MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411254388 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2025.1544786

Intratumoral microbiota composition in women’s cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411254388 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qin Wen, Shubin Wang, Shunlian Fu, Xinling Zhou, Jinyi Lang, Meihua Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Commission of Sichuan Province
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineInternal medicineOncologyComputational biologyCancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The intratumoral microbiota has attracted considerable interest in carcinogenesis, progression, and treatment owing to advancements in sequencing technology. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the current literature regarding the diversity and compositional characteristics of the intratumoral microbiota in women’s cancers. Additionally, it also explores potential associations among intratumoral microbiota, estrogen, and anti-tumor therapies. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from their inception to May 1, 2024. The review protocol was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42024601213). Articles were assessed utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). To estimate the effect size and variability in microbial diversity changes, the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were employed. The systematic review adhered to PRISMA reporting guidelines, and meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4. Results This systematic review included 29 of 8,291 studies after a thorough screening process. Of the 22 studies investigating α-diversity in women’s cancers, disease-free controls, and those with benign conditions, notable changes in diversity indices were observed. Compared to adjacent normal tissues, the Simpson index significantly decreased in breast cancer (SMD = -0.75, 95% CI: [-0.94, -0.55]) and endometrial cancer (SMD = -0.83, 95% CI: [-1.37, -0.28]). The Chao1 index was reduced in endometrial cancer tumor tissues relative to normal tissues (SMD = -2.25, 95% CI: [-3.13, -1.36]), while the Shannon index decreased in ovarian cancer tumor tissues (SMD = -0.61, 95% CI: [-1.18, -0.04]). In comparisons between tumor and benign tissues, the Chao1 index was decreased (SMD = -0.64, 95% CI: [-1.20, -0.08], I² = 0%), while the Simpson index was increased (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: [0.01, 0.71], I² = 0%) in patients with ovarian cancer. Other microbial diversity indices showed no significant differences between tumor and non-tumor tissues. At the phylum level, Fusobacteriota were enriched in tumor tissues, while Firmicutes and Actinobacteria predominated in non-tumor tissues. At the genus level, Pseudomonas , Porphyromonas , Atopobium , Peptoniphilus , and Acinetobacter were consistently more abundant in cancerous tissues. Microbial alterations were also linked to estrogen receptor (ER) status, with Alkanindiges negatively correlated with ER status in two studies. Furthermore, one study on the effect of antineoplastic therapy indicated that neoadjuvant chemotherapy reduced microbial diversity in breast cancer patients (n = 15 vs. n = 18) (Shannon index: SMD = -0.95, 95% CI: [-1.68, -0.22]). Conclusion This study highlights significant differences in microbiota composition between tumor and non-tumor tissues in women’s cancers, emphasizing changes in intratumoral microbiota influenced by estrogen and antineoplastic treatments. Further research is needed to explore the potential for developing targeted therapies based on estrogen-driven microbiota alterations. Investigations may yield insights into the enhancement of female reproductive health and the improvement of treatment efficacy for female cancers. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024601213 , identifier CRD 42024601213.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207