Dataset Information

The composition of lung microbiome in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although recent studies have indicated that imbalance in the respiratory microbiome composition is linked to several chronic respiratory diseases, the association between the lung microbiome and lung cancer has not been extensively studied. Conflicting reports of individual studies on respiratory microbiome alterations in lung cancer complicate the matter for specifying how the lung microbiome is linked to lung cancer. Consequently, as the first meta-analysis on this topic, we integrate publicly available 16S rRNA gene sequence data on lung tissue samples of lung cancer patients to identify bacterial taxa which differ consistently between case and control groups.

Results

The findings of the current study suggest that the relative abundance of several bacterial taxa including Actinobacteria phylum, Corynebacteriaceae and Halomonadaceae families, and Corynebacterium, Lachnoanaerobaculum, and Halomonas genera is significantly decreased (p < 0.05) in lung tumor tissues of lung cancer patients in comparison with tumor-adjacent normal tissues.

Conclusions

Despite the underlying need for scrutinizing the findings further, the present study lays the groundwork for future research and adds to our limited understanding of the key role of the lung microbiome and its complex interaction with lung cancer. More data on demographic factors and tumor tissue types would help establish a greater degree of accuracy in characterizing the lung microbial community which accords with subtypes and stages of the disease and fully capturing the changes of the lung microbiome in lung cancer.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12866-021-02375-z.

SUBMITTER: Najafi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8582175 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Selenium is a natural health product widely used in the treatment and prevention of lung cancers, but large chemoprevention trials have yielded conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review of selenium for lung cancers, and assessed potential interactions with conventional therapies.Two independent reviewers searched six databases from inception to March 2009 for evidence pertaining to the safety and efficacy of selenium for lung cancers. Pubmed and EMBASE were searched to October 2009 for evidence on interactions with chemo- or radiation-therapy. In the efficacy analysis there were nine reports of five RCTs and two biomarker-based studies, 29 reports of 26 observational studies, and 41 preclinical studies. Fifteen human studies, one case report, and 36 preclinical studies were included in the interactions analysis. Based on available evidence, there appears to be a different chemopreventive effect dependent on baseline selenium status, such that selenium supplementation may reduce risk of lung cancers in populations with lower baseline selenium status (serum<106 ng/mL), but increase risk of lung cancers in those with higher selenium (? 121.6 ng/mL). Pooling data from two trials yielded no impact to odds of lung cancer, OR 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.61-1.43); other cancers that were the primary endpoints of these trials, OR 1.51 (95%CI 0.70-3.24); and all-cause-death, OR 0.93 (95%CI 0.79-1.10). In the treatment of lung cancers, selenium may reduce cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and side effects associated with radiation therapy.Selenium may be effective for lung cancer prevention among individuals with lower selenium status, but at present should not be used as a general strategy for lung cancer prevention. Although promising, more evidence on the ability of selenium to reduce cisplatin and radiation therapy toxicity is required to ensure that therapeutic efficacy is maintained before any broad clinical recommendations can be made in this context.

Project description:Background: The impact of socioeconomic differences on cancer survival has been investigated for several cancer types showing lower cancer survival in patients from lower socioeconomic groups. However, little is known about the relation between the strength of association and the level of adjustment and level of aggregation of the socioeconomic status measure. Here, we conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of individual and area-based measures of socioeconomic status with lung cancer survival. Methods: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we searched for studies on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival in four electronic databases. A study was included if it reported a measure of survival in relation to education, income, occupation, or composite measures (indices). If possible, meta-analyses were conducted for studies reporting on individual and area-based socioeconomic measures. Results: We included 94 studies in the review, of which 23 measured socioeconomic status on an individual level and 71 on an area-based level. Seventeen studies were eligible to be included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses revealed a poorer prognosis for patients with low individual income (pooled hazard ratio: 1.13, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08-1.19, reference: high income), but not for individual education. Group comparisons for hazard ratios of area-based studies indicated a poorer prognosis for lower socioeconomic groups, irrespective of the socioeconomic measure. In most studies, reported 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates across socioeconomic status groups showed decreasing rates with decreasing socioeconomic status for both individual and area-based measures. We cannot confirm a consistent relationship between level of aggregation and effect size, however, comparability across studies was hampered by heterogeneous reporting of socioeconomic status and survival measures. Only eight studies considered smoking status in the analysis. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a weak positive association between individual income and lung cancer survival. Studies reporting on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival should consider including smoking status of the patients in their analysis and to stratify by relevant prognostic factors to further explore the reasons for socioeconomic differences. A common definition for socioeconomic status measures is desirable to further enhance comparisons between nations and across different levels of aggregation.

Project description:BackgroundIntervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer.Methods and findingsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR = 0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p = 0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p = 0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems.ConclusionsPatients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.