4.7 Article

Microbiome Patterns in Matched Bile, Duodenal, Pancreatic Tumor Tissue, Drainage, and Stool Samples: Association with Preoperative Stenting and Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula Development

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9092785

Keywords

microbiome; pancreatic surgery; postoperative complications; pancreatic cancer; 16S rRNA sequencing

Funding

  1. Tumorzentrum Erlangen, Germany
  2. German Research Foundation [FOR 2438]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Postoperative complications after pancreatic surgery are still a significant problem in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to characterize and compare the microbiomes of different body compartments (bile duct, duodenal mucosa, pancreatic tumor lesion, postoperative drainage fluid, and stool samples; preoperative and postoperative) in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery for suspected pancreatic cancer, and their association with relevant clinical factors (stent placement, pancreatic fistula, and gland texture). For this, solid (duodenal mucosa, pancreatic tumor tissue, stool) and liquid (bile, drainage fluid) biopsy samples of 10 patients were analyzed using 16s rRNA gene next-generation sequencing. Our analysis revealed: (i) a distinct microbiome in the different compartments, (ii) markedly higher abundance of Enterococcus in patients undergoing preoperative stent placement in the common bile duct, (iii) significant differences in the beta diversity between patients who developed a postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF B/C), (iv) patients with POPF B/C were more likely to have bacteria belonging to the genus Enterococcus, and (v) differences in microbiome composition with regard to the pancreatic gland texture. The structure of the microbiome is distinctive in different compartments, and can be associated with the development of a postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available