To address the ever-growing cancer incidence and mortality rates, effective treatment methods are indispensable (Bray et al., 2018). They rely on detection of the disease at the earliest possible stage to allow antitumour interventions and thus improve survival rates (Bannister and Broggio, 2016; Schiffman et al., 2015). Early detection is therefore a crucial factor in the global fight against cancer.

However, the clinical benefits versus the potential harms and costs of several cancer detection approaches remain controversial (Schiffman et al., 2015). Due to the limited sensitivity and specificity of current medical diagnostics, cancer can either be overlooked (false negatives) or falsely detected (false positives), leading to either delayed interventions or unnecessary, potentially harmful investigations or psychological stress (Srivastava et al., 2019). Hence, there is a high need to complement current medical diagnostics with time- and cost-efficient, non-invasive or minimally invasive methods that could possibly lead to new screening and detection approaches, prior to tissue-biopsy-based molecular profiling or prognosis (Wan et al., 2017).

Molecular analyses of human serum and plasma provide systemic molecular information and enabling novel routes of diagnostics (Amelio et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2017). So far, most liquid biopsies predominantly rely on the analysis of a few pre-selected analytes and biomarkers. Although the emergence of highly sensitive and molecule-specific methods in the fields of proteomics (Geyer et al., 2019; Geyer et al., 2017; Uzozie and Aebersold, 2018), metabolomics (Roig et al., 2017; Xia et al., 2013), and genomics (Abbosh et al., 2017; Han et al., 2017; Otandault et al., 2019) has led to the discovery of thousands of different biomarker candidates, only a few of them have been validated and transferred to the clinic so far (Poste, 2011).

Technological developments of the last decade brought a paradigm change regarding liquid biopsies. Instead of relying on a single molecular marker, recent approaches focus on combining information across a broad range of molecules to investigate changes in molecular patterns and identify disease-specific physiologies. However, the combination of various omics techniques (i.e. multi-omics) still requires complex and target-specific sample preparation as well as elaborate ways of merging different datasets (Hasin et al., 2017; Karczewski and Snyder, 2018; Malone et al., 2020; Yoo et al., 2018). Moreover, increasing the number of analytical methods involved often leads to unfeasibly high costs for broad clinical use.

This is where infrared molecular spectroscopy prevails – it captures signals from all types of molecules in a sample in a single time- and cost-effective measurement in a label-free fashion. When applied to blood serum or plasma samples, infrared spectroscopy provides a so-called infrared molecular fingerprint (IMF) reflecting the chemical composition of a sample, that is, the person’s molecular blood phenotype (Huber et al., 2021). Even though the IMF of a highly complex biofluid such as blood serum and plasma can only partially be traced back to its molecular origin, it may deliver a plethora of information sensitive and specific to the health state of the individual. In a recent longitudinal study, we have shown that defined workflows to collect, store, process, and measure human liquid biopsies lead to reproducible IMFs in healthy, non-symptomatic individuals that are stable over clinically relevant time scales (Huber et al., 2021).

Numerous studies have shown the potential of blood-based IMFs for the detection of cancer, notably brain (Butler et al., 2019; Hands, 2014; Sala et al., 2020b), breast (Backhaus et al., 2010; Elmi et al., 2017; Ghimire et al., 2020; Zelig et al., 2015), bladder (Ollesch et al., 2014), lung (Ollesch et al., 2016), prostate (Medipally et al., 2020), and other cancer entities (Anderson et al., 2020; Ollesch et al., 2014; Sala et al., 2020a), with some of the studies reporting specificities and sensitivities higher than 90% (Anderson et al., 2020; Backhaus et al., 2010; Butler et al., 2019; Ghimire et al., 2020; Medipally et al., 2020; Ollesch et al., 2014). Despite these promising initial results, only a few studies involved more than 75 individuals per group (Anderson et al., 2020). Additionally, the majority of these studies had a high risk of bias due to patient selection applied (Anderson et al., 2020). In fact, it was shown that IMFs are susceptible to external confounding factors, such as those related to sample handling and data collection, as well as to inherent biological variations (e.g. age and gender) unrelated to cancer (Diem, 2018). Furthermore, the differences observed in IMFs may be due to the innate immune response and other concomitant factors (Diem, 2018; Fabian et al., 2005). Thus, the specificity of IMF to a certain cancer must be evaluated by investigation of appropriate, carefully selected reference groups.

Altogether, there is a need for studies that address the issues listed above by (i) systematically investigating the pre-analytical factors (Cameron et al., 2020; Huber et al., 2021), (ii) studying the molecular origin of the infrared fingerprints (Voronina et al., 2021), and (iii) adequately applying machine learning tools with involvement of a sufficient number of participants. To date, the latter requirement has only been met in studies investigating the applicability of infrared fingerprinting to bladder (Ollesch et al., 2014), breast (Backhaus et al., 2010), and brain cancer detection (Butler et al., 2019). In addition to the capacity to detect cancer, whether different cancer entities have sufficiently different infrared spectral signatures to be distinguished from each other has so far not been evaluated.

Our present multi-institutional, multi-disease study addresses the above issues to rigorously assess the feasibility of IMFs for high-throughput detection of four common cancer entities as phenotypes, thus referred to as ‘onco-IR-phenotyping.’ Using Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) transmission spectroscopy of liquid samples, we measured blood serum and plasma samples from 1927 individuals, among these 161 breast cancer, 118 bladder cancer, 278 prostate cancer, and 214 lung cancer patients, prior to any cancer-related therapy, along with non-symptomatic reference individuals and study participants with diseases and/or benign pathologies of the same organ (i.e. organ-specific symptomatic references). By applying support vector machine (SVM) to train models for binary classification, we obtained detection efficiencies in the range of 0.78–0.89 (area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC]), with the detection efficiency strongly correlating with the severity of the disease. The results of this prospectively conducted study suggest that infrared fingerprinting of liquid plasma and serum may offer a means of robust and reliable detection of different types of cancer. Furthermore, we reveal that the spectral signatures attributable to different cancer types differ significantly from each other, which facilitates classification between different states and thus carries a translational potential not previously reported.

We demonstrated the feasibility of blood-based IMF to detect lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancer with good efficiency. Although previous smaller studies have yielded fairly high classification efficiencies (Backhaus et al., 2010; Elmi et al., 2017; Ghimire et al., 2020; Medipally et al., 2020; Ollesch et al., 2016; Ollesch et al., 2014; Zelig et al., 2015), they were either based on low number of participants or might have been affected by confounding factors. Here we provided a rigorous multi-institutional study setup with more than 100 individuals in each case and reference group, 1927 individuals in total, with all case and reference cohorts matched for major confounding factors (n = 1639 individuals upon matching). In addition, we observed that visible infrared spectral signatures correlate with tumour stage, suggesting that the IMFs are significantly affected not only by the presence of tumours but also by the progression of the disease. Furthermore, similar cancer detection efficiencies were achieved with IMFs obtained from blood serum and plasma. This not only confirms the robustness of the results, but also reveals that the method is applicable to both biofluids.

This study provides strong indications that blood-based IMF patterns can be utilized to identify various cancer entities, and therefore provides a foundation for a possible future in vitro diagnostic method. However, IMF-based testing is still at the evaluation stage of essay development, and further steps have to be undertaken to evaluate the clinical utility, reliability, and robustness of the IMF approach (Ignatiadis et al., 2021).

First, the machine learning models built within this work will have to be tested with fully independent sample sets. Although the study was designed to account for and minimize the effect of confounding factors, we are aware that these cannot be fully excluded, especially considering that machine learning algorithms are susceptible to them (Zhao et al., 2020). To this end, we freeze the current machine learning models, each trained on the data of the entire cohorts of the current study (Figure 2—source data 2), and will apply them to a consecutively prospective sample collection to better rule out potential confounders.

Second, it needs to be studied in more detail whether IMFs pick up molecular patterns that are specific to a primary disease process or, more generally, to any secondary inflammatory response. At the current stage, both options seem possible as altered immune responses are also known as primary disease drivers in the context of cancer and may affect genome instability, cancer cell proliferation, anti-apoptotic signalling, angiogenesis, and, last but not least, cancer cell dissemination (Hanahan and Weinberg, 2011). This link to systemic effects makes it still difficult to distinguish cancer-specific IMFs (onco-IR-phenotypes) from comorbidities with a strong immune signature (like COPD) in humans in vivo. Nevertheless, we did obtain distinct spectral patterns for all four common cancer entities (Figure 3b) indicating different, potentially disease-specific molecular alterations of the IMFs. These changes are likely to be linked to cancer-induced changes since classification accuracy is higher with more advanced cancer stages, which is also reflected in more pronounced differential fingerprints with larger tumour size.

To gain deeper understanding of the specificity of observed spectral changes to the disease patterns studied, it is helpful to investigate their molecular origin. In this context, we do not consider the approach of assigning spectral positions/features to characteristic vibrational modes of functional molecular entities most appropriate. Although widely used in the IR community, due to the very many molecular assignments possible for each spectral position, unambiguous statements of molecular changes herein are not feasible. Instead, a much deeper analysis is required, as recently revealed by Sangster et al., 2006; Voronina et al., 2021. The latter work involves combination of infrared spectroscopy and quantitative mass spectrometry on the part of the lung cancer sample set used in the current study as well, identifying the molecular origin of the differential infrared fingerprints. These can be partially explained by a characteristic change of proteins that are known to also change due to systemic inflammatory signals. Thereby we highlight the need for further biochemical investigations into the molecular origin of the observed spectral signatures, generally required in the field to address this question conclusively.

In-depth information about the molecular origin of the observed spectral disease patterns will help identify the clinical setting(s) where infrared fingerprinting can make largest contributions to cancer care (e.g. screening, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment monitoring, or surveillance). The specificity of spectral signatures to cancer, along with the obtained sensitivity and specificity in the binary classification (Table 1), will influence whether the approach may best complement primary diagnostics, be possibly suited for screening, or even be used for molecular profiling and prognostication. When further validated, blood-based IMFs could aid residing medical challenges: More specifically, it may complement radiological and clinical chemistry examinations prior to invasive tissue biopsies. Given less than 60 μl of sample are required, sample preparation time and effort are negligible, and measurement time is within minutes, the approach may be well suited for high-throughput screening or provide additional information for clinical decision process. Thus, minimally invasive IMF cancer detection could integratively help raise the rate of pre-metastatic cancer detection in clinical testing. However, further detailed research (e.g. as performed for an FTIR-based blood serum test for brain tumour; Gray et al., 2018) is needed to identify an appropriate clinical setting in which the proposed test can be used with the greatest benefit (in terms of cost-effectiveness and clinical utility).

Moreover, given the recent evidence of high within-person stability of IMFs over time (Huber et al., 2021), serial longitudinal liquid biopsies and infrared fingerprinting of respective samples could eliminate between-person variability by self-referencing and thereby facilitate even more efficient and possibly earlier cancer detection. Once (i) a precise clinical setting is defined and (ii) large-scale, stratified clinical studies controlled for comorbidities can be realized, a systematic, direct comparison to established diagnostics will become feasible and the full potential of infrared fingerprinting can be quantitatively assessed.

For further improvements in the accuracy of the envisioned medical assay, the IR fingerprinting methodology needs to be improved in parallel. Molecular specificity is inherently limited in IR spectroscopy due to the spectral overlap of absorption bands of individual molecules. This might be tackled by chemical pre-fractionation (Hughes et al., 2014; Petrich et al., 2009; Voronina et al., 2021) or by combining IR spectroscopy to methods like liquid chromatography. However, such a pre-fractioning, but also IR fingerprinting itself, would benefit even more from increased spectroscopic sensitivity. Sensitivity of the current commercially available FTIR spectrometer is however limited to detection of highly abundant molecules. Recent developments in infrared spectroscopy demonstrate the possibility to increase the detectable molecular dynamic range to five orders of magnitude (Pupeza et al., 2020) and therefore have the potential to improve the efficiency of infrared fingerprinting.

In summary, infrared fingerprinting reveals the potential for effective detection and distinction of various common cancer types already at its current stage and implementation. Future developments, in terms of instrumentation as well as methodology, have the potential to further improve the detection efficiency. This study presents a general high-throughput and cost-effective framework, and along this, highlights the possibility for extending infrared fingerprinting to other disease entities.

The datasets analysed within the scope of the study cannot be published publicly due to privacy regulations under the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679. The raw data includes clinical data from patients, including textual clinical notes and contain information that could potentially compromise subjects' privacy or consent, and therefore cannot be shared. However, the trained machine learning models for the binary classification of bladder, breast, prostate, and lung cancer are provided within Figure 2—source data 4, along with description and code for importing them in a python script. The custom code used for the production of the results presented in this manuscript is stored in a persistent repository at the Leibniz Supercomputing Center of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities (LRZ), located in Garching, Germany. The entire code can only be shared upon reasonable request, as its correct use depends heavily on the settings of the experimental setup and the measuring device and should therefore be clarified with the authors.

1. 1. Abbosh C
   2. Birkbak NJ
   3. Wilson GA
   4. Jamal-Hanjani M
   5. Constantin T
   6. Salari R
   7. Le Quesne J
   8. Moore DA
   9. Veeriah S
   10. Rosenthal R
   11. Marafioti T
   12. Kirkizlar E
   13. Watkins TBK
   14. McGranahan N
   15. Ward S
   16. Martinson L
   17. Riley J
   18. Fraioli F
   19. Al Bakir M
   20. Grönroos E
   21. Zambrana F
   22. Endozo R
   23. Bi WL
   24. Fennessy FM
   25. Sponer N
   26. Johnson D
   27. Laycock J
   28. Shafi S
   29. Czyzewska-Khan J
   30. Rowan A
   31. Chambers T
   32. Matthews N
   33. Turajlic S
   34. Hiley C
   35. Lee SM
   36. Forster MD
   37. Ahmad T
   38. Falzon M
   39. Borg E
   40. Lawrence D
   41. Hayward M
   42. Kolvekar S
   43. Panagiotopoulos N
   44. Janes SM
   45. Thakrar R
   46. Ahmed A
   47. Blackhall F
   48. Summers Y
   49. Hafez D
   50. Naik A
   51. Ganguly A
   52. Kareht S
   53. Shah R
   54. Joseph L
   55. Marie Quinn A
   56. Crosbie PA
   57. Naidu B
   58. Middleton G
   59. Langman G
   60. Trotter S
   61. Nicolson M
   62. Remmen H
   63. Kerr K
   64. Chetty M
   65. Gomersall L
   66. Fennell DA
   67. Nakas A
   68. Rathinam S
   69. Anand G
   70. Khan S
   71. Russell P
   72. Ezhil V
   73. Ismail B
   74. Irvin-Sellers M
   75. Prakash V
   76. Lester JF
   77. Kornaszewska M
   78. Attanoos R
   79. Adams H
   80. Davies H
   81. Oukrif D
   82. Akarca AU
   83. Hartley JA
   84. Lowe HL
   85. Lock S
   86. Iles N
   87. Bell H
   88. Ngai Y
   89. Elgar G
   90. Szallasi Z
   91. Schwarz RF
   92. Herrero J
   93. Stewart A
   94. Quezada SA
   95. Peggs KS
   96. Van Loo P
   97. Dive C
   98. Lin CJ
   99. Rabinowitz M
   100. Aerts HJWL
   101. Hackshaw A
   102. Shaw JA
   103. Zimmermann BG
   104. TRACERx consortium
   105. PEACE consortium
   106. Swanton C

   (2017) Phylogenetic CTDNA analysis depicts early-stage lung cancer evolution

   Nature 545:446–451.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22364

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Amelio I
   2. Bertolo R
   3. Bove P
   4. Buonomo OC
   5. Candi E
   6. Chiocchi M
   7. Cipriani C
   8. Di Daniele N
   9. Ganini C
   10. Juhl H
   11. Mauriello A
   12. Marani C
   13. Marshall J
   14. Montanaro M
   15. Palmieri G
   16. Piacentini M
   17. Sica G
   18. Tesauro M
   19. Rovella V
   20. Tisone G
   21. Shi Y
   22. Wang Y
   23. Melino G

   (2020) Liquid biopsies and cancer omics

   Cell Death Discovery 6:131.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41420-020-00373-0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. Book

   1. Amin MB
   2. Edge SB
   3. Greene FL
   4. Byrd DR
   5. Brookland RK
   6. Washington MK
   7. Gershenwald JE
   8. Compton CC
   9. Hess KR
   10. Sullivan DC
   11. Jessup JM
   12. Brierley JD
   13. Gaspar LE
   14. Schilsky RL
   15. Balch CM
   16. Winchester DP
   17. Asare EA
   18. Madera M
   19. Gress DM
   20. Meyer LR

   (2017) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual

   Springer.

   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40618-3

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anderson DJ
   2. Anderson RG
   3. Moug SJ
   4. Baker MJ

   (2020) Liquid biopsy for cancer diagnosis using vibrational spectroscopy: systematic review

   BJS Open 4:554–562.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50289

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Backhaus J
   2. Mueller R
   3. Formanski N
   4. Szlama N
   5. Meerpohl HG
   6. Eidt M
   7. Bugert P

   (2010) Diagnosis of breast cancer with infrared spectroscopy from serum samples

   Vibrational Spectroscopy 52:173–177.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vibspec.2010.01.013

   • Google Scholar
6. Book

   1. Bannister N
   2. Broggio J

   (2016)

   Cancer Survival by Stage at Diagnosis for England (Experimental Statistics)

   Office for National Statistics.

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Boothby M
   2. Rickert RC

   (2017) Metabolic Regulation of the Immune Humoral Response

   Immunity 46:743–755.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2017.04.009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bray F
   2. Ferlay J
   3. Soerjomataram I
   4. Siegel RL
   5. Torre LA
   6. Jemal A

   (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

   CA 68:394–424.

   https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Butler HJ
   2. Brennan PM
   3. Cameron JM
   4. Finlayson D
   5. Hegarty MG
   6. Jenkinson MD
   7. Palmer DS
   8. Smith BR
   9. Baker MJ

   (2019) Development of high-throughput ATR-FTIR technology for rapid triage of brain cancer

   Nature Communications 10:4501.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12527-5

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Cameron JM
    2. Butler HJ
    3. Anderson DJ
    4. Christie L
    5. Confield L
    6. Spalding KE
    7. Finlayson D
    8. Murray S
    9. Panni Z
    10. Rinaldi C
    11. Sala A
    12. Theakstone AG
    13. Baker MJ

    (2020) Exploring pre-analytical factors for the optimisation of serum diagnostics: Progressing the clinical utility of ATR-FTIR spectroscopy

    Vibrational Spectroscopy 109:103092.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vibspec.2020.103092

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Diem M

    (2018) Comments on recent reports on infrared spectral detection of disease markers in blood components

    Journal of Biophotonics 11:e201800064.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201800064

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Elmi F
    2. Movaghar AF
    3. Elmi MM
    4. Alinezhad H
    5. Nikbakhsh N

    (2017) Application of FT-IR spectroscopy on breast cancer serum analysis

    Spectrochim Acta Part A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 187:87–91.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2017.06.021

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Fabian H
    2. Lasch P
    3. Naumann D

    (2005) Analysis of biofluids in aqueous environment based on mid-infrared spectroscopy

    Journal of Biomedical Optics 10:031103.

    https://doi.org/10.1117/1.1917844

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Geyer PE
    2. Holdt LM
    3. Teupser D
    4. Mann M

    (2017) Revisiting biomarker discovery by plasma proteomics

    Molecular Systems Biology 13:942.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20156297

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Geyer PE
    2. Voytik E
    3. Treit P
    4. Doll S
    5. Kleinhempel A
    6. Niu L
    7. Müller JB
    8. Buchholtz M
    9. Bader JM
    10. Teupser D
    11. Holdt LM
    12. Mann M

    (2019) Plasma Proteome Profiling to detect and avoid sample‐related biases in biomarker studies

    EMBO Molecular Medicine 11:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201910427

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Ghimire H
    2. Garlapati C
    3. Janssen EAM
    4. Krishnamurti U
    5. Qin G
    6. Aneja R
    7. Perera AGU

    (2020) Protein Conformational Changes in Breast Cancer Sera Using Infrared Spectroscopic Analysis

    Cancers 12:1708.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12071708

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Gray E
    2. Butler HJ
    3. Board R
    4. Brennan PM
    5. Chalmers AJ
    6. Dawson T
    7. Goodden J
    8. Hamilton W
    9. Hegarty MG
    10. James A
    11. Jenkinson MD
    12. Kernick D
    13. Lekka E
    14. Livermore LJ
    15. Mills SJ
    16. O’Neill K
    17. Palmer DS
    18. Vaqas B
    19. Baker MJ

    (2018) Health economic evaluation of a serum-based blood test for brain tumour diagnosis: Exploration of two clinical scenarios

    BMJ Open 8:e017593.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017593

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Han X
    2. Wang J
    3. Sun Y

    (2017) Circulating Tumor DNA as Biomarkers for Cancer Detection

    Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics 15:59–72.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gpb.2016.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Hanahan D
    2. Weinberg RA

    (2011) Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation

    Cell 144:646–674.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Hands JR

    (2014) Attenuated Total Reflection Fourier Transform Infrared (ATR-FTIR) spectral discrimination of brain tumour severity from serum samples

    Journal of Biophotonics 7:189–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201300149

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Hasin Y
    2. Seldin M
    3. Lusis A

    (2017) Multi-omics approaches to disease

    Genome Biology 18:83.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1215-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Huber M
    2. Kepesidis K
    3. Voronina L
    4. Božić M
    5. Trubetskov M
    6. Harbeck N
    7. Krausz F
    8. Žigman M

    (2021) Stability of person-specific blood-based infrared molecular fingerprints opens up prospects for health monitoring

    Nature Communications 12:1511.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21668-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Hughes C
    2. Brown M
    3. Clemens G
    4. Henderson A
    5. Monjardez G
    6. Clarke NW
    7. Gardner P

    (2014) Assessing the challenges of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic analysis of blood serum

    Journal of Biophotonics 7:180–188.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201300167

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Ignatiadis M
    2. Sledge GW
    3. Jeffrey SS

    (2021) Liquid biopsy enters the clinic — implementation issues and future challenges

    Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 18:297–312.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-020-00457-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Karczewski KJ
    2. Snyder MP

    (2018) Integrative omics for health and disease

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 19:299–310.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2018.4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Malone ER
    2. Oliva M
    3. Sabatini PJB
    4. Stockley TL
    5. Siu LL

    (2020) Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies

    Genome Medicine 12:8.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-019-0703-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. McGranahan N
    2. Swanton C

    (2017) Clonal Heterogeneity and Tumor Evolution: Past, Present, and the Future

    Cell 168:613–628.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Medipally DKR
    2. Cullen D
    3. Untereiner V
    4. Sockalingum GD
    5. Maguire A
    6. Nguyen TNQ
    7. Bryant J
    8. Noone E
    9. Bradshaw S
    10. Finn M
    11. Dunne M
    12. Shannon AM
    13. Armstrong J
    14. Meade AD
    15. Lyng FM

    (2020) Vibrational spectroscopy of liquid biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis

    Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 12:175883592091849.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1758835920918499

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Ollesch J
    2. Heinze M
    3. Heise HM
    4. Behrens T
    5. Brüning T
    6. Gerwert K

    (2014) It’s in your blood: spectral biomarker candidates for urinary bladder cancer from automated FTIR spectroscopy

    Journal of Biophotonics 7:210–221.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.201300163

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Ollesch J
    2. Theegarten D
    3. Altmayer M
    4. Darwiche K
    5. Hager T
    6. Stamatis G
    7. Gerwert K

    (2016) An infrared spectroscopic blood test for non-small cell lung carcinoma and subtyping into pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma

    Biomedical Spectroscopy and Imaging 5:129–144.

    https://doi.org/10.3233/BSI-160144

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Otandault A
    2. Anker P
    3. Al Amir Dache Z
    4. Guillaumon V
    5. Meddeb R
    6. Pastor B
    7. Pisareva E
    8. Sanchez C
    9. Tanos R
    10. Tousch G
    11. Schwarzenbach H
    12. Thierry AR

    (2019) Recent advances in circulating nucleic acids in oncology

    Annals of Oncology 30:374–384.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Pedregosa F
    2. Weiss R
    3. Brucher M

    (2011) Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 12:2825–2830.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Petrich W
    2. Lewandrowski KB
    3. Muhlestein JB
    4. Hammond MEH
    5. Januzzi JL
    6. Lewandrowski EL
    7. Pearson RR
    8. Dolenko B
    9. Früh J
    10. Haass M
    11. Hirschl MM
    12. Köhler W
    13. Mischler R
    14. Möcks J
    15. Ordóñez–Llanos J
    16. Quarder O
    17. Somorjai R
    18. Staib A
    19. Sylvén C
    20. Werner G
    21. Zerback R

    (2009) Potential of mid-infrared spectroscopy to aid the triage of patients with acute chest pain

    The Analyst 134:1092.

    https://doi.org/10.1039/b820923e

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Poste G

    (2011) Bring on the biomarkers

    Nature 469:156–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/469156a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Pupeza I
    2. Huber M
    3. Trubetskov M
    4. Schweinberger W
    5. Hussain SA
    6. Hofer C
    7. Fritsch K
    8. Poetzlberger M
    9. Vamos L
    10. Fill E
    11. Amotchkina T
    12. Kepesidis K
    13. Apolonski A
    14. Karpowicz N
    15. Pervak V
    16. Pronin O
    17. Fleischmann F
    18. Azzeer A
    19. Žigman M
    20. Krausz F

    (2020) Field-resolved infrared spectroscopy of biological systems

    Nature 577:52–59.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1850-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Roig B
    2. Rodríguez-Balada M
    3. Samino S
    4. Ewf L
    5. Guaita-Esteruelas S
    6. Gomes AR
    7. Correig X
    8. Borràs J
    9. Yanes O
    10. Gumà J

    (2017) Metabolomics reveals novel blood plasma biomarkers associated to the BRCA1-mutated phenotype of human breast cancer

    Scientific Reports 7:17831.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17897-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. Book

    1. Rosenbaum PR

    (2010) Design of Observational Studies, Springer Series in Statistics

    Springer.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1213-8

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Sala A
    2. Anderson DJ
    3. Brennan PM
    4. Butler HJ
    5. Cameron JM
    6. Jenkinson MD
    7. Rinaldi C
    8. Theakstone AG
    9. Baker MJ

    (2020a) Biofluid diagnostics by FTIR spectroscopy: A platform technology for cancer detection

    Cancer Letters 477:122–130.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2020.02.020

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Sala A
    2. Spalding KE
    3. Ashton KM
    4. Board R
    5. Butler HJ
    6. Dawson TP
    7. Harris DA
    8. Hughes CS
    9. Jenkins CA
    10. Jenkinson MD
    11. Palmer DS
    12. Smith BR
    13. Thornton CA
    14. Baker MJ

    (2020b) Rapid analysis of disease state in liquid human serum combining infrared spectroscopy and “digital drying

    Journal of Biophotonics 13:118.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jbio.202000118

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Sangster T
    2. Major H
    3. Plumb R
    4. Wilson AJ
    5. Wilson ID

    (2006) A pragmatic and readily implemented quality control strategy for HPLC-MS and GC-MS-based metabonomic analysis

    The Analyst 131:1075–1078.

    https://doi.org/10.1039/b604498k

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Schiffman JD
    2. Fisher PG
    3. Gibbs P

    (2015) Early Detection of Cancer: Past, Present, and Future

    Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ B 10:57–65.

    https://doi.org/10.14694/EdBook_AM.2015.35.57

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Srivastava S
    2. Koay EJ
    3. Borowsky AD
    4. De Marzo AM
    5. Ghosh S
    6. Wagner PD
    7. Kramer BS

    (2019) Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 19:349–358.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0142-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Uzozie AC
    2. Aebersold R

    (2018) Advancing translational research and precision medicine with targeted proteomics

    Journal of Proteomics 189:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2018.02.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Voronina L
    2. Leonardo C
    3. Mueller‐Reif JB
    4. Geyer PE
    5. Huber M
    6. Trubetskov M
    7. Kepesidis K
    8. Behr J
    9. Mann M
    10. Krausz F
    11. Žigman M

    (2021) Molecular Origin of Blood‐Based Infrared Spectroscopic Fingerprints**

    Angew Chemie Int Ed Anie 60:17060–17069.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202103272

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Wan JCM
    2. Massie C
    3. Garcia-Corbacho J
    4. Mouliere F
    5. Brenton JD
    6. Caldas C
    7. Pacey S
    8. Baird R
    9. Rosenfeld N

    (2017) Liquid biopsies come of age: Towards implementation of circulating tumour dna

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 17:223–238.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2017.7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Xia J
    2. Broadhurst DI
    3. Wilson M
    4. Wishart DS

    (2013) Translational biomarker discovery in clinical metabolomics: An introductory tutorial

    Metabolomics 9:280–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-012-0482-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Yang H
    2. Yang S
    3. Kong J
    4. Dong A
    5. Yu S

    (2015) Obtaining information about protein secondary structures in aqueous solution using Fourier transform IR spectroscopy

    Nature Protocols 10:382–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2015.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Yoo BC
    2. Kim KH
    3. Woo SM
    4. Myung JK

    (2018) Clinical multi-omics strategies for the effective cancer management

    Journal of Proteomics 188:97–106.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2017.08.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Zelig U
    2. Barlev E
    3. Bar O
    4. Gross I
    5. Flomen F
    6. Mordechai S
    7. Kapelushnik J
    8. Nathan I
    9. Kashtan H
    10. Wasserberg N
    11. Madhala-Givon O

    (2015) Early detection of breast cancer using total biochemical analysis of peripheral blood components: a preliminary study

    BMC Cancer 15:408.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1414-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Zhao Q
    2. Adeli E
    3. Pohl KM

    (2020) Training confounder-free deep learning models for medical applications

    Nature Communications 11:6010.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19784-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Marinus Huber

   1. Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Laser Physics, Garching, Germany
   2. Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ), Laboratory for Attosecond Physics, Garching, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Kosmas V Kepesidis

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5309-4475

2. Kosmas V Kepesidis

   1. Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Laser Physics, Garching, Germany
   2. Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ), Laboratory for Attosecond Physics, Garching, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Marinus Huber

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6391-7743

3. Liudmila Voronina

   Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Laser Physics, Garching, Germany

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Frank Fleischmann

   Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Laser Physics, Garching, Germany

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Ernst Fill

   Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ), Laboratory for Attosecond Physics, Garching, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Jacqueline Hermann

   Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Laser Physics, Garching, Germany

   Contribution

   Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Ina Koch

   Asklepios Biobank for Lung Diseases, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Member of the German Center for Lung Research, DZL, Asklepios Fachkliniken München-Gauting, Munich, Germany

   Contribution

   Data curation, Investigation, Resources, Validation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8766-017X

8. Katrin Milger-Kneidinger

   University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Internal Medicine V, Munich, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Thomas Kolben

   University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCLMU), Munich, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources, Supervision

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Gerald B Schulz

    University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Urology, Munich, Germany

    Contribution

    Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Friedrich Jokisch

    University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Urology, Munich, Germany

    Contribution

    Investigation

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Jürgen Behr

    University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Internal Medicine V, Munich, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

13. Nadia Harbeck

    University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breast Center and Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCLMU), Munich, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Maximilian Reiser

    University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Clinical Radiology, Munich, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Christian Stief

    University Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Urology, Munich, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

16. Ferenc Krausz

    1. Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Laser Physics, Garching, Germany
    2. Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ), Laboratory for Attosecond Physics, Garching, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

17. Mihaela Zigman

    1. Ludwig Maximilians University Munich (LMU), Department of Laser Physics, Garching, Germany
    2. Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ), Laboratory for Attosecond Physics, Garching, Germany

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    mihaela.zigman@mpq.mpg.de

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8306-1922

• 2,353

  views

• 411

  downloads

• 11

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.