Wang Qiaoling, Fang Yu, Tan Shiyan, Li Zhuohong, Zheng Ruyi, Ren Yifeng, Jiang Yifang, Huang Xiaopeng
TCM Regulating Metabolic Diseases Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Second Department of Oncology, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Front Oncol. 2024 May 13;14:1397259. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1397259. eCollection 2024.
The detection of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) could provide a potential diagnostic modality for the early detection and surveillance of colorectal cancers. However, the overall diagnostic accuracy of the proposed tests remains uncertain.
This systematic review is to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of using VOC analysis techniques and electronic noses (e-noses) as noninvasive diagnostic methods for colorectal cancer within the realm of clinical practice.
A systematic search was undertaken on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to scrutinize pertinent studies published from their inception to September 1, 2023. Only studies conducted on human subjects were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was deployed for quality assessment. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, and PRISMA guidelines were used for the identification, screening, eligibility, and selection process.
This review encompassed 32 studies, 22 studies for VOC analysis and 9 studies for e-nose, one for both, with a total of 4688 subjects in the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of VOC analysis for CRC detection were 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.78-0.90), respectively. In the case of e-nose, the pooled sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90), and the pooled specificity was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88). The area under the receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC) curve for VOC analysis and e-noses were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.92), respectively.
The outcomes of this review substantiate the commendable accuracy of VOC analysis and e-nose technology in detecting CRC. VOC analysis has a higher specificity than e-nose for the diagnosis of CRC and a sensitivity comparable to that of e-nose. However, numerous limitations, including a modest sample size, absence of standardized collection methods, lack of external validation, and a notable risk of bias, were identified. Consequently, there exists an imperative need for expansive, multi-center clinical studies to elucidate the applicability and reproducibility of VOC analysis or e-nose in the noninvasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42023398465.
挥发性有机化合物(VOCs)的检测可为结直肠癌的早期检测和监测提供一种潜在的诊断方式。然而,所提出检测方法的总体诊断准确性仍不确定。
本系统评价旨在确定在临床实践领域中,使用VOC分析技术和电子鼻作为结直肠癌的非侵入性诊断方法的诊断准确性。
在PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆进行了系统检索,以审查从数据库建立至2023年9月1日发表的相关研究。仅纳入针对人类受试者的研究。使用双变量模型进行荟萃分析,以获得敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性似然比的汇总估计值。采用诊断准确性研究质量评估2工具进行质量评估。本系统评价的方案已在PROSPERO中注册,并使用PRISMA指南进行识别、筛选、合格性评估和选择过程。
本评价纳入了32项研究,其中22项关于VOC分析,9项关于电子鼻,1项两者都涉及,分析中共有4688名受试者。用于结直肠癌检测的VOC分析的合并敏感性和特异性分别为0.88(95%CI,0.83 - 0.92)和0.85(95%CI,0.78 - 0.90)。对于电子鼻,合并敏感性为0.87(95%CI,0.83 - 0.90),合并特异性为0.78(95%CI,0.62 - 0.88)。VOC分析和电子鼻的受试者操作特征分析(ROC)曲线下面积分别为0.93(95%CI,0.90 - 0.95)和0.90(95%CI,0.87 - 0.92)。
本评价结果证实了VOC分析和电子鼻技术在检测结直肠癌方面具有值得称赞的准确性。VOC分析在结直肠癌诊断中比电子鼻具有更高的特异性,且敏感性与电子鼻相当。然而,发现了许多局限性,包括样本量较小、缺乏标准化收集方法、缺乏外部验证以及存在明显的偏倚风险。因此,迫切需要开展大规模、多中心临床研究,以阐明VOC分析或电子鼻在结直肠癌非侵入性诊断中的适用性和可重复性。
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails,标识符CRD42023398465