Table 2.
Results of other studies comparing malignant neoplasm versus normal tissue (grouped by cancer type)
| Author | Country of origin | Site | Histology of malignant tissue tested | Cancer samples | Benign samples | Specimen state | Discriminative strengtha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Halter 2015 | USA | Breast | IDC | 10 | 9 | In-vivo | Good |
| Gregory 2012 | USA | Breast | IDC or ILC ± DCIS or LCIS | 232 | 141 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Kim 2007 | USA | Breast | IDC | 1 | 1 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Cherepenin 2001 | Russia | Breast | – | 21 | 21 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| da Silva 2000 | Portugal | Breast | – | 21 | 42 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Osterman 2000 | USA | Breast | ILC or IDC | 3 | 12 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Chauveau 1999 | France | Breast | IDC | 2 | 1 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Jossinet 1998 | France | Breast | – | 23 | 64 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Stojadinovic 2005 | Multicentre | Breast | (Various) | 29 | 1074 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Kao 2008 | USA | Breast | IDC and DCIS | 3 | 1 | In-vivo | Moderateb |
| Halter 2009 | USA | Breast | IDC + DCIS | 11 | 4 | Both | Insufficient |
| Du 2017 | China | Breast | (Various) | 581 | 395 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Mahara 2015 | USA | Prostate | – | 3 | 3 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Mishra 2013 | USA | Prostate | – | 21 | 367 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Wan 2013 | USA | Prostate | – | 45 | 45 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Mishra 2012 | USA | Prostate | – | 36 | 288 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| de Abreu 2011 | Brazil | Prostate | – | 23 | 27 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Halter 2011 | USA | Prostate | – | 71 | 465 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Halter 2008 | USA | Prostate | – | 29 | 151 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Halter 2007 | USA | Prostate | Adenocarcinoma | o | 5 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Khan 2016 | USA | Prostate | – | 23 | 53 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Murphy 2017 | USA | Prostate | – | 12 | 105 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Lee 1999 | USA | Prostate | – | 6 | 6 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Halter 2008 | USA | Prostate | – | 17 | 345 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Keshtkar 2006 | Iran | Bladder | – | 24 | 73 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Wilkinson 2002 | UK | Bladder | – | 35 | 35 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Keshtkar 2012 | Iran | Bladder | – | 30 | 100 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Prakash 2014 | USA | Hepatic | Metastasis-colorectal primary | 41 | 91 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Laufer 2010 | Israel & USA | Hepatic | – | 32 | 26 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Gao 2014 | China | Lung | (Various) | 91 | 91 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Cherepenin 2001 | Russia | Lung | – | 22 | 7 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Sun 2010 | Taiwan | Tongue | SCC | 12 | 12 | In-vivo | Insufficientc |
| Ching 2010 | Taiwan | Tongue | SCC | 5 | 5 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Dua 2004 | USA | Skin -BCC | BCC | 18 | 16 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Kuzmina 2005 | Sweden | Skin -BCC | BCC | 35 | 35 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Keshtkar 2012 | Iran | Gastric | Adenocarcinoma | 19 | 22 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Yun 2016 | South Korea | Renal | RCC | 10 | 10 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Zheng 2013 | USA | Thyroid | Papillary & follicular | 27 | 133 | In-vivo | Good |
| Pathiraja 2017 | UK | Colorectal | Adenocarcinoma | 22 | 22 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Habibi 2011 | USA | Skin-scc | SCC | 1 | 14 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Knabe 2013 | Germany | Oesophagus | Adenocarcinoma & SCC | 30 | 19 | In-vivo | Insufficientc |
IDC: invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC: invasive lobular carcinoma; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; LCIS: lobular carcinoma in situ; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; BCC: basal cell carcinoma; (Various): more than 3 histological cancer subtypes included; ‘–’, not stated
aDiscriminative strength is a summary of the reported quantitative indices for discrimination between neoplastic and normal tissue in each study, not taking into account the number of samples. This was rated as follows: “Good”, AUROC > 0.7 or sensitivity and specificity both > 0.75 or Youden index > 0.5; “Moderate”, AUROC > 0.6 or Sensitivity > 0.7 + Youden index > 0.25; “Insufficient”, not meeting the above criteria or insufficient data. Youden index is calculated as (sensitivity + specificity) minus 1 [11]
bThis study reported moderate discriminative ability in the < 40 year group
cThese two studies reported statistically significant differences between malignant and normal tissue on EIS, but insufficient data for calculating the overall discriminative strength