背景:癌症是全球死亡的主要原因,女性中最常见的是乳腺癌,男性前列腺癌和男女结肠癌。使用代谢组学寻找新的生物标志物可以提供有关基于不同癌症类型中代谢物存在的可能干预措施的知识。
目的:本综述的主要目的是分析三种最常见的癌症类型的特征性代谢组。我们进一步希望确定在患有这些癌症类型的患者中基于代谢组学的干预的存在和成功率。我们的结论是基于对研究方法学质量的分析。
方法:我们搜索了调查乳腺癌患者代谢组学特征的研究,临床试验中的前列腺癌或结肠癌。对数据进行了分析,以及基于已确定的代谢组学和一种或多种代谢产物的特定干预措施的效果。使用的数据库是PubMed,虚拟健康图书馆,WebofScience,EBSCO和Cochrane图书馆。只有9项研究符合选择标准。使用Cochrane偏差风险工具分析研究偏差。该系统评价方案已在国际前瞻性系统评价登记册(PROSPERO:CRD42023401474)上注册。
结果:只有9项关于临床试验的研究被纳入本综述,并显示了中等质量的证据。与疾病结局相关的基于代谢组学的干预措施与不同癌症类型的代谢特征没有变化或变化很小是矛盾的。
结论:本系统综述显示了一些有趣的结果,这些结果与基于代谢组学的干预措施及其对某些癌症代谢产物变化的影响有关。在本系统评价中,我们确定的符合我们纳入标准的研究数量很少,因此我们无法得出明确的结论。然而,一些结果可以被认为是有希望的,虽然需要进一步的研究。该研究不仅必须关注可能存在的代谢物,而且还必须关注可能的基于代谢组学的干预措施及其对乳腺癌患者预后的影响。前列腺癌或结肠癌。
BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide, with the most frequent being breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men and colon cancer in both sexes. The use of metabolomics to find new biomarkers can provide knowledge about possible interventions based on the presence of oncometabolites in different cancer types.
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this
review is to analyze the characteristic metabolome of three of the most frequent cancer types. We further want to identify the existence and success rate of metabolomics-based intervention in patients suffering from those cancer types. Our conclusions are based on the analysis of the methodological quality of the studies.
METHODS: We searched for studies that investigated the metabolomic characteristics in patients suffering from breast cancer, prostate cancer or colon cancer in clinical trials. The data were analyzed, as well as the effects of specific interventions based on identified metabolomics and one or more oncometabolites. The used databases were PubMed, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane Library. Only nine studies met the selection criteria. Study bias was analyzed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This systematic
review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023401474).
RESULTS: Only nine studies about clinical trials were included in this
review and show a moderate quality of evidence. Metabolomics-based interventions related with disease outcome were conflictive with no or small changes in the metabolic characteristics of the different cancer types.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic
review shows some interesting results related with metabolomics-based interventions and their effects on changes in certain cancer oncometabolites. The small number of studies we identified which fulfilled our inclusion criteria in this systematic
review does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, some results can be considered as promising although further research is needed. That research must focus not only on the presence of possible oncometabolites but also on possible metabolomics-based interventions and their influence on the outcome in patients suffering from breast cancer, prostate cancer or colon cancer.