Mucosal cancer-associated microbes and anastomotic leakage after resection of colorectal carcinoma.
Aged
Anastomosis, Surgical
/ adverse effects
Anastomotic Leak
/ epidemiology
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ microbiology
Elective Surgical Procedures
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Gram-Negative Bacteria
/ isolation & purification
Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections
/ complications
Humans
Incidence
Japan
/ epidemiology
Male
Middle Aged
Mucous Membrane
/ microbiology
Prognosis
Risk Factors
Survival Rate
Bacteria
Complication
Surgery
Journal
Surgical oncology
ISSN: 1879-3320
Titre abrégé: Surg Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9208188
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
27
01
2019
revised:
10
11
2019
accepted:
17
11
2019
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
31
10
2020
entrez:
26
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Clinical and experimental evidence suggests that colorectal mucosal microbiota changes during colorectal carcinogenesis and may impair colorectal anastomotic wound healing. Thus, we hypothesized that amounts of colorectal cancer-associated microbes in colorectal tissue might be associated with anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal carcinoma. We analyzed 256 fresh frozen tissues of colorectal cancer from patients who underwent elective colorectal resection and anastomosis. Amounts of colorectal cancer-associated microbes, including Fusobacterium nucleatum, Escherichia coli possessing the polyketide synthase (pks) gene cluster, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bifidobacterium genus, in colorectal cancer tissues were measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay; we equally dichotomized positive cases (high versus low). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations of these microbes with anastomotic leakage, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, and surgery-related factors. Fusobacterium nucleatum, pks-positive Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bifidobacterium genus were detected in colorectal carcinoma tissue in 140 (54%), 94 (36%), 193 (75%), and 89 (35%) of 256 cases, respectively. Compared with Bifidobacterium genus-negative cases, Bifidobacterium genus-high cases were associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage (multivariable odds ratio, 3.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.50 to 10.51; P The amount of Bifidobacterium genus in colorectal tissue is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer. These findings need to be validated to target gastrointestinal microflora for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Clinical and experimental evidence suggests that colorectal mucosal microbiota changes during colorectal carcinogenesis and may impair colorectal anastomotic wound healing. Thus, we hypothesized that amounts of colorectal cancer-associated microbes in colorectal tissue might be associated with anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal carcinoma.
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed 256 fresh frozen tissues of colorectal cancer from patients who underwent elective colorectal resection and anastomosis. Amounts of colorectal cancer-associated microbes, including Fusobacterium nucleatum, Escherichia coli possessing the polyketide synthase (pks) gene cluster, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bifidobacterium genus, in colorectal cancer tissues were measured by quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay; we equally dichotomized positive cases (high versus low). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations of these microbes with anastomotic leakage, adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, and surgery-related factors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fusobacterium nucleatum, pks-positive Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bifidobacterium genus were detected in colorectal carcinoma tissue in 140 (54%), 94 (36%), 193 (75%), and 89 (35%) of 256 cases, respectively. Compared with Bifidobacterium genus-negative cases, Bifidobacterium genus-high cases were associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage (multivariable odds ratio, 3.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.50 to 10.51; P
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The amount of Bifidobacterium genus in colorectal tissue is associated with an increased risk of anastomotic leakage after resection for colorectal cancer. These findings need to be validated to target gastrointestinal microflora for the prevention of anastomotic leakage after colorectal resection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31765952
pii: S0960-7404(19)30046-5
doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2019.11.005
pmc: PMC6986978
mid: NIHMS1544635
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
63-68Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R35 CA197735
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : UM1 CA186107
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest All authors declare that they have no competing financial interest.
Références
Ann Surg. 2015 Aug;262(2):331-7
pubmed: 26083870
Br J Surg. 2018 Sep;105(10):1368-1376
pubmed: 29658991
Cancer Immunol Res. 2016 Jan;4(1):33-40
pubmed: 26419959
Ann Surg. 2007 Aug;246(2):207-14
pubmed: 17667498
Br J Surg. 2010 Dec;97(12):1791-7
pubmed: 20799286
Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb 11;7:e143
pubmed: 26866392
Front Microbiol. 2016 Feb 17;7:185
pubmed: 26925050
J Clin Microbiol. 2014 Feb;52(2):398-406
pubmed: 24478468
Ann Surg. 2019 May;269(5):911-916
pubmed: 29303807
Dis Colon Rectum. 2017 May;60(5):527-536
pubmed: 28383453
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017 Nov 4;493(1):306-312
pubmed: 28890351
J Control Release. 2016 Jan 28;222:9-17
pubmed: 26655063
Sci Rep. 2018 Sep 18;8(1):13974
pubmed: 30228361
Ann Surg. 2018 Jun;267(6):1112-1118
pubmed: 28166091
World J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug 7;13(29):3985-9
pubmed: 17663515
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Nov 15;22(22):5574-5581
pubmed: 27769987
Ann Surg. 2017 Mar;265(3):547-554
pubmed: 27070935
Br J Surg. 2017 Apr;104(5):619-630
pubmed: 28195642
Science. 2018 Mar 23;359(6382):1366-1370
pubmed: 29567708
Gut. 2016 Dec;65(12):1973-1980
pubmed: 26311717
Cancer Cell. 2018 Jun 11;33(6):954-964
pubmed: 29657127
Surg Oncol. 2017 Dec;26(4):368-376
pubmed: 29113654
Nat Commun. 2015 Oct 30;6:8727
pubmed: 26515465
JAMA Oncol. 2015 Aug;1(5):653-61
pubmed: 26181352
Ann Surg. 2015 Sep;262(3):416-25; discussion 423-5
pubmed: 26258310
Sci Transl Med. 2015 May 6;7(286):286ra68
pubmed: 25947163
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e44326
pubmed: 22952955
Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):83-92
pubmed: 15749634
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Aug;23(8 Pt 1):1298-303
pubmed: 18624900
Methods Mol Biol. 2016;1409:49-60
pubmed: 26846801
Gut. 2015 Oct;64(10):1562-8
pubmed: 25527456
Ann Surg. 2019 Apr;269(4):671-677
pubmed: 29064902
Gut. 2017 Apr;66(4):633-643
pubmed: 26992426
Am J Pathol. 2018 Dec;188(12):2839-2852
pubmed: 30243655
Science. 2015 Nov 27;350(6264):1084-9
pubmed: 26541606
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jan;14(1):43-54
pubmed: 27729657
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 09;10(3):e0119462
pubmed: 25751261
Dis Colon Rectum. 2019 Mar;62(3):286-293
pubmed: 30540662
Ann Surg. 2015 Aug;262(2):321-30
pubmed: 25361221
Front Microbiol. 2016 Jun 15;7:925
pubmed: 27379055
Nat Med. 2018 Apr 10;24(4):392-400
pubmed: 29634682
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Sep;61(9):3202-7
pubmed: 7574628
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct;24(11):3289-3299
pubmed: 28608118
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Feb 15;20(4):859-67
pubmed: 24334760
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Jan;2(1):6-10
pubmed: 30980045
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;22(4):1226-1235
pubmed: 25326395