Is the oral pathogen, Porphyromona gingivalis, associated to colorectal cancer?: a systematic review.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY BMC Cancer Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.1186/s12885-025-13770-4
Adrián Navarro-Sánchez, María Ángeles Nieto-Vitoria, José Antonio López-López, Juan José Martínez-Crespo, Fernando Navarro-Mateu
{"title":"Is the oral pathogen, Porphyromona gingivalis, associated to colorectal cancer?: a systematic review.","authors":"Adrián Navarro-Sánchez, María Ángeles Nieto-Vitoria, José Antonio López-López, Juan José Martínez-Crespo, Fernando Navarro-Mateu","doi":"10.1186/s12885-025-13770-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The association between the oral pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis (PG) and the gut microbiota in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients has been explored with inconsistent results. This study aims to systematically assess this potential association.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted across three databases (Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science) from inception up to January 2023 and updated until November 2024. Inclusion criteria were observational studies examining PG in the microbiota of adults with CRC compared to healthy controls. Exclusion criteria were studies without control group of healthy individuals, other designs or without full-text access. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data following a pre-registered protocol. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or with a third reviewer. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results were summarized with a flow diagram, tables, and narrative descriptions. Meta-analysis was not feasible, so Fisher's method for combining p-values and the sign test were used as alternative integration methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Finally, 18 studies, with 23 analysis units were included, providing a total sample of 4,373 participants (48.0% cases and 52.0%controls), 38.2% men and 61.8% women, with a similar distribution among cases and controls. The mean (SD) age of cases was 63.3 (4.382) years old and 57.0 (7.753) years for controls. Most of the studies analyzed the presence of PG in feces (70.0%) collected before colonoscopy (55.0%) and were classified with good quality (70.0%) in the RoB assessment. Results suggested an effect (Fisher's test, p = .000006) with some evidence towards a positive association of PG in CRC patients compared to healthy controls (Sign test, p = .039).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results of the systematic review suggest that PG is associated with the microbiota of CRC patients. Lack of information to calculate the effect size prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. Future research should aim for standardized protocols and statistical approaches.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>No funding was received for this work.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>The research protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 2023 (registration number: CRD42023399382).</p>","PeriodicalId":9131,"journal":{"name":"BMC Cancer","volume":"25 1","pages":"395"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-13770-4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The association between the oral pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis (PG) and the gut microbiota in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients has been explored with inconsistent results. This study aims to systematically assess this potential association.

Materials and methods: A systematic review was conducted across three databases (Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science) from inception up to January 2023 and updated until November 2024. Inclusion criteria were observational studies examining PG in the microbiota of adults with CRC compared to healthy controls. Exclusion criteria were studies without control group of healthy individuals, other designs or without full-text access. Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data following a pre-registered protocol. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or with a third reviewer. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results were summarized with a flow diagram, tables, and narrative descriptions. Meta-analysis was not feasible, so Fisher's method for combining p-values and the sign test were used as alternative integration methods.

Results: Finally, 18 studies, with 23 analysis units were included, providing a total sample of 4,373 participants (48.0% cases and 52.0%controls), 38.2% men and 61.8% women, with a similar distribution among cases and controls. The mean (SD) age of cases was 63.3 (4.382) years old and 57.0 (7.753) years for controls. Most of the studies analyzed the presence of PG in feces (70.0%) collected before colonoscopy (55.0%) and were classified with good quality (70.0%) in the RoB assessment. Results suggested an effect (Fisher's test, p = .000006) with some evidence towards a positive association of PG in CRC patients compared to healthy controls (Sign test, p = .039).

Conclusions: Results of the systematic review suggest that PG is associated with the microbiota of CRC patients. Lack of information to calculate the effect size prevented the performance of a meta-analysis. Future research should aim for standardized protocols and statistical approaches.

Funding: No funding was received for this work.

Systematic review registration: The research protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 2023 (registration number: CRD42023399382).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口腔病原体牙龈卟啉单胞菌与结直肠癌有关吗?系统的回顾。
背景:结肠直肠癌(CRC)患者口腔病原体牙龈卟啉单胞菌(PG)与肠道微生物群之间的关系一直在探索,但结果不一致。本研究旨在系统地评估这种潜在的关联。材料和方法:对三个数据库(Pubmed, Embase和Web of Science)进行了系统评价,从建立到2023年1月,并更新到2024年11月。纳入标准是观察性研究,检查成年结直肠癌患者微生物群中的PG与健康对照组的比较。排除标准为没有健康个体对照组、其他设计或没有全文获取的研究。两名审稿人按照预先注册的方案独立选择和提取数据。分歧通过协商一致或与第三方审稿人解决。偏倚风险(RoB)采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)进行评估。结果用流程图、表格和叙述性描述进行总结。meta分析是不可行的,所以使用Fisher的p值组合法和符号检验作为替代的整合方法。结果:最终纳入18项研究,23个分析单元,共提供4,373名参与者(48.0%的病例和52.0%的对照组),男性38.2%,女性61.8%,病例和对照组之间的分布相似。病例的平均(SD)年龄为63.3(4.382)岁,对照组为57.0(7.753)岁。大多数研究分析结肠镜检查前收集的粪便中PG的存在(70.0%)(55.0%),并且在RoB评估中被评为质量良好(70.0%)。结果表明,与健康对照组相比,结直肠癌患者中PG呈正相关(Fisher检验,p = 0.000006),有证据表明PG有影响(Sign检验,p = 0.039)。结论:系统评价结果提示PG与结直肠癌患者的微生物群有关。缺乏计算效应量的信息阻碍了meta分析的进行。未来的研究应着眼于标准化方案和统计方法。经费:没有收到这项工作的经费。系统评价注册:该研究方案于2023年在国际前瞻性系统评价注册(PROSPERO)注册(注册号:CRD42023399382)。
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 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Cancer
BMC Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.60%
发文量
1204
审稿时长
6.8 months
期刊介绍: BMC Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of cancer research, including the pathophysiology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancers. The journal welcomes submissions concerning molecular and cellular biology, genetics, epidemiology, and clinical trials.
期刊最新文献
Clinical experience with an online adaptive radiotherapy for prostate cancer: successful treatment time optimization. Oxaliplatin induced peripheral neuropathy and associated factors among colorectal cancer patients in Tanzania. Surviving more than cancer: the unseen toll of financial toxicity and basic needs insecurity in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors. Early effects of ionizing radiation on molecular modifications and hallmarks of Immunogenic cell death in mouse tumor cells. Adolescents' perceptions and lived experiences of cancer patient-hood: a qualitative study.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1