SynthesisScientific reports2026
Impact of microbiome-modulating strategies in cancer patients receiving immunotherapy (MSIT): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Harnessing Gut Microbiota to Enhance Immunotherapy in NSCLC: From Mechanisms to Translational Applications.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The gut microbiota influences immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) efficacy. Microbiome-modulating strategies (MMSs), including probiotics, synbiotics, and faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), have emerged as promising adjuncts, but their clinical impact remains uncertain. We systematically reviewed PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL to February 2025 for clinical cohorts evaluating MMS in cancer patients receiving ICIs. Thirty-six studies (25 trials/cohorts; n = 2,746) were included. Meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed for efficacy along with microbiome shifts and safety. MMS plus ICIs achieved a pooled objective response rate (ORR) of 40% (95% CI: 31%-49%; I² = 63.4%; p = 0.0003; 95% PI: 15%-72%). Descriptive proportions showed ORR of 45% (95% CI: 32%-58%; I² = 72.5%; p = 0.0058) for probiotics and 33% (95% CI: 22%-48%; I² = 60.7%; p = 0.0064) for FMT; however, these findings are non-comparative and confounded by study differences. Exploratory subgroup signals were noted for probiotics in NSCLC (ORR 55%; 95%CI: 45%-64%; I² = 0%; p = 0.3683) and FMT in melanoma (ORR 39%; 95% CI: 15%-69%; I² = 72.5%; p = 0.0262). Dual ICI regimens showed the highest point estimate for ORR (43%; 95% CI: 17%-73%; I² = 68.5%; p = 0.0747) but increased toxicity. Microbiome analyses revealed enrichment of short-chain fatty acid-producing taxa and Bifidobacterium spp. among responders. Based on a limited pooled sample size (n = 143), MMS-related adverse events were mostly grade 1-2 (42%; 95% CI: 14%-77%, I² = 53.8%, p = 0.0210), with rare severe events (1%). Overall, MMS show promising, though preliminary, hypothesis-generating signals for modulating ICI response. Given high heterogeneity and reliance on early-phase, single-arm trials, the findings underscore urgent need for large, biomarker-driven randomized controlled trials to define optimal interventions and cautiously integrate microbiome modulation into immuno-oncology care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.