Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of other studies comparing malignant neoplasm versus normal tissue (grouped by cancer type)

From: The clinical application of electrical impedance technology in the detection of malignant neoplasms: a systematic review

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
  1. 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
  2. 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]
  3. bThis study reported moderate discriminative ability in the < 40 year group
  4. cThese two studies reported statistically significant differences between malignant and normal tissue on EIS, but insufficient data for calculating the overall discriminative strength