Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42322355›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026

Clinical potential of the gut microbiome in oncology: a scoping review of treatment response, toxicity and biomarker development.

João Daniel de Souza Menezes, Matheus Querino da Silva, Emerson Roberto Dos Santos, Stela Regina Pedroso Vilela Torres de Carvalho, Mikaell Alexandre Gouvea Faria, Rita de Cássia Helú Mendonça Ribeiro, Júlio César André

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

João Daniel de Souza MenezesFAMERP (Faculdade de Medicina de São José Do Rio Preto), São José Do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Matheus Querino da SilvaFAMERP (Faculdade de Medicina de São José Do Rio Preto), São José Do Rio Preto, Brazil. matheus.querino@edu.famerp.br.
Emerson Roberto Dos SantosFAMERP (Faculdade de Medicina de São José Do Rio Preto), São José Do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Stela Regina Pedroso Vilela Torres de CarvalhoFAMERP (Faculdade de Medicina de São José Do Rio Preto), São José Do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Mikaell Alexandre Gouvea FariaFAMERP (Faculdade de Medicina de São José Do Rio Preto), São José Do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Rita de Cássia Helú Mendonça RibeiroFAMERP (Faculdade de Medicina de São José Do Rio Preto), São José Do Rio Preto, Brazil.
Júlio César AndréFAMERP (Faculdade de Medicina de São José Do Rio Preto), São José Do Rio Preto, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis scoping review aimed to systematically map and critically describe the current evidence on the role of the gut microbiome as a biomarker in oncology, including microbiome-based predictive models and microbial signatures associated with treatment response, toxicity and disease course, and to identify methodological gaps and challenges for clinical translation in precision medicine.

methodsThis scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines for scoping reviews and reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The search was performed in five electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, SciELO, and LILACS) using a structured PICO strategy. Studies involving adult cancer patients undergoing systemic oncological therapies (including chemotherapy, immunotherapy and combined regimens), with gut microbiome analysis and the investigation, development or validation of microbiome-based biomarkers or predictive models, were included.

resultsThe literature demonstrates that specific microbial taxa significantly influence the efficacy of immunotherapies (e.g., AUCs up to 0.88 for ICI response prediction) and chemotherapies, and modulate toxicity (e.g., mucositis reduction from 47.1% to 25% with probiotics). Microbiome-based predictive models often outperform clinical markers (e.g., AUC of 0.88 vs. 0.50 in urothelial carcinoma), and variations in microbiota composition can predict disease progression. The literature mapping of the 20 included studies demonstrates that specific microbial taxa significantly influence the efficacy of immunotherapies (e.g., AUCs up to 0.88 for ICI response prediction) and chemotherapies. Regarding toxicity, while the review focuses on baseline biomarkers, exploratory intervention-based data were addressed, showing that a probiotic cocktail reduced Grade 3-4 oral mucositis from 47.1% to 25%. Furthermore, microbiome-based predictive models demonstrated enhanced discriminatory accuracy in predicting patient outcomes compared to standard clinical classification markers alone (e.g., achieving an Area Under the Curve [AUC] of 0.88 vs. 0.50 for clinical factors in urothelial carcinoma), though these models remain in early exploratory stages.

conclusionOverall, the evidence suggests a growing interest and potential for microbiome-based predictive models in oncology; however, their clinical translation remains limited by methodological heterogeneity, insufficient external validation, and incomplete mechanistic understanding.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeNeoplasmsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorHumansImmunotherapyPrecision MedicineTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkersBiomarkers, TumorCancerMicrobiomePrecision medicineScoping reviewTumor biomarkers

Identifiers

PMID42322355
PMCPMC13283132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.