13 OC or high-grade lesion patients, 13 controls) were recruited. Multivariate analysis assessed group separation and identified key discriminatory features. TD-GC-MS detected more VOCs and demonstrated stronger separation between OC and controls across all sample types compared to GC-IMS. Lesional brushings provided the best separation between groups, followed by lesional air and exhaled breath. Key discriminatory compounds included various alkanes, alkenes, aromatic hydrocarbons, phenylmethanol, and a homologous series of saturated ketones, many of which have been reported as OC biomarkers. Lesional brushings and lesional air analyzed by TD-GC-MS emerged as the most promising approaches for OC detection. GC-IMS, despite limitations, holds potential as a valuable point-of-care OC screening tool. VOC-based diagnostics offer a promising non-invasive approach for early OC detection.

Indexed as

Gas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryIon Mobility SpectrometryMouth NeoplasmsVolatile Organic CompoundsAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreath TestsCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorVolatile Organic CompoundsExhaled breath analysisGas chromatographyIon mobility spectrometryMass spectrometryOral cancerVolatile organic compounds

Identifiers

PMID41130976
PMCPMC12550030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.