MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113896648 · doi:10.4251/wjgo.v17.i12.112936

Tumor-resident microorganisms as clinical biomarkers in primary liver cancer: A systematic review of current evidence

2025· article· en· W7113896648 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerClinical trialClinical PracticeBiomarker discoveryCurrent (fluid)Standardization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Hepatic malignancies represent the sixth most prevalent cancer globally, with emerging evidence revealing that intratumoral microbes actively modulate carcinogenesis through immunomodulation and metabolic reprogramming. Recent high-throughput sequencing technologies have identified taxonomically diverse microbial communities within tumor tissues, challenging traditional sterility paradigms. Germ-free mouse models have established causal relationships between gut microbiota and hepatocarcinogenesis. However, comprehensive evaluation of intratumoral microbiota as clinical biomarkers remains limited, necessitating systematic analysis of their diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications in hepatic malignancies. AIM To systematically analyze intratumoral microbes as biomarkers for hepatic malignancies diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment response. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed from inception to July 2025 using keywords combining hepatic malignancies, intratumoral microbiota, and biomarkers. Inclusion criteria encompassed human studies examining intratumoral microbial communities with biomarker applications. Exclusion criteria included animal-only studies, reviews, and research focusing solely on gut microbiota. Data extraction focused on diagnostic accuracy, prognostic significance, therapeutic predictions, and underlying mechanisms. Study quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with scores ≥ 7 indicating high quality. RESULTS Twenty studies (sample sizes: 18-925 patients) examining hepatocellular carcinoma (80%) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (20%) were included. All studies achieved Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores ≥ 6, with 60% scoring the maximum 9 points, indicating moderate-to-high quality. Studies predominantly employed 16S rRNA sequencing (100%) targeting V3-V4 regions, with complementary validation techniques including fluorescence in situ hybridization, quantitative PCR, and immunohistochemistry. Specific bacterial taxa demonstrated exceptional diagnostic accuracy [area under the curve (AUC) > 0.9] for tumor discrimination. Notably, Bacilli showed AUC = 0.943 in validation cohorts. Microbial diversity and specific genera (Methylobacterium , Akkermansia , Intestinimonas ) showed consistent prognostic associations with survival outcomes, though relationships varied across cancer subtypes. Advanced risk stratification models incorporating multiple bacterial biomarkers showed independent predictive capacity through multivariable Cox regression. Mechanistic investigations revealed microbe-mediated oncogenic pathway activation, particularly NF-κB signaling, immune modulation through M2 macrophage polarization, and drug resistance mechanisms via autophagy regulation. Germ-free mouse models established causal relationships, demonstrating that specific bacterial communities, particularly Klebsiella pneumoniae , can autonomously initiate hepatocarcinogenesis through TLR4-dependent pathways. CONCLUSION Intratumoral microbes represent promising clinical biomarkers for hepatic malignancies across diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications. While standardization and multicenter validation remain essential prerequisites, mechanistic evidence from human and experimental studies positions microbiome-based biomarkers at the threshold of clinical translation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.356 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Gastrointestinal OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207