Volatile organic compounds analysis as a potential novel screening tool for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Wenchuan Zhou, Jinxin Tao, Jin Li, Shaoyu Tao, Wenchuan Zhou, Jinxin Tao, Jin Li, Shaoyu Tao

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the usefulness of volatile organic compounds (VOC) as a potential novel biomarker for colorectal cancer (CRC).We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for observational studies (published before November 25th, 2019; no language restrictions) comparing the VOC analysis between patients with CRC and healthy controls. We evaluated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive and negative likelihood ratio, as well as summary receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve.We identified a total of 10 observational studies that included 381 patients with CRC and 436 healthy controls. Bivariate analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77-0.86), specificity of 0.79 (95% CI = 0.71-0.85), positive likelihood ratio of 3.8 (95% CI = 2.8-5.3), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 (95% CI = 0.17-0.30). The area under the curve was 0.87 (95% CI = 0.84-0.90). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 17 (95% CI = 10-28). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the pooled results were stabilized. The Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test (P = .41) suggested no potential publication bias.Our pooled data confirmed the associations between VOC analysis and CRC, highlighting the usefulness of VOC analysis as a potential novel screening tool for CRC. However, standardization of VOC collection and analysis methods for CRC screening is required in future research.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram for identifying eligible studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality assessment of included studies by using the QUADAS-2 tool: (A) Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgments about each item presented as percentages across all included studies; (B) Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study. QUADAS-2 = quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots of the sensitivity and specificity for VOC analysis in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Different heterogeneity was shown for pooled sensitivity and specificity (I2 = 30.63% and I2 = 67.59%, respectively). VOC = volatile organic compounds.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Summary receiver operating characteristic graph of included studies.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013;49:1374–403.
    1. Altobelli E, Lattanzi A, Paduano R, et al. Colorectal cancer prevention in Europe: burden of disease and status of screening programs. Prev Med 2014;62:132–41.
    1. Lieberman DA. Clinical practice. Screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1179–87.
    1. Zorzi M, Fedeli U, Schievano E, et al. Impact on colorectal cancer mortality of screening programmes based on the faecal immunochemical test. Gut 2015;64:784–90.
    1. Tinmouth J, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Allison JE. Faecal immunochemical tests versus guaiac faecal occult blood tests: what clinicians and colorectal cancer screening programme organisers need to know. Gut 2015;64:1327–37.
    1. Widlak MM, Neal M, Daulton E, et al. Risk stratification of symptomatic patients suspected of colorectal cancer using faecal and urinary markers. Colorectal Dis 2018;20:O335–42.
    1. Haick H, Broza YY, Mochalski P, et al. Assessment, origin, and implementation of breath volatile cancer markers. Chem Soc Rev 2014;43:1423–49.
    1. Nakhleh MK, Amal H, Jeries R, et al. Diagnosis and classification of 17 diseases from 1404 subjects via pattern analysis of exhaled molecules. ACS Nano 2017;11:112–25.
    1. Altomare DF, Di Lena M, Porcelli F, et al. Effects of curative colorectal cancer surgery on exhaled volatile organic compounds and potential implications in clinical follow-up. Ann Surg 2015;262:862–6.
    1. Altomare DF, Di Lena M, Porcelli F, et al. Exhaled volatile organic compounds identify patients with colorectal cancer. Br J Surg 2013;100:144–50.
    1. Arasaradnam RP, McFarlane MJ, Ryan-Fisher C, et al. Detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) by urinary volatile organic compound analysis. PloS One 2014;9:e108750.
    1. Batty CA, Cauchi M, Lourenço C, et al. Use of the analysis of the volatile faecal metabolome in screening for colorectal cancer. PloS One 2015;10:e0130301.
    1. Wang C, Li P, Lian A, et al. Blood volatile compounds as biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Cancer Biol Ther 2014;15:200–6.
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008–12.
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
    1. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, et al. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1129–35.
    1. Harbord RM, Whiting P, Sterne JA, et al. An empirical comparison of methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy showed hierarchical models are necessary. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:1095–103.
    1. ter Riet G, Kessels AG, Bachmann LM. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. Two issues were simplified. BMJ 2001;323:1188.
    1. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 1993;12:1293–316.
    1. Walter SD. Properties of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for diagnostic test data. Stat Med 2002;21:1237–56.
    1. Jackson D, White IR, Thompson SG. Extending DerSimonian and Laird's methodology to perform multivariate random effects meta-analyses. Stat Med 2010;29:1282–97.
    1. Song F, Gilbody S. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Increase in studies of publication bias coincided with increasing use of meta-analysis. BMJ 1998;316:471.
    1. Amal H, Leja M, Funka K, et al. Breath testing as potential colorectal cancer screening tool. Int J Cancer 2016;138:229–36.
    1. Bond A, Greenwood R, Lewis S, et al. Volatile organic compounds emitted from faeces as a biomarker for colorectal cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2019;49:1005–12.
    1. de Meij TG, Larbi IB, van der Schee MP, et al. Electronic nose can discriminate colorectal carcinoma and advanced adenomas by fecal volatile biomarker analysis: proof of principle study. Int J Cancer 2014;134:1132–8.
    1. Ishibe A, Ota M, Takeshita A, et al. Detection of gas components as a novel diagnostic method for colorectal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2018;2:147–53.
    1. McFarlane M, Millard A, Hall H, et al. Urinary volatile organic compounds and faecal microbiome profiles in colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2019;21:1259–69.
    1. Mozdiak E, Wicaksono AN, Covington JA, et al. Colorectal cancer and adenoma screening using urinary volatile organic compound (VOC) detection: early results from a single-centre bowel screening population (UK BCSP). Tech Coloproctol 2019;23:343–51.
    1. Westenbrink E, Arasaradnam RP, O’Connell N, et al. Development and application of a new electronic nose instrument for the detection of colorectal cancer. Biosens Bioelectron 2015;67:733–8.
    1. McDonald R, Tomlins A, Smith S, et al. Outcomes of faecal occult blood tests requested outside the UK National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. J Clin Pathol 2013;66:330–4.
    1. Weller D, Coleman D, Robertson R, et al. The UK colorectal cancer screening pilot: results of the second round of screening in England. Br J Cancer 2007;97:1601–5.
    1. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 2003;124:544–60.
    1. Wools A, Dapper EA, de Leeuw JR. Colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health 2016;26:158–68.
    1. Abaffy T, Duncan R, Riemer DD, et al. Differential volatile signatures from skin, naevi and melanoma: a novel approach to detect a pathological process. PloS One 2010;5:e13813.
    1. de Gennaro G, Dragonieri S, Longobardi F, et al. Chemical characterization of exhaled breath to differentiate between patients with malignant plueral mesothelioma from subjects with similar professional asbestos exposure. Anal Bioanal Chem 2010;398:3043–50.
    1. Phillips M, Cataneo RN, Saunders C, et al. Volatile biomarkers in the breath of women with breast cancer. J Breath Res 2010;4:026003.
    1. Qin T, Liu H, Song Q, et al. The screening of volatile markers for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:2247–53.
    1. Denkert C, Budczies J, Weichert W, et al. Metabolite profiling of human colon carcinoma--deregulation of TCA cycle and amino acid turnover. Mol Cancer 2008;7:72.
    1. Zimmermann D, Hartmann M, Moyer MP, et al. Determination of volatile products of human colon cell line metabolism by GC/MS analysis. Metabolomics 2007;3:13–7.
    1. Hanna GB, Boshier PR, Markar SR, et al. Accuracy and methodologic challenges of volatile organic compound-based exhaled breath tests for cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2018;5:e182815.
    1. Fuchs P, Loeseken C, Schubert JK, et al. Breath gas aldehydes as biomarkers of lung cancer. Int J Cancer 2010;126:2663–70.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅