ArticleCancers2022
A Pilot Study: Favorable Effects of
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions Targeting the Gut Microbiome to Improve Cancer Treatment Outcomes and Their Gastrointestinal Side Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The Journal of nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and Exploratory Pre-Post Changes Associated with an Orally Disintegrating Three-Strain Probiotic Tablet in Older Adults with Functional Constipation: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Single-Arm Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Gut microbiota and metabolites: emerging prospects in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Effect ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Respiratory diseases and gut microbiota: relevance, pathogenesis, and treatment.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
- Influence of the microbiota on the effectiveness and toxicity of oncological therapies, with a focus on chemotherapy.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Probiotics as medications have previously been shown to change intestinal microbial characteristics, potentially influencing cancer therapy efficacy. Patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) treated by bevacizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to obtain Clostridium butyricum supplement (CBS) or receive a placebo as adjuvant therapy. Clinical efficacy and safety were assessed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE). Intestinal microbiota was longitudinally explored between CBS and placebo groups over time. Patients who took CBS had significantly decreased bacterial richness and abundance, as well as increased the total richness of the genus Clostridium, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus compared to the placebo group (p < 0.05). Beta diversity and the interactional network of intestinal microbiota were distinctly different between CBS and placebo group. However, there were no significant variations between them in terms of microbial taxonomical taxa and alpha diversity. The potential opportunistic pathogen Shewanella was still detectable after treatment in the placebo group, while no distinguishing microbial markers were found in the CBS group. In terms of clinical efficacy, the CBS group had a significantly reduced AE compare to the placebo group (p < 0.05), although no significantly longer PFS and OS. Therefore, favorable modifications in intestinal microbiota and significant improvements in drug safety make probiotics be promising adjunctive therapeutic avenues for lung cancer treatment.
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.