title: 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.
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.
authors.forename: Kevin R
authors.initials: KR
authors.lastname: Elliker
authors.forename: Barbara A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Sommerville
authors.forename: Donald M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Broom
authors.forename: David E
authors.initials: DE
authors.lastname: Neal
authors.forename: Sarah
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Armstrong
authors.affiliation: Centre of Evidence-based Dermatology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK. Hywel.Williams@nottingham.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Hywel C
authors.initials: HC
authors.lastname: Williams
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000818:Animals; D001681:Biological Assay / Q000379:methods*; D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor / Q000652:urine*; D003213:Conditioning, Psychological; D004285:Dogs; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009812:Odorants / Q000032:analysis*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000652:urine*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
chemical_list: D014408:Biomarkers, Tumor