SynthesisBMC women's health2025
Breast cancer and microbiome: a systematic review highlighting challenges for clinical translation.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulation of the response to immunotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: the role of the microbiota and microbial metabolites in the tumor microenvironment.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- Article
- The Role of Selected Bacteria in Breast Cancer Initiation and Development.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Microbiome-Driven Mechanisms in Breast Cancer: Emerging Evidence From Gut Microbial Signatures to Therapeutic Response.BioMed research international · 2026Review
- The Impact of Microbiome on Breast Cancer and Regulatory Strategies.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Distinct Breast Tissue Microbiota Profiles in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study in Turkish Women.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBreast cancer, the most common cancer in women worldwide, is linked to microbiome imbalances. This suggests the potential for microbiome-based breast cancer management. However, a comprehensive and reproducible understanding of the microbiome's role in breast cancer is lacking. We conducted a systematic literature review to explore microbiome signatures and specific genera associated with breast cancer development, subtypes, and outcomes.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science using the terms "microbiome" and "breast cancer", limiting to publications of human studies in English language between January 2011 and January 2025, and adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted the study characteristics and results and summarized our findings.
resultsFrom 2536 articles, we identified 48 eligible studies - 22 case-control, 13 cohorts without any intervention, and 13 cohorts with an intervention. These studies included 3735 women with and 2023 without a diagnosis of breast cancer. Most studies used fecal (29) or breast tissue (14) samples. The genera Clostridium, Lcatobacillus, Prevotella were most commonly associated with breast cancer. However, no genus was consistently linked to the same outcome across studies, rendering meta-analysis unfeasible. Overall, we observed heterogenous methods for data generation and computational analysis leading to challenges in comparative analysis.
conclusionsWhile several genera are linked to breast cancer, the findings lack consistency across studies. Future studies should employ standardized outcomes, data collection, and processing methods to establish reproducible microbial markers to develop effective microbiome-based breast cancer management strategies.
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.