Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35834269›Full record

ArticleJAMA oncology2022

Association of Intratumoral Microbiota With Prognosis in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma From 2 Hospitals in China.

Han Qiao, Xi-Rong Tan, Hui Li, Jun-Yan Li, Xiao-Zhong Chen, Ying-Qin Li, Wen-Fei Li, Ling-Long Tang, Guan-Qun Zhou, Yuan Zhang and 11 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
108citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
32.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

108 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 156 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Formic acid released by intratumoralActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2026
    Article
  7. mBio · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Han QiaoDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xi-Rong TanDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hui LiZhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jun-Yan LiCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xiao-Zhong ChenCancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Science (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine (IBMC) Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hanzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ying-Qin LiDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Wen-Fei LiCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ling-Long TangCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Guan-Qun ZhouCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yuan ZhangCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ye-Lin LiangCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Qing-Mei HeDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yin ZhaoDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Sheng-Yan HuangDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Sha GongDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Qian LiCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ming-Liang YeDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Kai-Lin ChenCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ying SunCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jun MaCollaborative Innovation Center of Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Na LiuDepartment of Experimental Research, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNZhejiang Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Microbiota-tumor interactions have qualified microbiota as a promising prognostic biomarker in various types of cancers. Although the nasopharynx acts as a crucial niche of the upper respiratory tract microbiome, whether the intratumoral microbiota exists and its clinical significance in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) remain uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the clinical significance of intratumoral microbiota for individual prognostication in patients with NPC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included NPC biopsy samples from 2 hospitals: Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (Guangzhou, China) and Zhejiang Cancer Hospital (Hangzhou, China) between January 2004 and November 2016, with follow-up through November 2020. A total of 802 patients were included according to the following criteria: with histologically proven NPC, without distant metastasis at initial diagnosis, had not received antitumor treatment before biopsy sampling, aged between 18 and 70 years, with complete medical records and regular follow-up, without a history of cancer, and successfully extracted enough DNA for experiments. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease-free survival, and the secondary end points included distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival. To assess the existence and load of intratumoral microbiota in 96 patients with NPC with or without tumor relapse, 16S rRNA sequencing and quantitative polymerase chain reaction were used. The associations between intratumoral bacterial load and clinical outcome were evaluated in 241 fresh-frozen NPC samples (training cohort) and validated in paraffin-embedded NPC samples of internal (n = 233) and external (n = 232) validation cohorts. Metagenomic and transcriptome analyses were performed to ascertain the origin and underlying mechanism of intratumoral bacteria. Results: A total of 802 patients with NPC (mean [SD] age, 46.2 [10.6] years; 594 [74.1%] male) were enrolled. Microbiota presented within NPC tumor tissues, among which Corynebacterium and Staphylococcus predominated. Patients with a high bacterial load in the training cohort had inferior rates of disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.90; 95% CI, 1.72-4.90; P < .001), distant metastasis-free survival (HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.58-6.39; P < .001), and overall survival (HR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.90-6.11, P < .001) than those with a low bacterial load, a finding that was validated by the internal and external validation cohorts. Single-nucleotide variant analysis revealed that the nasopharyngeal microbiota was the main origin of NPC intratumoral bacteria. Transcriptome and digital pathology analyses demonstrated that a higher intratumoral bacterial load was negatively associated with T-lymphocyte infiltration. Conclusions and Relevance: Intratumoral bacterial load was a robust prognostic tool for patients with NPC in this cohort study, indicating potential guidance for treatment decisions in patients at different levels of risk of malignant progression.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaNasopharyngeal NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultAgedBiomarkersChinaCohort StudiesFemaleHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasopharyngeal CarcinomaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingBiomarkersNucleotidesRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID35834269
PMCPMC9284409
OpenAlexW4285390672

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.