RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 BREATH TEST TO DETECT WOMEN AT LOW RISK FOR BREAST CANCER: POTENTIAL CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.10.09.24315190
DO 10.1101/2024.10.09.24315190
A1 Phillips, Michael
A1 Bevers, Therese B
A1 Larsen, Linda Hovanessian
A1 Pappas, Nadine
A1 Pathak, Sonali
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/10/2024.10.09.24315190.abstract
AB Background A breath test for volatile organic compounds has identified biomarkers associated with breast cancer. We evaluated the potential clinical and economic benefits of a breath test to detect women at low risk for breast cancer by comparing its negative predictive value (NPV) to the NPV of screening mammography.Methods Sensitivity and specificity values for screening mammography were obtained from the Food & Drug Administration Mammography Quality Standards Act; Amendments to Part 900 Regulations Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0134. The high values were sensitivity = 79.0%, specificity = 88.9% and the low values were sensitivity = 66.0%, specificity = 88.9%. In two previous studies of 771 women undergoing mammography, breath testing identified breast cancer with sensitivity=84% and specificity = 68.6% in 178 asymptomatic women, and sensitivity=82% and specificity = 77% in 593 who were symptomatic. These values were projected to a hypothetical screening population of 100,000 asymptomatic women with average breast cancer prevalence of 450/100,000, in order to estimate the NPV and PPV (positive predictive value) for breath testing and screening mammography respectively.Results Breath test in asymptomatic women: NPV = 99.895% and PPV = 1.19%; in symptomatic women: NPV = 99.895% and PPV = 1.59%. For screening mammography, NPV = 99.83% and PPV = 2.82% (low values), increasing to NPV= 99.89% and PPV = 3.12% (high values). A negative breath test identified 68.3% of the screening population as having low risk of breast cancer, with NPV similar to mammography. Based on Medicare reimbursement rates, elimination of mammography in women with a negative breath test could reduce the annual cost of breast cancer screening by 38.9%Conclusions In a hypothetical screening population, a negative breath test ruled out breast cancer with the same accuracy as a negative mammogram. A screening breath test could potentially eliminate the need for two thirds of all mammograms and reduce the costs of screening without increasing the risk of false-negative findings. If applied in clinical practice, this approach could potentially reduce the costs and burdens of breast cancer screening services, and benefit women by lessening the discomfort, anxiety, radiation exposure, and costs associated with mammography.Competing Interest StatementMichael Phillips is President and CEO of Menssana Research, Inc. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.Clinical TrialNCT02888366Funding StatementThe study was funded by NIH NCI Grant Number 5R44CA203019Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Clinical studies were reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) at all participating sites. Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript