Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34944820›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Intestinal Microbiota in Postmenopausal Breast Cancer Patients and Controls.

Romy Aarnoutse, Lars E Hillege, Janine Ziemons, Judith De Vos-Geelen, Maaike de Boer, Elvira M E R Aerts, Birgit E P J Vriens, Yvonne van Riet, Jeroen Vincent, Agnes J van de Wouw and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Changes in the fecal microbiota of breast cancer patients based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Romy AarnoutseGROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8713-9747
Lars E HillegeGROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7010-7610
Janine ZiemonsGROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4559-5488
Judith De Vos-GeelenGROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2578-1766
Maaike de BoerGROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Elvira M E R AertsDepartment of Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Birgit E P J VriensDepartment of Medical Oncology, Catharina Hospital, P.O. Box 1350, 5602 ZA Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Yvonne van RietDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, P.O. Box 1350, 5602 ZA Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Jeroen VincentDepartment of Medical Oncology, Elkerliek Hospital, P.O. Box 98, 5700 AB Helmond, The Netherlands.
Agnes J van de WouwDepartment of Medical Oncology, VieCuri Medical Centre, P.O. Box 1926, 5900 BX Venlo, The Netherlands.
Giang N LeDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6660-557X
Koen VenemaNUTRIM-School of Nutrition and Translational Research In Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7046-5127
Sander S RensenNUTRIM-School of Nutrition and Translational Research In Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5054-8400
John PendersDepartment of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9146-5919
Marjolein L SmidtGROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Dutch Province LimburgKootstra Talent Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious preclinical and clinical research has investigated the role of intestinal microbiota in carcinogenesis. Growing evidence exists that intestinal microbiota can influence breast cancer carcinogenesis. However, the role of intestinal microbiota in breast cancer needs to be further investigated. This study aimed to identify the microbiota differences between postmenopausal breast cancer patients and controls. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis prospective cohort study compared the intestinal microbiota richness, diversity, and composition in postmenopausal histologically proven ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients and postmenopausal controls. Patients scheduled for (neo)adjuvant adriamycin, cyclophosphamide (AC), and docetaxel (D), or endocrine therapy (tamoxifen) were prospectively enrolled in a multicentre cohort study in the Netherlands. Patients collected a faecal sample and completed a questionnaire before starting systemic cancer treatment. Controls, enrolled from the National Dutch Breast Cancer Screening Programme, also collected a faecal sample and completed a questionnaire. Intestinal microbiota was analysed by amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA V4 gene region.

resultsIn total, 81 postmenopausal ER+/HER2- breast cancer patients and 67 postmenopausal controls were included, resulting in 148 faecal samples. Observed species richness, Shannon index, and overall microbial community structure were not significantly different between breast cancer patients and controls. There was a significant difference in overall microbial community structure between breast cancer patients scheduled for adjuvant treatment, neoadjuvant treatment, and controls at the phylum (

conclusionsIntestinal microbiota richness, diversity, and composition are not different between postmenopausal breast cancer patients and controls. The increased relative abundance of

Indexed as

breast neoplasmfaecesgut microbiotamicrobiomeoestrogen receptor positivepost menopause

Identifiers

PMID34944820
PMCPMC8699039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.