Phase-2 case-control study demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for multi-cancer detection using canine olfaction and Bayesian modeling.
PURPOSE: Low-cost, acceptable, and high-sensitivity triage tests are needed to address the challenge of low cancer prevalence in population screening, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Breath-based canine olfaction has the potential to serve this role; however, evidence to date has been mostly limited to high-income countries and relatively small, single-cancer studies. We evaluated the analytical validity of a multi-cancer breath detection system using trained dogs and Bayesian fusion modeling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an assessor-masked, multi-center case-control study across six hospitals in Karnataka, India (March 2024-June 2025; CTRI/2024/10/075938). A total of 3,275 participants were enrolled: 1,773 for training and 1,502 for testing. The test cohort comprised 283 treatment-naive, biopsy-confirmed cancer patients (seven major cancer groups) and 1,219 controls (healthy, non-oncologic chronic disease, and benign biopsy). Breath was collected on cotton masks, stored under -20C cold-chain conditions, and presented on a sniffing platform to trained detection dogs. Individual responses were integrated with Bayesian fusion incorporating historical dog performance and participant-level sample variables. RESULTS: The fusion system achieved 91.5% sensitivity (95% CI, 88.0-94.8) and 90.8% specificity (95% CI, 89.1-92.5), with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.962 (95% CI, 0.951-0.971). Sensitivity was 89.6% in early stages (Stage I-II), and was relatively consistent across major cancer types. CONCLUSION: In a 1,502-participant test cohort, canine olfaction-Bayesian fusion achieved high accuracy for multi-cancer detection from breath, with stable performance across stages. These data establish the analytical validity and support the prospective evaluation of true screening populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kulgod et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: