-
Frontiers in Oncology 2023Dysbiosis characterises breast cancer through direct or indirect interference in a variety of biological pathways; therefore, specific microbial patterns and diversity...
INTRODUCTION
Dysbiosis characterises breast cancer through direct or indirect interference in a variety of biological pathways; therefore, specific microbial patterns and diversity may be a biomarker for the diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer. However, there is still much to determine about the complex interplay of the gut microbiome and breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate microbial alteration in breast cancer patients compared with control subjects, to explore intestine microbial modification from a range of different breast cancer treatments, and to identify the impact of microbiome patterns on the same treatment-receiving breast cancer patients.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted using electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the CENTRAL databases up to April 2021. The search was limited to adult women with breast cancer and the English language. The results were synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 33 articles from 32 studies were included in the review, representing 19 case-control, eight cohorts, and five nonrandomised intervention researches. The gut and breast bacterial species were elevated in the cases of breast tumours, a significant increase in ( = 0.015), in compared with healthy breast tissue. Meta-analysis of different α-diversity indexes such as Shannon index ( = 0.0005), observed species ( = 0.006), and faint's phylogenetic diversity ( < 0.00001) revealed the low intestinal microbial diversity in patients with breast cancer. The microbiota abundance pattern was identified in different sample types, detection methods, menopausal status, nationality, obesity, sleep quality, and several interventions using qualitative analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review elucidates the complex network of the microbiome, breast cancer, and therapeutic options, with the objective of providing a link for stronger research studies and towards personalised medicine to improve their quality of life.
PubMed: 37007104
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1144021 -
Journal of Reproductive Immunology Feb 2022To assess the available scientific evidence regarding the placental microbial composition of a healthy pregnancy, the quality of this evidence, and the potential...
OBJECTIVE
To assess the available scientific evidence regarding the placental microbial composition of a healthy pregnancy, the quality of this evidence, and the potential relation between placental and oral microbiome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE up to August 1, 2019.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Human subjects; healthy women; term deliveries; healthy normal birth weight; assessment of microorganisms (bacteria) in placental tissue; full research papers in English. The quality of the included studies was assessed by a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies.
RESULTS
57 studies passed the inclusion criteria. Of these, 33 had a high risk of quality bias (e.g., insufficient infection control, lack of negative controls, poor description of the healthy cases). The remaining 24 studies had a low (N = 12) to moderate (N = 12) risk of bias and were selected for in-depth analysis. Of these 24 studies, 22 reported microorganisms in placental tissues, where Lactobacillus (11 studies), Ureaplasma (7), Fusobacterium (7), Staphylococcus (7), Prevotella (6) and Streptococcus (6) were among the most frequently identified genera. Methylobacterium (4), Propionibacterium (3), Pseudomonas (3) and Escherichia (2), among others, although frequently reported in placental samples, were often reported as contaminants in studies that used negative controls.
CONCLUSIONS
The results support the existence of a low biomass placental microbiota in healthy pregnancies. Some of the microbial taxa found in the placenta might have an oral origin. The high risk of quality bias for the majority of the included studies indicates that the results of individual papers should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Female; Fusobacterium; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Lactobacillus; Microbiota; Placenta; Pregnancy; RNA, Ribosomal, 16S; Ureaplasma
PubMed: 34883392
DOI: 10.1016/j.jri.2021.103455