Systematic Review: The Relationship Between the Faecal Microbiome and Colorectal Neoplasia in Shotgun Metagenomic Studies

IF 6.7 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Sarah Manning, Eleanor Hackney, Yashvee Dunneram, Mark A. Hull, Suparna Mitra, Christopher J. Stewart, Panayiotis Louca, Nick Meader, Linda Sharp, Colin Rees
{"title":"Systematic Review: The Relationship Between the Faecal Microbiome and Colorectal Neoplasia in Shotgun Metagenomic Studies","authors":"Sarah Manning,&nbsp;Eleanor Hackney,&nbsp;Yashvee Dunneram,&nbsp;Mark A. Hull,&nbsp;Suparna Mitra,&nbsp;Christopher J. Stewart,&nbsp;Panayiotis Louca,&nbsp;Nick Meader,&nbsp;Linda Sharp,&nbsp;Colin Rees","doi":"10.1111/apt.70252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The human gut microbiome is of academic and clinical interest. Associations between certain organisms and colorectal neoplasia have been reported, but findings have limited reproducibility in different populations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We performed a systematic review of whole metagenome shotgun sequencing studies using faecal samples from patients with colorectal neoplasia and control populations. Searches were performed on 30th June 2023. We identified 26 studies, reporting on 22 study populations (13 from Asia, five from Europe and four from North America). Study size ranged from 14 to 971 individuals (mean 170).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Some reproducible data were identified, such as the significant enrichment of <i>Fusobacterium nucleatum</i> and <i>Parvimonas micra</i> in colorectal cancer patients compared to controls (in 10 and nine studies, respectively). However, 21 out of 26 studies scored poorly on quality appraisal, specifically surrounding selection of cases and controls. Definitions of controls varied; some studies used individuals with normal endoscopic investigations, some used ‘healthy’ individuals where no colonoscopy was performed, and one used those with non-neoplastic findings (haemorrhoids). There was even less reproducibility of data in studies where individuals with colorectal polyps were compared to controls, possibly because of heterogeneity in these patient groupings as a variety of definitions for ‘polyp cases’ were used.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Heterogeneity and potential for bias indicates that findings should be interpreted with caution. Standardised protocols to ensure robust methodology and allow pooling of large-scale data are required before these findings can be used in clinical practice (PROSPERO: CRD42023431977).</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":121,"journal":{"name":"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":"62 6","pages":"568-584"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/apt.70252","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apt.70252","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The human gut microbiome is of academic and clinical interest. Associations between certain organisms and colorectal neoplasia have been reported, but findings have limited reproducibility in different populations.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of whole metagenome shotgun sequencing studies using faecal samples from patients with colorectal neoplasia and control populations. Searches were performed on 30th June 2023. We identified 26 studies, reporting on 22 study populations (13 from Asia, five from Europe and four from North America). Study size ranged from 14 to 971 individuals (mean 170).

Results

Some reproducible data were identified, such as the significant enrichment of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Parvimonas micra in colorectal cancer patients compared to controls (in 10 and nine studies, respectively). However, 21 out of 26 studies scored poorly on quality appraisal, specifically surrounding selection of cases and controls. Definitions of controls varied; some studies used individuals with normal endoscopic investigations, some used ‘healthy’ individuals where no colonoscopy was performed, and one used those with non-neoplastic findings (haemorrhoids). There was even less reproducibility of data in studies where individuals with colorectal polyps were compared to controls, possibly because of heterogeneity in these patient groupings as a variety of definitions for ‘polyp cases’ were used.

Conclusions

Heterogeneity and potential for bias indicates that findings should be interpreted with caution. Standardised protocols to ensure robust methodology and allow pooling of large-scale data are required before these findings can be used in clinical practice (PROSPERO: CRD42023431977).

Abstract Image

系统综述:霰弹枪宏基因组研究中粪便微生物组与结直肠肿瘤的关系。
人类肠道微生物组具有重要的学术和临床意义。某些生物与结直肠肿瘤之间的关联已被报道,但研究结果在不同人群中的可重复性有限。方法:我们使用结直肠肿瘤患者和对照人群的粪便样本,对全宏基因组霰弹枪测序研究进行了系统回顾。搜索于2023年6月30日进行。我们确定了26项研究,报告了22个研究人群(13个来自亚洲,5个来自欧洲,4个来自北美)。研究规模从14到971人不等(平均170人)。结果一些可重复的数据得到确认,如结直肠癌患者的核梭杆菌和微细小单胞菌与对照组相比显著富集(分别在10项和9项研究中)。然而,26项研究中有21项在质量评估方面得分很低,特别是在案例和对照的选择方面。控制的定义各不相同;一些研究使用了正常内窥镜检查的个体,一些研究使用了没有进行结肠镜检查的“健康”个体,还有一项研究使用了非肿瘤发现(痔疮)的个体。在将结直肠息肉患者与对照组进行比较的研究中,数据的可重复性甚至更低,可能是因为这些患者分组的异质性,因为使用了各种“息肉病例”的定义。结论:异质性和潜在的偏倚表明,研究结果应谨慎解释。在这些发现用于临床实践之前,需要标准化的协议来确保可靠的方法并允许大规模数据的汇集(PROSPERO: CRD42023431977)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.60
自引率
7.90%
发文量
527
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics is a global pharmacology journal focused on the impact of drugs on the human gastrointestinal and hepato-biliary systems. It covers a diverse range of topics, often with immediate clinical relevance to its readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信