001     294306
005     20241028182244.0
024 7 _ |a 10.3390/cancers16203528
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:39456621
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC11506215
|2 pmc
037 _ _ |a DKFZ-2024-02139
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Zeber-Lubecka, Natalia
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Dysbiosis of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract in Head-and-Neck Cancer Survivors: A Pilot Study Using the Capsule Sponge Device.
260 _ _ |a Basel
|c 2024
|b MDPI
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1730124974_22133
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a A non-endoscopic capsule-sponge device allows sampling the entire length of the esophagus. Here, we compared microbiomes of the oral cavity, esophagus, and gastric corpus collected by oral swab, capsule-sponge device, and endoscopic biopsy, respectively, in patients representing three distinct risk profiles for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).The study enrolled 11 patients with esophageal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia, 21 patients after curative treatment for head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) (HNSCC survivors), and 40 patients with functional dyspeptic (FD) symptoms. Microbial genomic DNA was analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.The Shannon index of the capsule-sponge sample microbiota was significantly higher in FD group than in patients after treatment for HNSCC, and the Chao index of gastric samples differed between HNSCC survivors and FD patients. Analysis of the β-diversity of FD patients, HNSCC, and esophageal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia showed that different genera formed at each location. The abundance of 205, 116, and 9 genera differed between FD patients and HNSCC survivors in the gastric, capsule-sponge, and oral samples, respectively; 33 genera differed between the FD group and patients with esophageal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia in capsule-sponge samples.The bacterial communities of the upper digestive tract were clustered according to the anatomic site. Despite substantial differences in gastric and esophageal microbiota samples between FD patients and HNSCC survivors, the microbial members and diversity showed small differences between FD patients and those with esophageal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia. It remains unclear whether gastric and esophageal dysbiosis is associated with or is a consequence of treatment for HNSCC.
536 _ _ |a 313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313
|c POF4-313
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: inrepo02.dkfz.de
650 _ 7 |a capsule-sponge device
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC)
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a esophageal squamous intraepithelial neoplasia
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC)
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a microbial dysbiosis
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Kulecka, Maria
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Dabrowska, Michalina
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Kluska, Anna
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Piątkowska, Magdalena
|0 0000-0001-8372-8002
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Turkot, Maryla Helena
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Pilonis, Nastazja Dagny
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Yusuf, Aisha
|0 0000-0002-7799-4379
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Nowicki-Osuch, Karol
|0 P:(DE-He78)5eecfbb3a55c32d69c08f67104c5c62b
|b 8
|u dkfz
700 1 _ |a Mikula, Michal
|0 0000-0003-3447-7328
|b 9
700 1 _ |a Ostrowski, Jerzy
|b 10
773 _ _ |a 10.3390/cancers16203528
|g Vol. 16, no. 20, p. 3528 -
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2527080-1
|n 20
|p 3528
|t Cancers
|v 16
|y 2024
|x 2072-6694
909 C O |o oai:inrepo02.dkfz.de:294306
|p VDB
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum
|0 I:(DE-588b)2036810-0
|k DKFZ
|b 8
|6 P:(DE-He78)5eecfbb3a55c32d69c08f67104c5c62b
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Krebsforschung
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-310
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2024
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b CANCERS : 2022
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0320
|2 StatID
|b PubMed Central
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2023-07-31T16:07:06Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2023-07-31T16:07:06Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Anonymous peer review
|d 2023-07-31T16:07:06Z
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2023-07-31T16:07:06Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0600
|2 StatID
|b Ebsco Academic Search
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b ASC
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0113
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1190
|2 StatID
|b Biological Abstracts
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0160
|2 StatID
|b Essential Science Indicators
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a IF >= 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9905
|2 StatID
|b CANCERS : 2022
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2023-10-26
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2023-10-26
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-He78)C150-20160331
|k C150
|l NWG Tumorgenese und molekulare Krebsprävention
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-He78)C150-20160331
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21