ArticleGynecologic oncology2019
Gut microbial diversity and genus-level differences identified in cervical cancer patients versus healthy controls.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness ofThe Journal of international medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Associations of the gut, cervical, and vaginal microbiota with cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2025Pooled it
- Alterations in gut and genital microbiota associated with gynecological diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2024Pooled it
- Reproducible and opposing gut microbiome signatures distinguish autoimmune diseases and cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Microbiome · 2022Pooled it
- Impact of gut microbiota on atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer: a comprehensive analysis of microbial composition and metabolomic profiling.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Stool and vaginal microbiome profiles patterns among Black and White endometrial cancer survivors: A pilot study in North Carolina.PloS one · 2026Article
- Microbiome-host interactions in locally advanced cervical cancer: the impact on chemoradiotherapy treatment outcomes and toxicity.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Gynecological Cancer Oncobiome Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Oral Microbiome and Inferred Functions Predict Kaposi's Sarcoma Progression.Journal of medical virology · 2025Article
- Unraveling the links between estrogen and gut microbiota in sex-hormone driven cancers.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Insights into the tripartite relationship between cervical cancer, human papillomavirus, and the vaginal microbiome: a mega-analysis.Human genomics · 2025Article
- Probiotics: A New Approach for the Prevention and Treatment of Cervical Cancer.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Review
- METTL3 mediates m6A methylation modification of ULBP2 and affects the progression of cervical cancer.Hereditas · 2025Article
- Review
- Characteristics and potential diagnostic value of gut microbiota in ovarian tumor patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Primary Pathogenic Bacteria in Abscess Disease of Musk Deer Using Metagenomic Approaches.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- The Role of the Microbiome in Cancer Therapies: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Hematology/oncology clinics of North America · 2025Review
- HIV-associated gut dysbiosis drives oncogenesis through metabolic-immune crosstalk: mechanisms and therapeutic implications.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- A potential association between the characteristics of the multi-organ microbiota and lymph node metastasis in cervical cancer.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Analysis of Vaginal and Gut Microbiome Alterations in Endometriosis Patients.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to characterize variation in the gut microbiome of women with locally advanced cervical cancer and compare it to healthy controls.
methodsWe characterized the 16S rDNA fecal microbiome in 42 cervical cancer patients and 46 healthy female controls. Shannon diversity index (SDI) was used to evaluate alpha (within sample) diversity. Beta (between sample) diversity was examined using principle coordinate analysis (PCoA) of unweighted Unifrac distances. Relative abundance of microbial taxa was compared between samples using Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe).
resultsWithin cervical cancer patients, bacterial alpha diversity was positively correlated with age (p = 0.22) but exhibited an inverse relationship in control subjects (p < 0.01). Alpha diversity was significantly higher in cervical cancer patients as compared to controls (p < 0.05), though stratification by age suggested this relationship was restricted to older women (>50 years; p < 0.01). Beta diversity (unweighted Unifrac; p < 0.01) also significantly differed between cervical cancer patients and controls. Based on age- and race-adjusted LEfSe analysis, multiple taxa significantly differed between cervical cancer patients and controls. Prevotella, Porphyromonas, and Dialister were significantly enriched in cervical cancer patients, while Bacteroides, Alistipes and members of the Lachnospiracea family were significantly enriched in healthy subjects.
conclusionOur study suggests differences in gut microbiota diversity and composition between cervical cancer patients and controls. Associations within the gut microbiome by age may reflect etiologic/clinical differences. These findings provide rationale for further study of the gut microbiome in cervical cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.