Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38312366›Full record

ReviewVisceral medicine2024

Microbiota Manipulation as an Emerging Concept in Cancer Therapy.

Marianne Rebecca Spalinger, Michael Scharl

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Visceral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. The role ofiMetaOmics · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marianne Rebecca SpalingerDepartment for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael ScharlDepartment for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The human body is colonized by billions of bacteria that provide nutrients to the host, train our immune system, and importantly affect our heath. It has long been suggested that microbes might play a role in tumor pathogenesis; however, compelling evidence was only provided in the past decades when novel detection methods that do not depend on culturing techniques had been developed. Summary: The microbiome impacts tumor development and anti-tumor therapies on various levels. Bacteria can promote or suppress tumor growth via direct interactions with cancer cells, production of metabolites that promote or inhibit tumor growth, and via stimulation or suppression of the local and systemic immune response. Cancer patients harbor a distinct microbiome when compared to healthy controls, which could potentially be employed to detect, identify, and treat cancer. Manipulation of the microbiome either via supplementation of single strains, bacterial consortia, fecal microbiota transfer or the use of pre- and probiotics has been suggested as therapeutic approach to directly target tumor growth or to enhance the efficacy of current state-of-the-art treatment options. Key Messages: (1) Bacteria have a tremendous impact on anti-cancer immune responses. (2) Cancer patients harbor a distinct microbiome when compared to healthy controls. (3) The microbiome seems to be cancer-type specific. (4) Exploitation of bacteria to promote anti-tumor therapy is a novel, very promising venue in cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Bacterial supplementationFecal microbiota transferGut microbiomeImmune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

Identifiers

PMID38312366
PMCPMC10836949
OpenAlexW4389606620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.