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
Back to article page

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

Contact us