Tom 9, Nr 3 (2024)
Artykuł przeglądowy
Opublikowany online: 2024-07-29

dostęp otwarty

Wyświetlenia strony 99
Wyświetlenia/pobrania artykułu 89
Pobierz cytowanie

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Artykuł przeglądowy / Review article
Rak jelita grubego / Colorectal cancer

Biuletyn Polskiego
Towarzystwa Onkologicznego
NOWOTWORY

2024, tom 9, nr 3, 245–249

© Polskie Towarzystwo Onkologiczne

ISSN: 2543–5248, e-ISSN: 2543–8077

www.nowotwory.edu.pl

The connection between Fusobacterium nucleatum levels and chemoresistance in colorectal cancer – a systematic review

Datis Kalali1Vasiliki Tzalili1Doxakis Anestakis12
1Medical School, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
2Laboratory of Autopsy Pathology, Forensic Service of Thessaloniki, Ministry of Justice, Thessaloniki, Greece
Introduction. The lack of response to chemotherapeutic drugs is one of the major challenges faced in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Several studies have indicated that the microbiome of the bowel affects the treatment response and specifically, certain bacterial species contribute to the development of chemoresistance. With Fusobacterium nucleatum being one of the bacterial species frequently found in the bowel of colorectal cancer patients, the present systematic review was undertaken to gather the existing literature on the relationship of Fusobacterium nucleatum with chemotherapy response.
Material and methods. Major online academic databases were searched using a combination of keywords and Boolean operators, in order to retrieve literature on the topic from inception until February 2023. Observational studies with relevant information were included in the present systematic review and their quality was assessed.
Results. A total of 7 studies with 2,280 colorectal cancer patients who underwent adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy were included in the qualitative synthesis. No study with a major risk of bias was found after a quality assessment. The majority of studies observed poorer prognosis in patients who had high levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum in their bowel, although, due to the small number of studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed.
Conclusions. High levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum result in a poorer response to chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, to further verify this assertation, more observational and experimental studies must be undertaken in the clinical field.
Key words: colorectal cancer, colon cancer, Fusobacterium nucleatum, chemoresistance

Jak cytować / How to cite:

Kalali D, Tzalili T, Anestakis D. The connection between Fusobacterium nucleatum levels and chemoresistance in colorectal cancer – a systematic review. NOWOTWORY J Oncol 2024; 74: 221–225.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality globally, with its incidence rate predicted to be doubled in the upcoming decade [1]. One of the underlying reasons for its high mortality in some patients is the lack of response to chemotherapy, also known as chemoresistance, since adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy remain one of the main therapeutic strategies in the therapy of CRC [2–4]. There are many possible molecular mechanisms that can affect the response to chemotherapy in cancer cells, usually involving genetic mutations that occur during the tumor’s progression [5]. Nevertheless, other factors may also result in the development of resistance, especially those which trigger genetic mutations. The bowel’s microbial composition, typically known as the microbiome, has recently been found to be related to the formation of drug resistance in CRC and indeed increase the risk of occurrence of certain related mutations [6, 7].

One of the most commonly found bacteria in the microbiome of CRC patients is the anaerobic gram-negative species Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn); it has been shown that the latter species affects the formation and progression of tumors [8]. For this reason, CRC patients are sometimes screened for Fn levels in the bowel and are classified as Fn-positive or Fn-negative based on the concentration of the species in biopsy or stool samples [9, 10]. More specifically, research has indicated that Fn is related to poor prognosis in CRC, suggesting that the bacterium may perhaps be an underlying cause of drug resistance [11, 12]. Hence, in this study, a systematic review was performed on all existing literature that relate levels of Fn with chemotherapy outcomes in colorectal malignancies, so as to assess whether there is a relation between chemoresistance and Fn-positivity. Such an association would certainly provide new insights for medical oncologists and researchers on how to combat drug resistance and improves the outcomes of chemotherapy in CRC.

Material and methods

The present systematic review has been registered in the OSF Registries platform on 16 January 2024, after the completion of the study.

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed, SCOPUS and Embase from inception until January 2023, using a combination of keywords and Boolean operators. The keywords used were: “F. nucleatum”, “Fusobacterium nucleatum”, “colorectal”, “colon”, “bowel”, “cancer”, “carcinoma”, “tumor”, “chemoresistance” and “chemotherapy resistance”. The search was limited to citations written in English.

After the retrieval of the literature, duplicate citations were removed by using the citation manger EndNote and subsequently, all remaining citations were assessed for eligibility by screening their titles and abstracts. The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were observational studies which compared outcomes between Fn-positive and Fn-negative bowel cancer patients who received chemotherapy. In turn, full-text versions of citations were assessed and studies which met the inclusion criteria were included in this review. The search and screening process was performed by two independent reviewers (DK and VT).

Data extraction and quality assessment

Data regarding the design of the studies, the number of participants, the stage and position of the tumors, the chemotherapy regimens used and the treatment outcomes were extracted from the eligible studies by two independent reviewers (DK and VT). In turn, the reviewers assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale which evaluates the quality of the inclusion process of each study, the comparability between the cohorts and their respective outcomes [13]. Disagreements did not arise between the two reviewers during the whole selection and assessment process.

Results

Included studies

The electronic database search retrieved a total of 111 articles, out of which only a total of 63 articles remained after removal of duplicates. After screening the abstracts and titles of each citation, a total of 24 citations were deemed irrelevant and hence excluded from the study. From the remaining 39 citations, which were assessed based on the content of their full texts, a total of 12 citations did not contain relevant information on chemotherapy outcomes, 9 citations were review articles, 8 citations were animal studies and 3 citations were in vitro studies. Since the included studies were very heterogenous in their design and method of conduction, the presentation of the results varied and our review only contained a small number of studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted. Figure 1 presents a PRISMA diagram of the search strategy and inclusion process. The characteristics of the included studies are summarized in table I.

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram of the search strategy and inclusion process
Table I. Characteristics of the studies included in the qualitative synthesis

Study (author, year)

Type of study

Participants (n)

Tumor stage

Tumor location

Chemotherapy regimen

Association of Fn-levels and outcomes

p value

Borozan et al., 2022

[14]

retrospective cohort

total: 736

Fn-positive: 83

Fn-negative: 653

stage I, II, III and IV (distribution unknown)

colon and rectum

unknown

HR = 1.92 (CSM of Fn-positive vs.

Fn-negative)

0.029

Chen et al., 2019

[15]

retrospective cohort

total: 91

Fn-positive: 25

Fn-negative: 66

stage II: 51

stage III: 40

colon: 77

rectum: 14

adjuvant FOLFOX or XELOX

HR = 2.09 (CSM of Fn-positive vs.

Fn-negative)

0.032

Hanna et al., 2022

[16]

retrospective cohort

total: 38

Fn-positive: 12

Fn-negative: 26

stage II: 9

stage III: 29

rectum

unknown

no association found

Kim et al., 2018

[17]

retrospective cohort

total: 424

Fn-positive: 272

Fn-negative: 152

stage II and III (distribution unknown)

colon and rectum

adjuvant FOLFOX

association of high Fn levels with lower overall survival (only in right-sided colon cancers)

Lee et al., 2018

[18]

retrospective cohort

total: 118

(distribution unknown)

stage IV

colon and rectum

palliative FOLFOX, XELOX, SOX, FOLFIRI or capecitabine monotherapy

HR = 1.69 (CSM of Fn-positive vs.

Fn-negative)

0.034

Oh et al., 2019

[19]

retrospective cohort

total: 593

Fn-positive: 204

Fn-negative: 389

stage II: 90

stage III: 503

colon and rectum

adjuvant FOLFOX or XELOX

HR = 0.4 (DFS of

Fn-positive vs.

Fn-negative)

0.043

Yan et al., 2017

[20]

retrospective cohort

total: 280

Fn-positive: 187

Fn-negative: 93

stage III: 218

stage IV: 62

colon: 150

rectum:130

adjuvant FOLFOX

HR = 2.13 (CSM of Fn-positive vs.

Fn-negative)

<0.001

In general, the studies involved in this systematic review included a total of 2,280 patients with tumors in the colon or the rectum who underwent adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy. All studies, except one, found that Fn-positivity was associated with a higher risk of mortality and a lower survival expectancy in patients taking chemotherapeutic drugs, indicating that Fn colonies in the bowel are associated with a lower response to chemotherapy [14, 15, 17–20]. The study which found no statistically significant difference, included patients with rectal cancer only [16]. One study by Kim et. al limited the results only to patients with right-sided carcinomas, in other words, carcinomas found within the cecum, the ascending or the transverse colon [17]. In all studies, a regimen of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) was used for adjuvant post-surgery chemotherapy. However, in the case of palliative chemotherapy, the S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) or folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimens were also used in some patients [18]. Overall, most studies found an approximately twofold hazard ratio of cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in patients who were Fn-positive [14, 15, 18, 20].

Quality assessment

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used by two reviewers (DK and VT) to evaluate the quality of each individual study included in this systematic review and the results have been recorded in table II. In general, the studies were classified as good quality in accordance with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) standards, since for all studies, 3 or 4 stars were given in the selection domain, 1 or 2 stars in the comparability domain and 2 or 3 stars in the outcome domain [13]. This confirms that the conclusions of this systematic review are not highly affected by bias.

Table II. Quality assessment of studies included in the review

Study (author, year)

Newcastle-Ottawa scale scores

Selection

Comparability

Outcome

Total

Borozan et al., 2022 [14]

4

2

3

9

Chen et al., 2019

[15]

3

2

1

6

Hanna et al., 2022[16]

3

1

2

6

Kim et al., 2018

[17]

3

2

2

7

Lee et al., 2018

[18]

3

2

2

7

Oh et al., 2019

[19]

3

2

2

7

Yan et al., 2017

[20]

3

2

2

7

Discussion

The present systematic review evaluated all existing literature relating levels of Fn to the efficacy of chemotherapy in patients with CRC. As seen through the results, the existence of high levels of Fn lower the response to chemotherapy in CRC patients and are associated with poorer prognosis. Indeed, in-vitro studies have managed to discover that Fn can promote chemoresistance by triggering signaling pathways which result in the expression of drug efflux pumps, deactivation of apoptotic mechanisms and modulation of cellular autophagy [21, 22]. The results of this review verify the latter assertations in clinical studies since patients with Fn in their bowel have a poorer response to chemotherapy.

Nonetheless, as mentioned previously, one study did not find statistically significant results in the case of rectal cancer and another study only found significant results in right-sided carcinomas [16, 17]. This finding brings up the topic of tumor sidedness in CRC, which has been of great interest in recent years. In fact, a meta-analysis in 2017 concluded that tumors found in the right colon are associated with poorer prognosis results [23]. Therefore, it is rational for studies involving right-sided tumors to show poorer prognosis than left-sided tumors, which also include rectal tumors. On the other hand, researchers have discovered that Fn-positive cancers are much more frequent in right-sided carcinomas and quite rare in rectal tumors; therefore a lack of relationship between Fn-positivity and chemoresistance in rectal tumors does not significantly affect the conclusions of this review [24, 25].

It is also worth mentioning that some limitations exist in this systematic review, although it was performed in complete accordance with the Cochrane guidelines, and no potential bias was found in the quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale [26]. Foremost, all included studies had a retrospective design, making them more prone to bias and therefore lowering the quality of the evidence [27]. Moreover, the whole review included only a few number of patients, lowering the statistical reliability of the results [28]. Simultaneously, the fact that the qualitative synthesis only included seven studies reporting their outcomes in different ways, made it difficult for a formal meta-analysis to be conducted.

Conclusions

The present study managed to collect evidence indicating that Fn-positivity is directly related to the development of chemoresistance. Hence, one of the novel strategies for better CRC chemotherapy outcomes would be to adjust the colorectal microbiome and eradicate the existence of the species Fusobacterium nucleatum within the bowel. There are several ways of achieving the latter, including the adjuvant administration of antibiotics such as metronidazole to eradicate anaerobes [29, 30]. Other methods of regulating the microbiome and eradicating such bacteria is through the use of probiotics and including specific foods to the patient’s diet, such as yogurt, kefir and sourdough bread alongside anticancer treatments [31–33]. Indeed, a patient’s diet has been found to be correlated with chemotherapy outcomes [34]. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need for more studies and clinical trials to be conducted in this field in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the forementioned methods and their results on chemotherapy response. More prospective studies should also be undertaken in order to collect stronger evidence that Fn-positivity contributes to the development of chemoresistance in CRC, allowing researchers to conduct a meta-analysis confirming the assertation.

Article information and declarations

Author contributions

Datis Kalali conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, project administration, supervision, formal analysis, manuscript draft.

Vasiliki Tzalili methodology, investigation, formal analysis.

Doxakis Anestakis manuscript revision and editing.

Conflict of interest

None declared

Datis Kalali

University of Cyprus

Medical School

1 Panepistimiou Avenue

2109 Aglantzia, Nicosia

P.O. Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, Cyprus

e-mail: kalali.datis@ucy.ac.cy

Received: 24 Nov 2023

Accepted: 5 Mar 2024

References

  1. Arnold M, Abnet CC, Neale RE, et al. Global Burden of 5 Major Types of Gastrointestinal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2020; 159(1): 335349.e15, doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.02.068, indexed in Pubmed: 32247694.
  2. Hammond WA, Swaika A, Mody K. Pharmacologic resistance in colorectal cancer: a review. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2016; 8(1): 5784, doi: 10.1177/1758834015614530, indexed in Pubmed: 26753006.
  3. Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol. 2019; 14(2): 89103, doi: 10.5114/pg.2018.81072, indexed in Pubmed: 31616522.
  4. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. Colon Cancer, Version 4.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2023.
  5. Nussinov R, Tsai CJ, Jang H. Anticancer drug resistance: An update and perspective. Drug Resist Updat. 2021; 59: 100796, doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2021.100796, indexed in Pubmed: 34953682.
  6. Pandey K, Umar S. Microbiome in drug resistance to colon cancer. Curr Opin Physiol. 2021; 23, doi: 10.1016/j.cophys.2021.100472, indexed in Pubmed: 34514218.
  7. Senchukova MA. Genetic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer and the microbiome. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2023; 15(3): 443463, doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v15.i3.443, indexed in Pubmed: 37009315.
  8. Sun CH, Li BB, Wang Bo, et al. The role of in colorectal cancer: from carcinogenesis to clinical management. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2019; 5(3): 178187, doi: 10.1016/j.cdtm.2019.09.001, indexed in Pubmed: 31891129.
  9. Janati AI, Karp I, Laprise C, et al. Detection of Fusobaterium nucleatum in feces and colorectal mucosa as a risk factor for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2020; 9(1): 276, doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01526-z, indexed in Pubmed: 33272322.
  10. Yang Z, Ji G. -positive colorectal cancer. Oncol Lett. 2019; 18(2): 975982, doi: 10.3892/ol.2019.10433, indexed in Pubmed: 31423156.
  11. Mima K, Sakamoto Y, Kosumi K, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum in colorectal carcinoma tissue and patient prognosis. Gut. 2016; 65(12): 19731980, doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310101, indexed in Pubmed: 26311717.
  12. Lee JB, Kim KA, Cho HoY, et al. Association between Fusobacterium nucleatum and patient prognosis in metastatic colon cancer. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 20263, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98941-6, indexed in Pubmed: 34642332.
  13. Wells GA, Wells G, Shea B, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses 2014.
  14. Borozan I, Zaidi SH, Harrison TA, et al. Molecular and Pathology Features of Colorectal Tumors and Patient Outcomes Are Associated with and Its Subspecies . Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022; 31(1): 210220, doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0463, indexed in Pubmed: 34737207.
  15. Chen Y, Lu Y, Ke Y, et al. Prognostic impact of the Fusobacterium nucleatum status in colorectal cancers. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019; 98(39): e17221, doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017221, indexed in Pubmed: 31574832.
  16. Hanna M, Yu M, Cannon V, et al. FUSOBACTERIUM NUCLEATUM AND ITS EFFECTS ON TREATMENT RESPONSE IN RECTAL CANCER. Gastroenterology. 2022; 162(7): S1002.
  17. Kim JH, Cho NY, Bae JM, et al. Different prognostic impacts of fusobacterium nucleatum based on tumor location in stage II/ III colorectal carcinomas treated with adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy. Laboratory Investigation. 2018; 98: 276.
  18. Lee DW, Han SW, Kang JK, et al. Association Between Fusobacterium nucleatum, Pathway Mutation, and Patient Prognosis in Colorectal Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(11): 33893395, doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6681-5, indexed in Pubmed: 30062471.
  19. Oh HJ, Kim JHo, Bae JMo, et al. Prognostic Impact of Fusobacterium nucleatum Depends on Combined Tumor Location and Microsatellite Instability Status in Stage II/III Colorectal Cancers Treated with Adjuvant Chemotherapy. J Pathol Transl Med. 2019; 53(1): 4049, doi: 10.4132/jptm.2018.11.29, indexed in Pubmed: 30586952.
  20. Yan X, Liu L, Li H, et al. Clinical significance of , epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and cancer stem cell markers in stage III/IV colorectal cancer patients. Onco Targets Ther. 2017; 10: 50315046, doi: 10.2147/OTT.S145949, indexed in Pubmed: 29081665.
  21. Lu P, Xu M, Xiong Z, et al. prevents apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells via the ANO1 pathway. Cancer Manag Res. 2019; 11: 90579066, doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S185766, indexed in Pubmed: 31802939.
  22. KC M, Steer C. Novel mechanisms of chemoresistance by Fusobacterium nucleatum involve not so novel pathways of microRNAs and autophagy. Translational Cancer Research. 2018; 7(S1): S10S15, doi: 10.21037/tcr.2017.12.20.
  23. Petrelli F, Tomasello G, Borgonovo K, et al. Prognostic Survival Associated With Left-Sided vs Right-Sided Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3(2): 211219, doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4227, indexed in Pubmed: 27787550.
  24. Mima K, Cao Y, Chan AT, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum in Colorectal Carcinoma Tissue According to Tumor Location. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2016; 7(11): e200, doi: 10.1038/ctg.2016.53, indexed in Pubmed: 27811909.
  25. Li S, Konstantinov SR, Smits R, et al. Bacterial Biofilms in Colorectal Cancer Initiation and Progression. Trends Mol Med. 2017; 23(1): 1830, doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2016.11.004, indexed in Pubmed: 27986421.
  26. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10(10): ED000142, doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142, indexed in Pubmed: 31643080.
  27. Talari K, Goyal M. Retrospective studies - utility and caveats. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2020; 50(4): 398402, doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2020.409, indexed in Pubmed: 33469615.
  28. Granados-Duque V, García-Perdomo HA. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Which pitfalls to avoid during this process. Int Braz J Urol. 2021; 47(5): 10371041, doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2020.0746, indexed in Pubmed: 33566472.
  29. Chen ZX, Li JL, Pan P, et al. Combination gut microbiota modulation and chemotherapy for orthotopic colorectal cancer therapy. Nano Today. 2021; 41: 101329, doi: 10.1016/j.nantod.2021.101329.
  30. Yoshihara T, Kioi M, Baba J, et al. A prospective interventional trial on the effect of periodontal treatment on Fusobacterium nucleatum abundance in patients with colorectal tumours. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1): 23719, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03083-4, indexed in Pubmed: 34887459.
  31. Walker W. Colorectal cancer and the microbiome: dysplasia, probiotics, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Colorectal Neoplasia and the Colorectal Microbiome. 2020: 7994, doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-819672-4.00005-2.
  32. Lawrence GW, Begley M, Cotter PD, et al. Potential Use of Biotherapeutic Bacteria to Target Colorectal Cancer-Associated Taxa. Int J Mol Sci. 2020; 21(3), doi: 10.3390/ijms21030924, indexed in Pubmed: 32019270.
  33. Singh RK, Chang HW, Yan Di, et al. Influence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health. J Transl Med. 2017; 15(1): 73, doi: 10.1186/s12967-017-1175-y, indexed in Pubmed: 28388917.
  34. Jankowski M. Nutritional treatment improves the effectiveness of anti-cancer therapy. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology. 2018; 67(5): 313315, doi: 10.5603/njo.2017.0052.