| Literature DB >> 34761269 |
Victor D Plat1, Tessel M van Rossen2, Freek Daams1, Nanne K de Boer3, Tim G J de Meij4, Andries E Budding5, Christina M J E Vandenbroucke-Grauls2, Donald L van der Peet1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of esophageal microbiota in esophageal cancer treatment is gaining renewed interest, largely driven by novel DNA-based microbiota analysis techniques. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of current literature on the possible association between esophageal microbiota and outcome of esophageal cancer treatment, including tumor response to (neo)adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, short-term surgery-related complications, and long-term oncological outcome.Entities:
Keywords: anastomotic leakage; complications; esophageal cancer surgery; microbiology; neoadjuvant chemoradiation; survival
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 34761269 PMCID: PMC9376764 DOI: 10.1093/dote/doab076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Esophagus ISSN: 1120-8694 Impact factor: 2.822
Fig. 1Flow diagram with schematic presentation of study selection and exclusion stages.
Summary of included articles
| Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author |
| Cancer type | Treatment | Sample collection | Microbiota analysis | Outcome | Quality | Results |
| Yamamura†* 2019 ( | 101 | SCC | Neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-FU | Intraoperative tumor specimen (FFPE) |
| RECIST, metabolic response and TRG | Good | High level of intratumoral |
| Liu† 2021 ( | 120 | SCC | Neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-FU | Intraoperative tumor specimen (FFPE) |
| Metabolic response and TRG | Good | Poor metabolic and pathological response in high |
| Short-term surgery-related complications | ||||||||
| Author |
| Cancer type | Treatment | Sample collection | Microbiota analysis | Outcome | Results | |
| Reddy 2018 ( | 55 | EAC 80%, SCC 13% and benign 7% | nCRT 80% and transhiatal esophagectomy | Intraoperative esophageal mucosal biopsy | 16S rRNA PCR | Anastomotic leakage and pneumonia | Poor | In esophageal/gastric samples |
| Long-term oncological outcome | ||||||||
| Author |
| Cancer type | Treatment | Sample collection | Microbiota analysis | Outcome | Results | |
| Yamamura† 2016 ( | 325 | EAC 4%, SCC 92% and other 4% | nCRT 14%, NAC 22% and esophagectomy | Intraoperative tumor specimen (FFPE) |
| Cancer-specific and overall survival (FU 2.5 to 11 years) | Good | In patients with intratumoral |
| Liu 2018 ( | 45 | SCC | Esophagectomy | Intraoperative tumor tissue resection | 16S rRNA PCR | Overall survival (FU 1 to 2.5 years) | Good | Significant association between low abundance of Proteobacteria and shortened survival. A high abundance of |
| Yamamura†* 2019 ( | 551 | SCC | NAC or nCRT 47% and esophagectomy | Intraoperative tumor specimen (fresh frozen tumor tissue and FFPE) |
| Recurrence rate and recurrence-free survival (FU between 20 and 32 months) | Good | A significant association between high levels of intratumoral |
5-FU indicates 5-fluorouracil; EAC, esophageal adenocarcinoma; F. nucleatum, Fusobacterium nucleatum; FFPE, formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded; FU, follow-up; NAC, neoadjuvant chemotherapy; nCRT, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; qPCR, quantitative polymerase chain reaction; RECIST, response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; rRNA, ribosomal RNA; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; TRG, tumor regression grade. †Same research group. *Same article; this study comprised a total of 551 cases with SCC, of which 101 received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Quality assessment of included studies using the NOS scale
| Selection (4 domains, max 4 stars) | Comparability (2 domains, max 2 stars) | Outcome (3 domains, max 3 stars) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Representativeness of exposed cohort | Selection of non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Outcome of interest not present at start | Primary microbiota analysis | Adjusted for confounding | Assessment of outcome | Follow-up long enough | Follow-up adequate | Overall quality score |
| Yamamura 2016 ( | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | − | 8/9 |
| Reddy 2018 ( | − | * | * | * | − | − | * | * | − | 5/9 |
| Liu 2018 ( | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | − | 8/9 |
| Yamamura 2019 ( | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | − | 8/9 |
| Liu 2021 ( | * | * | * | * | * | − | * | * | − | 7/9 |
The * indicate stars.