ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2026
Beyond antibiotics: collateral damage to the gut microbiome during cancer therapy.
Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antibiotics are major drivers of microbiome disruption in oncology, but they do not fully explain the ecological changes observed during cytotoxic treatment. The central question of this Mini Review is when chemotherapy-associated microbiome change should be interpreted as transient compositional variation and when it constitutes a loss of ecosystem function with potential clinical consequences. We use collateral microbiome injury as a conceptual framework, rather than a formally established clinical diagnosis, to describe treatment-associated loss of microbial load, function, spatial organization, colonization resistance, or recovery capacity that is not required for antitumor activity. Three questions organize the review: which changes are directly attributable to a defined chemotherapeutic agent; which arise from the broader oncology exposome, including mucosal injury, antibiotics, nutritional disturbance, hospitalization, and supportive medications; and which ecological mechanisms are inferred from non-chemotherapy models. The evidence is therefore classified as direct chemotherapy evidence, oncology-exposome evidence, or general ecological evidence. Agent-specific studies support microbial transformation of irinotecan and fluoropyrimidines, whereas longitudinal leukemia studies more often capture composite treatment episodes. Across these settings, depletion of obligate anaerobe functions, altered nutrient and redox conditions, pathobiont domination, oral-to-gut niche coalescence, and impaired recovery may weaken colonization resistance. However, the strongest persistent-disruption and infection data arise from intensive hematologic treatment and should not be generalized uncritically to conventional solid-tumor chemotherapy. We propose operational criteria, multidimensional recovery metrics, and evidence-stratified translational priorities for moving from descriptive dysbiosis toward testable, microbiome-sparing supportive care.
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.