BackgroundLung cancer is one of the leading causes of death in Europe and the western world. At present, diagnosis of lung cancer very often happens late in the course of the disease since inexpensive, non-invasive and sufficiently sensitive and specific screening methods are not available. Even though the CT diagnostic methods are good, it must be assured that "screening benefit outweighs risk, across all individuals screened, not only those with lung cancer". An early non-invasive diagnosis of lung cancer would improve prognosis and enlarge treatment options. Analysis of exhaled breath would be an ideal diagnostic method, since it is non-invasive and totally painless.MethodsExhaled breath and inhaled room air samples were analyzed using proton transfer reaction mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) and solid phase microextraction with subsequent gas chromatography mass spectrometry (SPME-GCMS). For the PTR-MS measurements, 220 lung cancer patients and 441 healthy volunteers were recruited. For the GCMS measurements, we collected samples from 65 lung cancer patients and 31 healthy volunteers. Lung cancer patients were in different disease stages and under treatment with different regimes. Mixed expiratory and indoor air samples were collected in Tedlar bags, and either analyzed directly by PTR-MS or transferred to glass vials and analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS). Only those measurements of compounds were considered, which showed at least a 15% higher concentration in exhaled breath than in indoor air. Compounds related to smoking behavior such as acetonitrile and benzene were not used to differentiate between lung cancer patients and healthy volunteers.ResultsIsoprene, acetone and methanol are compounds appearing in everybody's exhaled breath. These three main compounds of exhaled breath show slightly lower concentrations in lung cancer patients as compared to healthy volunteers (p < 0.01 for isoprene and acetone, p = 0.011 for methanol; PTR-MS measurements). A comparison of the GCMS-results of 65 lung cancer patients with those of 31 healthy volunteers revealed differences in concentration for more than 50 compounds. Sensitivity for detection of lung cancer patients based on presence of (one of) 4 different compounds not arising in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers was 52% with a specificity of 100%. Using 15 (or 21) different compounds for distinction, sensitivity was 71% (80%) with a specificity of 100%. Potential marker compounds are alcohols, aldehydes, ketones and hydrocarbons.ConclusionGCMS-SPME is a relatively insensitive method. Hence compounds not appearing in exhaled breath of healthy volunteers may be below the limit of detection (LOD). PTR-MS, on the other hand, does not need preconcentration and gives much more reliable quantitative results then GCMS-SPME. The shortcoming of PTR-MS is that it cannot identify compounds with certainty. Hence SPME-GCMS and PTR-MS complement each other, each method having its particular advantages and disadvantages. Exhaled breath analysis is promising t...

Summary 20-40% of cancer patients show emotional distress. Psychosocial support should be offered to severely distressed patients. However, little is known about the selection of patients to whom such support should be offered. This study investigated oncologists' ability to identify such patients. In a consecutive series of 298 cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, distress, perceived social support and desire for supportive counselling were assessed using screening instruments. Simultaneously, 8 oncologists estimated patient distress and need for psychosocial support. A complete set of data was obtained in 80.2% of cases. Concordance of the oncologists' estimation of patient distress and perceived social support with the results of the screening instruments was weak (κ = 0.10 and κ = 0.05). Oncologists recognized the presence of severe distress only in 11 of the 30 severely distressed patients. Correct perception of distress was lower in patients with head and neck cancer and lung cancer and in lower class patients. Oncologists' recommendations for supportive counselling did not correlate with patient distress or the amount of perceived support but rather with progressive disease and less denial behaviour. Our results underline the need for educating oncologists in order to improve their ability to identify patient distress.

BACKGROUND Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is often used by cancer patients. Data on characteristics of users, concomitant psychologic disturbance, and compliance with standard treatment continue to be controversial. Use of and interest in CAM and their correlation with psychologic disturbance, ways of coping with illness, and compliance with standard treatment were examined in this study. METHODS The authors conducted a survey in a consecutive sample of 205 cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy, using a structured questionnaire to record use of and interest in CAM, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Hornheide Questionnaire to assess patient distress and social support, and the Freiburg Questionnaire of Coping with Illness. RESULTS Of the 172 participants, 24.4% (response rate, 83.9%) reported use of CAM, and 31.4% reported not having used but being interested in such methods. Logistic regression analysis including clinical, demographic, and psychologic characteristics as independent variables yielded 3 predictors of use of or interest in CAM: younger age (P = 0.004; odds ratio (OR), 0.96), progressive cancer (P = 0.064; OR, 1.47), and active coping behavior (P = 0.016; OR, 1.65). Patients interested in or using CAM did not show more psychologic disturbance, poorer social support, or less trust in medicine or compliance with radiotherapy than subjects without such interest. CONCLUSIONS Use of CAM by cancer patients is not associated with perceived distress or poor compliance with medical treatment but with active coping behavior. Patients seem to consider CAM as supplementary to standard medical methods and one way of avoiding passivity and of coping with feelings of hopelessness. Cancer 2000;89:873–80. © 2000 American Cancer Society.

The great potential of (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT in patients with rPCa and BR was confirmed. PSA and PSAdt were valuable predictors of pathological (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT findings.

SPME is a relatively insensitive method and compounds not observed in exhaled breath may be present at a concentration lower than LOD. The main achievement of the present work is the validated identification of compounds observed in exhaled breath of lung cancer patients. This identification is indispensible for future work on the biochemical sources of these compounds and their metabolic pathways.