ArticleCancer research communications2024
Role of Gut Microbiome in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multi-institutional Prospective Cohort Evaluation.
Article in Cancer research communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical potential of the gut microbiome in oncology: a scoping review of treatment response, toxicity and biomarker development.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Microbiome differential abundance methodologies to detect relevant taxa associated with chemotherapy toxicity rate in colorectal cancer.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
- Mechanisms of microbiome-immune interactions in bladder cancer and targeted regulatory strategies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Fecal microbiota transplantation: a novel strategy and challenges in the adjuvant treatment of bladder Cancer.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- The Urinary Microbiota and the Gut-Bladder Axis in Bladder Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Clinical Evidence for Microbiome-Based Strategies in Cancer Immunotherapy: A State-of-the-Art Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Exposure to ileal feces with frailty-associated dysbiosis elevates gastrointestinal complication risk after intracorporeal urinary diversion.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Microbiome landscapes of the bladder, intestine, and vagina in bladder cancer: a systematic review.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Microbiome and bladder cancer: the role of probiotics in treatment.Future microbiology · 2025Review
- Carcinogen metabolism and bladder cancer: role of gut microbiota in disease and prevention.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Non-coding RNAs in bladder cancer, a bridge between gut microbiota and host?Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Microbiome in Cancer Development and Treatment.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Is the Urinary and Gut Microbiome Associated With Bladder Cancer?Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is linked with clinical advantages in urothelial carcinoma for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). Despite comprehensive research into the influence of tumor mutation expression profiles and clinicopathologic factors on chemotherapy response, the role of the gut microbiome (GM) in bladder cancer chemotherapy response remains poorly understood. This study examines the variance in the GM of patients with bladder cancer compared with healthy adults, and investigates GM compositional differences between patients who respond to chemotherapy versus those who exhibit residual disease.Our study reveals distinct clustering, effectively separating the bladder cancer and healthy cohorts. However, no significant differences were observed between chemotherapy responders and nonresponders within community subgroups. Machine learning models based on responder status outperformed clinical variables in predicting complete response (AUC 0.88 vs. AUC 0.50), although no single microbial species emerged as a fully reliable biomarker.The evaluation of short chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentration in blood and stool revealed no correlation with responder status. Still, SCFA analysis showed a higher abundance of Akkermansia (rs = 0.51, P = 0.017) and Clostridia (rs = 0.52, P = 0.018), which correlated with increased levels of detectable fecal isobutyric acid. Higher levels of fecal Lactobacillus (rs = 0.49, P = 0.02) and Enterobacteriaceae (rs = 0.52, P < 0.03) correlated with increased fecal propionic acid.In conclusion, our study constitutes the first large-scale, multicenter assessment of GM composition, suggesting the potential for a complex microbial signature to predict patients more likely to respond to NAC based on multiple taxa. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study highlights results that link the composition of the GM to the efficacy of NAC in MIBC. We discovered that patients with higher levels of Bacteroides experienced a worse response to NAC. This microbial signature shows promise as a superior predictor of treatment response over traditional clinical variables. Although preliminary, our findings advocate for larger, more detailed studies to validate these associations.
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.