ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025
Stool Microbiome Features and Weight Change Response to Treatment for cancer cachexia.
Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lowered Abundance of Gut Bacteriophage Species Is Associated With Human Cancer Cachexia.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026Article
- Gut microbiota in cancer cachexia: a new frontier for research and therapy.Genes & nutrition · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsCancer cachexia is characterised by significant weight loss and muscle wasting that adversely affects patient outcomes. Nutritional interventions in cancer cachexia leads to improved outcomes, including improved weight change. However, there are wide variations in weight response to dietary interventions. Thus, it remains difficult to predict response to a given increase in dietary intake at an individual patient level. This study aimed to identify gut microbiome features that could serve as potential predictive biomarkers for response to individualized dietary intervention in patients with cancer cachexia attending the McGill Cancer Nutrition-Rehabilitation Program at the Jewish General Hospital (CNR-JGH).
methodsParticipants were recruited from CNR-JGH clinic. Interventions included individualized nutritional counselling by a registered dietitian, to increase energy and protein intake to meet recommended levels. Stool DNA samples were collected at baseline (V1) and visit 2 (V2), and gut microbiome profiles were analysed to assess microbial diversity and identify differentially abundant genera in patients who lost weight (WL, N = 8) vs. maintained/gained weight (WSG, N = 29) at subsequent CNR-JGH clinic visits.
resultsGreater alpha-diversity and higher Lachnospira genus abundance at baseline predicted higher likelihood that patients would have good response to CNR-JGH intervention (WSG at V2). Though predictors of poor response to nutritional intervention (WL at V2) were not identified, subjects in the WL group exhibited lower alpha-diversity and greater microbial population instability after CNR-JGH interventions.
conclusionsIn this cohort of patients with cancer-related weight loss attending a cancer cachexia clinic, certain gut microbiome features were associated with response to dietary interventions. Patients who lost weight after CNR-JGH intervention also developed a less diverse and less stable gut microbiome. Lachnospira genus abundance is a potential predictor of positive weight change response to dietary intervention as part of multimodal care for cancer cachexia, and further confirmatory studies are warranted. In addition, targeted dietary approaches to maintain diversity and gut microbiome population stability may have a role in improving the response to dietary interventions in cancer cachexia.
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.