\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cancer Type** & **Analytical Approach** & **Biomarker’s Candidates/Findings** & **Prediction Model** & **Validation Characteristics** & **Reference** \\ \hline Lung & GC-IMS & \begin{tabular}{c} 2-Pentanone-2-hexenal,2-hexenal,2-hexen-1-ol, \\ hept-4-en-2-ol,2-heptanone, \\ 3-octet-2-one,4-methylpentanol, \\ 4-methyl-octane \\ \end{tabular} & SVM & \begin{tabular}{c} GC-IMS \\ Sens. 85\% \\ Spec. 90\% \\ AUC:0.91 \\ \end{tabular} & [24] \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Ehaled breath} \\ \hline Colorectal & \begin{tabular}{c} Thermal \\ desorption-GC-TOF-MS \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 10 VOMs distinguished advanced \\ adenoma from negative controls. \\ Colorectal cancer patients and \\ advanced adenoma combined were \\ discriminated from controls \\ \end{tabular} & RF & Colorectal cancer vs. controls & [25] \\ \hline Gastric & PTR-TOF-MS & \begin{tabular}{c} Propanal, acetacimade, \\ isopene, 1-3-propanediol \\ \end{tabular} & ROC & \begin{tabular}{c} Sens. 61\% \\ Spec. 94\% \\ AUC:0.842 \\ \end{tabular} & [26] \\ \hline Breast & SIFT-MS & \begin{tabular}{c} 3.7-Dimethyl-2,6-octet-1-ol, \\ ethanolamine, ethyl nonanoate \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} PCA, \\ MLR \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Sens. 86.3\% \\ Spec. 56.8\% \\ \end{tabular} & [27] \\ \hline Hepatocellular & SPME/GC-MS & \begin{tabular}{c} Phenol 12.2 methylene bis \\ [6-(1,1-dimethyl ethyl)+(methyl)] \\ \end{tabular} & PCA & NA & [28] \\ \hline Lung & HPI-TOFMS & \begin{tabular}{c} Isoprene, hexenal, pentanal, \\ propyychohexne, nonanal, \\ 2-2-dimethylodecane, \\ heptanal, decanal \\ \end{tabular} & Hosmer-Lemeshow test & \begin{tabular}{c} Sens. 86\% \\ Spec. 87.2\% \\ Acc. 86.9\% \\ AUC:0.931 \\ \end{tabular} & [29] \\ \hline Hepatocellular carcinoma & HS-SPME/GC-MS & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Acetone, 14-pentadiene, methylene \\ chloride, benzene, phenol, \\ allyl methyl sulfide \\ \end{tabular} & SVM &
\begin{tabular}{c} Sens. 44\% \\ Spec. 25\% \\ Acc. 58.4\% \\ \end{tabular} & [30] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cancer Type** & **Analytical** & **Biomarke’s Candidates/** & **Prediction Model** & **Validation Characteristics** & **Reference** \\  & **Approach** & **Findings** & & & \\ \hline \hline  & & Saliva & & & \\ \hline  & & 1-Octen-3-ol, hexanoic acid, & & Sens: 100\% & \\ Oral & HS-SPME/GC-MS & E-2-octnnel, heptanoic acid, octanoic & & Spec: 100\% & [31] \\  & & acid, E-2-moment, nonanoic acid, & & AUC: 1 & \\ \hline Stomach and & & Accitaldehyde, acetone, & & Sens: 95.7\% & [32] \\ colorectal cancer & Capillary CC-FID & 2-propanol, ethanol & CART & Spec: 90.9\% & [33] \\ \hline  & Thin-film microextraction & & & \\ Oral squamous cell & based on a ZSM-5/ & 12 VOMs & PCA & Sens: 95.8\% & [33] \\ carcinoma & polydimethylsiloxane hybrid & & Spec: 94\% & \\ \hline  & & & & \\ \hline  & & & & \\  
Owing to the enrichment of volatile compounds, ranging in polarity and complexity, urine is the preferred biological fluid for volatilomic research. In addition to its reproducibility and patient acceptability, urine has fewer interfering proteins or lipids [12, 34, 35]. [PERSON] et al. [18], [PERSON] et al. [19], and [PERSON] et al. [20] proposed different e-noses for PCa diagnosis through urinary volatilomic profiling (Table 1). The e-noses developed were able to detect alterations in the urine volatilome associated with PCa and thereby discriminated oncological patients from healthy controls, with sensitivity and specificity superior to 81% and 79%, respectively. [PERSON] and collaborators [21] developed an extraction technique using HiSorb sorptive extraction combined with gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC-TOF-MS) for urine analysis of PCa patients.