Identifies microbial community changes in non-small cell lung cancer patients, suggesting implications for treatment.
Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide despite advances in diagnosis and treatment. Increasing evidence suggests that alterations in the lung microbiome may contribute to NSCLC development and progression; however, findings remain inconsistent due to heterogeneous biological materials and methodological differences among studies. Therefore, this study aimed to characterize the lung tissue microbiome in NSCLC using a paired tissue-based approach. Methods: Thirty-two patients with NSCLC were enrolled. For each patient, two samples were collected: primary tumor tissue and matched macroscopically unchanged adjacent lung tissue. The V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified and sequenced, followed by bioinformatic analysis using the QIIME2 pipeline. Results: Tumor tissues demonstrated lower alpha (Shannon H = 9.60, q = 0.001) and beta (Jaccard pseudo-F = 1.26, q = 0.015) diversity compared with adjacent controls, indicating reduced microbial complexity within the tumor microenvironment. Escherichia-Shigella was the most abundant detected genus (~12%) in both groups, although without a statistically significant difference. Analysis of microbiome variation in relation to spatial distance between sampled tissues revealed a strong trend toward significance (p = 0.07) with a substantial effect size (R2 = 0.207). Conclusions: The observed microbiome alterations in NSCLC were more evident at the ecological level than in overall taxonomic composition, supporting a model of microbial community simplification rather than complete compositional replacement. Our findings also suggest that tumor-adjacent lung tissue may not represent a fully neutral control due to the local field effect. The relatively high abundance of Escherichia-Shigella indicates that this taxon may warrant further investigation in NSCLC microbiome studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Machnicki et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: