4.8 Review

The oral microbiome, pancreatic cancer and human diversity in the age of precision medicine

期刊

MICROBIOME
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40168-022-01262-7

关键词

Disparities; Microbiota; Cancer; Oral health; Periodontitis; Genetics; Race; Socioeconomics; Smoking

资金

  1. [T32 HG00895]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pancreatic cancer patients have oral microbial shifts that may indicate their risk years before diagnosis, and pathogenic bacteria have been found in pancreatic tumors. Understanding the interaction between the oral microbiome and pancreatic cancer could lead to improved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, reducing healthcare disparities.
Pancreatic cancer is a deadly disease with limited diagnostic and treatment options. Not all populations are affected equally, as disparities exist in pancreatic cancer prevalence, treatment and outcomes. Recently, next-generation sequencing has facilitated a more comprehensive analysis of the human oral microbiome creating opportunity for its application in precision medicine. Oral microbial shifts occur in patients with pancreatic cancer, which may be appreciated years prior to their diagnosis. In addition, pathogenic bacteria common in the oral cavity have been found within pancreatic tumors. Despite these findings, much remains unknown about how or why the oral microbiome differs in patients with pancreatic cancer. As individuals develop, their oral microbiome reflects both their genotype and environmental influences. Genetics, race/ethnicity, smoking, socioeconomics and age affect the composition of the oral microbiota, which may ultimately play a role in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain the oral dysbiosis found in patients with pancreatic cancer though they have yet to be confirmed. With a better understanding of the interplay between the oral microbiome and pancreatic cancer, improved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches may be implemented to reduce healthcare disparities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据