MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prospective manipulation of the gut microbiome with Microbial Ecosystem Therapeutic 4 (MET4) in locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LA-OPSCC) undergoing primary chemoradiation (ROMA2).

2021· article· en· W3171393216 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey Alan Watson, Alya Heirali, M. Oliva Bernal, Kyla Cochrane, Emma Allen‐Vercoe, Anneli Eliason, Sarah Jennings, Rachel Taylor, Ali Hosni, Andrew Hope, Scott V. Bratman, Douglas B. Chepeha, Ilan Weinreb, Bayardo Perez‐Ordoñez, John Waldron, Wei Xu, Aaron R. Hansen, Lillian L. Siu, Bryan Coburn, Anna Spreafico

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of GuelphToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineAdverse effectInterquartile rangeOncologyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6059 Background: Therapeutic manipulation of the gut microbiome in cancer patients (pts) is an area of active investigation. MET4 (NuBiyota) is an oral alternative to fecal transplant consisting of a mixture of human gut bacteria associated with immunotherapy (IO) response. We previously reported variation in IO-responsive taxa across stages in human papilloma virus related (HPV+) LA-OPSCC pts treated with chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (Oliva et al., ASCO 2020). ROMA-2 is the first interventional study evaluating the safety, feasibility and ecological effect of MET4, in combination with definitive CRT in HPV+ LA-OPSCC (NCT03838601). Methods: This is an investigator-initiated study of pts with HPV+ LA-OPSCC treated with standard of care CRT. MET4 is administered daily until week 4 of CRT or unacceptable toxicity. Stool samples are collected at baseline, week 4, week 8-10, and 2-months post CRT. Bacterial V4 16S rDNA was extracted from stool and sequenced. Microbiome analyses were conducted in R using DADA2, phyloseq and DESeq2. Results: As of February 11 2021, 25 pts have been enrolled. A total of 50 stool samples from the first 14 pts were collected (98% adherence) and analyzed. Baseline cohort characteristics: median age = 62.5 (range, 48-69); Stage I/II/III = 5/1/8; use of antibiotics = 1pt. 3 pts did not complete the 3-week course of MET4 treatment due to non-compliance (n = 1), withdrawal of consent (n = 1) and grade 2 diarrhea (n = 1). Other reported MET4-related adverse events (all grade 1) included bloating (n = 2), flatulence (n = 1) and belching (n = 1). No longitudinal changes in alpha-diversity were seen from baseline through follow up. Administration of MET4 resulted in a transient trend towards increased cumulative MET4 taxa relative abundance (RA) by week 4. Stage III patients demonstrated the lowest MET4 taxa RA at baseline, and the greatest increase in MET4 taxa RA from baseline to week 4. By week 4 the following taxa in all pts were increased compared to baseline: Eubacterium hallii (21.71 Log2Fold change[L2FC], padj < 0.001) and Parabacteroides johnsonii (23.67 L2FC, padj < 0.001). An increase in the following taxa was observed by weeks 8-10 compared to baseline: Akkermansia muciniphilla (3.75 L2FC, padj = 0.027), Bacteroides fragilis (6.73 L2FC, padj = 0.010), Alistipes onderdonkii (3.30 L2FC, padj = 0.049) and Parabacteroides distasonis (24.43 L2FC, padj < 0.001). Conclusions: Manipulation of the gut microbiota in these pts was feasible and safe. MET4-induced ecological changes are heterogenous and vary by taxa. MET4 taxa implicated in IO-response were increased by week 4 and week 8-10. This increase was higher in pts with stage III disease. These data suggest that specific subgroups may benefit from combination IO therapy and may guide pt selection for further interventional clinical trial design. Clinical trial information: NCT03838601.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHead and Neck Cancer Studies→French-language works237,207→