ArticleBMC microbiology2024
Difference in fecal and oral microbiota between pancreatic cancer and benign/low-grade malignant tumor patients.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbiome-based diagnostic biomarkers in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Current evidence and translational challenges (Review).Oncology letters · 2026Review
- The Role of Salivary Microbiota in Pancreatic Cancer: From Screening to Tumor Progression and Treatment Response.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- [PDZ-binding kinase as a prognostic biomarker for pancreatic cancer: a pan-cancer analysis and validation in pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2025Article
- Oral microbiome as a diagnostic biomarker for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.Journal of oral microbiology · 2025Review
- Integrative metagenomic and metabolomic profiling identifies gut microbial and metabolite signatures associated with lymph node metastasis in pancreatic cancer.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSignificant gaps exist in understanding the gastrointestinal microbiota in patients with pancreatic cancer (PCA) versus benign or low-grade malignant pancreatic tumors (NPCA). This study aimed to analyze these microbiota characteristics and explore their potential use in distinguishing malignant pancreatic lesions.
methodsBetween September 2020 and May 2024, fecal and oral samples were collected from 121 patients undergoing surgical resection or diagnostic biopsy of pancreatic lesions, including 75 patients with PCA and 46 patients with NPCA, and 16s rRNA sequencing was performed. Random forest models based using fecal and oral microbiota data were developed to diagnose PCA and NPCA, with performance assessed using the leave-one-out cross validation method.
resultsThe Shannon index and PCoA analysis revealed significant differences in oral microbiota composition between PCA and NPCA (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Fecal microbiome richness differed significantly (p = 0.02), though composition similarity was noted (p = 0.238). LEfSe identified 16 and 23 genera with significant differences in fecal and oral microbiomes, respectively. Random forest classifiers based on fecal and oral microbiota achieved areas under the curves (AUCs) of 89.4% and 96.3%, respectively, for distinguishing PCA and NPCA. In the mucinous tumor cohort, oral and fecal microbiome classifiers outperformed CA19-9, yielding AUCs of 83.0% and 85.2%, respectively.
conclusionFecal and oral microbiota compositions were significantly different between PCA and NPCA patients. Random forest classifiers utilizing fecal and oral microbiota data effectively distinguish between benign or low-grade malignant and malignant pancreatic lesions.
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.