van der Sar IG, Wijsenbeek MS, Braunstahl GJ, Loekabino JO, Dingemans AMC, In 't Veen JCCM, Moor CC. Differentiating interstitial lung diseases from other respiratory diseases using electronic nose technology.
Respir Res 2023;
24:271. [PMID:
37932795 PMCID:
PMC10626662 DOI:
10.1186/s12931-023-02575-3]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/22/2023] [Indexed: 11/08/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Interstitial lung disease (ILD) may be difficult to distinguish from other respiratory diseases due to overlapping clinical presentation. Recognition of ILD is often late, causing delay which has been associated with worse clinical outcome. Electronic nose (eNose) sensor technology profiles volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath and has potential to detect ILD non-invasively. We assessed the accuracy of differentiating breath profiles of patients with ILD from patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer using eNose technology.
METHODS
Patients with ILD, asthma, COPD, and lung cancer, regardless of stage or treatment, were included in a cross-sectional study in two hospitals. Exhaled breath was analysed using an eNose (SpiroNose) and clinical data were collected. Datasets were split in training and test sets for independent validation of the model. Data were analyzed with partial least squares discriminant and receiver operating characteristic analyses.
RESULTS
161 patients with ILD and 161 patients with asthma (n = 65), COPD (n = 50) or lung cancer (n = 46) were included. Breath profiles of patients with ILD differed from all other diseases with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00) in the test set. Moreover, breath profiles of patients with ILD could be accurately distinguished from the individual diseases with an AUC of 1.00 (95% CI 1.00-1.00) for asthma, AUC of 0.96 (95% CI 0.90-1.00) for COPD, and AUC of 0.98 (95% CI 0.94-1.00) for lung cancer in test sets. Results were similar after excluding patients who never smoked.
CONCLUSIONS
Exhaled breath of patients with ILD can be distinguished accurately from patients with other respiratory diseases using eNose technology. eNose has high potential as an easily accessible point-of-care medical test for identification of ILD amongst patients with respiratory symptoms, and could possibly facilitate earlier referral and diagnosis of patients suspected of ILD.
Collapse