Back

Harnessing exhaled breath for lung cancer early detection, results from the ExPeL study

Patel, D.; D'Cruz, L.; Ahmed, W.; Chauhan, A.; Bakerly, N.; Grundy, S.; Trivedi, D. K.; Knight, S.

2026-03-20 respiratory medicine
10.64898/2026.03.19.26348785 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Scalable, non invasive tools are critically needed to improve early lung cancer detection and optimize primary care referral pathways. We evaluated Inflammacheck, a point-of-care device utilizing exhaled breath condensate (EBC) H2O2 and physiological parameters with machine learning, for non-invasive lung cancer detection in a real-world screening population. Methods ExPeL study participants, from the UK Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme, included individuals with suspected lung cancer and low-risk ever-smoker controls. EBC was collected via Inflammacheck, measuring H2O2;, end-tidal CO2;, humidity, temperature, and exhalation flow rate. Multivariate analyses (PCA, LDA, Mahalanobis distance) assessed intrinsic group separation. SMOTE-balanced data trained supervised machine learning models (stacked and voting ensembles), which were then evaluated on held-out test sets. In parallel, untargeted LCMS metabolomics was performed to identify discriminatory molecular features. Results Analysing 34 participants with valid EBC data, 83% of cancer cases were early-stage (I or II), reflecting a screening population. Multivariate analysis clearly separated lung cancer and controls across PCA, LDA, and Mahalanobis mapping. The voting ensemble model achieved: Accuracy 85.7%, Sensitivity 80%, Specificity 100%, Precision (PPV) 100%, ROC AUC 0.90, MCC 0.73. Crucially, no false positives were identified. EBC variables revealed greater dispersion in cancer patients, reflecting physiological heterogeneity missed by univariate analysis. Untargeted metabolomics identified 2,132 features, with four key metabolites yielding an AUC of 0.969 for cancer discrimination. Discussion Inflammacheck effectively distinguishes early-stage lung cancer via a rapid, non-invasive breath test, findings which are highly relevant for primary care and screening triage, where non-specific symptoms and low prevalence pose challenges.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.9%
2
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 3%
13.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
5
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
6
Respiratory Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
7
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
8
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.2%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
10
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
11
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
12
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
13
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
14
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
16
Annals of Clinical and Translational Neurology
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
17
Metabolites
50 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
18
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
19
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
20
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
21
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.5%
22
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
23
Journal of Biomedical Optics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%