Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Key considerations for the experimental training and evaluation of cancer odour detection dogs: lessons learnt from a double-blind, controlled trial of prostate cancer detection

Elliker, Kevin R; Armstrong, Sarah; Sommerville, Barbara A; Broom, Donald M; Neal, David E; Williams, Hywel C

Key considerations for the experimental training and evaluation of cancer odour detection dogs: lessons learnt from a double-blind, controlled trial of prostate cancer detection Thumbnail


Authors

Kevin R Elliker

Sarah Armstrong

Barbara A Sommerville

Donald M Broom

David E Neal

Profile Image

HYWEL WILLIAMS HYWEL.WILLIAMS@NOTTINGHAM.AC.UK
Professor of Dermato-Epidemiology



Abstract

Background: Cancer detection using sniffer dogs is a potential technology for clinical use and research. Our study sought to determine whether dogs could be trained to discriminate the odour of urine from men with prostate cancer from controls, using rigorous testing procedures and well-defined samples from a major research hospital.

Methods: We attempted to train ten dogs by initially rewarding them for finding and indicating individual prostate cancer urine samples (Stage 1). If dogs were successful in Stage 1, we then attempted to train them to discriminate prostate cancer samples from controls (Stage 2). The number of samples used to train each dog varied depending on their individual progress. Overall, 50 unique prostate cancer and 67 controls were collected and used during training. Dogs that passed Stage 2 were tested for their ability to discriminate 15 (Test 1) or 16 (Tests 2 and 3) unfamiliar prostate cancer samples from 45 (Test 1) or 48 (Tests 2 and 3) unfamiliar controls under double-blind conditions.

Results: Three dogs reached training Stage 2 and two of these learnt to discriminate potentially familiar prostate cancer samples from controls. However, during double-blind tests using new samples the two dogs did not indicate prostate cancer samples more frequently than expected by chance (Dog A sensitivity 0.13, specificity 0.71, Dog B sensitivity 0.25, specificity 0.75). The other dogs did not progress past Stage 1 as they did not have optimal temperaments for the sensitive odour discrimination training.

Conclusions: Although two dogs appeared to have learnt to select prostate cancer samples during training, they did not generalise on a prostate cancer odour during robust double-blind tests involving new samples. Our study illustrates that these rigorous tests are vital to avoid drawing misleading conclusions about the abilities of dogs to indicate certain odours. Dogs may memorise the individual odours of large numbers of training samples rather than generalise on a common odour. The results do not exclude the possibility that dogs could be trained to detect prostate cancer. We recommend that canine olfactory memory is carefully considered in all future studies and rigorous double-blind methods used to avoid confounding effects.

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Feb 20, 2014
Online Publication Date Feb 27, 2014
Publication Date Feb 27, 2014
Deposit Date Apr 11, 2018
Publicly Available Date May 23, 2019
Journal BMC Urology
Electronic ISSN 1471-2490
Publisher Springer Verlag
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 14
Issue 1
Article Number 22
Pages 1-9
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-14-22
Keywords Prostate cancer; Cancer detection dogs; Cancer odour; Olfactory memory; Multiple sample learning
Public URL http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/14/22
Publisher URL https://bmcurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2490-14-22