AUTHOR=Taverna Gianluigi , Grizzi Fabio , Bax Carmen , Tidu Lorenzo , Zanoni Matteo , Vota Paolo , Mazzieri Cinzia , Clementi Maria Chiara , Toia Giovanni , Hegazi Mohamed A. A. A. , Lotesoriere Beatrice Julia , Hurle Rodolfo , Capelli Laura TITLE=Prostate cancer risk stratification via eNose urine odor analysis: a preliminary report JOURNAL=Frontiers in Oncology VOLUME=14 YEAR=2024 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2024.1339796 DOI=10.3389/fonc.2024.1339796 ISSN=2234-943X ABSTRACT=Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is known for its highly diverse clinical behavior, ranging from low-risk, slow-growing tumors to aggressive and life-threatening forms. To avoid over-treatment of low-risk PCa patients, it would be very important prior to any therapeutic intervention to appropriately classify subjects based on tumor aggressiveness. Unfortunately, there is currently no reliable test available for this purpose. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ability of risk stratification of PCa subjects using an electronic nose (eNose) detecting PCa-specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in urine samples.

Methods

The study involved 120 participants who underwent diagnostic prostate biopsy followed by robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PCa risk was categorized as low, intermediate, or high based on the D’Amico risk classification and the pathological grade (PG) assessed after RARP. The eNose’s ability to categorize subjects for PCa risk stratification was evaluated based on accuracy and recall metrics.

Results

The study population comprised 120 participants. When comparing eNose predictions with PG an accuracy of 79.2% (95%CI 70.8 – 86%) was found, while an accuracy of 74.2% (95%CI 65.4 – 81.7%) was found when compared to D’Amico risk classification system. Additionally, if compared low- versus -intermediate-/high-risk PCa, the eNose achieved an accuracy of 87.5% (95%CI 80.2-92.8%) based on PG or 90.8% (95%CI 84.2–95.3%) based on D’Amico risk classification. However, when using low-/-intermediate versus -high-risk PCa for PG, the accuracy was found to be 91.7% (95%CI 85.2-95.9%). Finally, an accuracy of 80.8% (95%CI72.6-87.4%) was found when compared with D’Amico risk classification.

Discussion

The findings of this study indicate that eNose may represent a valid alternative not only for early and non-invasive diagnosis of PCa, but also to categorize patients based on tumor aggressiveness. Further studies including a wider sample population will be necessary to confirm the potential clinical impact of this new technology.