ReviewTrends in cancer2022
Redrawing therapeutic boundaries: microbiota and cancer.
Review in Trends in cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tongue cancer microbial biomarkers: landscape of saliva, cancer tissue, and para-carcinoma tissue.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Erucic Acid, Derived by Lactobacillus Crispatus, Induces Ferroptosis in Cervical Cancer Organoids Through the PPAR-δ Signaling Pathway.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Exploiting Salmonella typhimurium as a novel cancer therapeutic agent: from tumor colonization to metabolic engineering.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- Targeting the LPS-STING axis: neomycin restores STING-mediated anti-tumor immune suppression and inhibits tumor growth.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Role of N6-methyladenosine RNA modification in cancer.MedComm · 2024Review
- Drug repurposing for cancer therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- The intratumoral microbiota: a new horizon in cancer immunology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Review
- Multi-omics-based investigation ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- The Microbiome in the Obesity-Breast Cancer Axis: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Potential.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Reuniting philosophy and science to advance cancer research.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2023Article
- Awareness of intratumoral bacteria and their potential application in cancer treatment.Discover oncology · 2023Review
- Mechanism-guided fine-tuned microbiome potentiates anti-tumor immunity in HCC.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Leveraging 16S rRNA data to uncover vaginal microbial signatures in women with cervical cancer.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The unexpected roles of the microbiota in cancer challenge explanations of carcinogenesis that focus on tumor-intrinsic properties. Most tumors contain bacteria and viruses, and the host's proximal and distal microbiota influence both cancer incidence and therapeutic responsiveness. Continuing the history of cancer-microbe research, these findings raise a key question: to what extent is the microbiota relevant for clinical oncology? We approach this by critically evaluating three issues: how the microbiota provides a predictive biomarker of cancer growth and therapeutic responsiveness, the microbiota's causal role(s) in cancer development, and how therapeutic manipulations of the microbiota improve patient outcomes in cancer. Clarifying the conceptual and empirical aspects of the cancer-associated microbiota can orient future research and guide its implementation in clinical oncology.
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.