Next Article in Journal
Periodontitis Frequently Exists in Patients with Colorectal Carcinoma and Causes Supplementary Impairment of Insulin Resistance
Previous Article in Journal
SGLT-2 Inhibitors and Metabolic Outcomes: A Primary Data Study Exploring the Microbiota–Diabetes Connection
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bacillus megaterium DSM 32963 Enhances Specialized Pro-Resolving Mediator Production from an n-3 PUFA Salt in a Dynamic Model of the Human Intestine
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Gut-Microbiome Signatures Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

1
Doctoral School, Faculty of Medicine, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
2
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine II, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
3
Advanced Regional Research Center in Gastroenterology and Hepatology, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
4
Department of Microbiology, “Victor Babes” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timisoara, Romania
5
Multi-Organ Transplant Centre of Excellence, Liver Transplantation Unit, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam 32253, Saudi Arabia
6
Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Zamzam University College, Khartoum 11113, Sudan
7
Department of Oral Implantology, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, 050474 Bucharest, Romania
8
Biology Department, Chemistry-Biology-Geography Faculty, West University of Timisoara, 300115 Timisoara, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Metabolites 2025, 15(6), 412; https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo15060412
Submission received: 15 May 2025 / Revised: 6 June 2025 / Accepted: 12 June 2025 / Published: 18 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Gut Microbiome Metabolomics)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Rectal cancer management increasingly relies on watch-and-wait strategies after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Accurate, non-invasive prediction of pathological complete response (pCR) remains elusive. Emerging evidence suggests that gut-microbiome composition modulates radio-chemosensitivity. We systematically reviewed primary studies that correlated baseline or on-treatment gut-microbiome features with nCRT response in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed were searched from inception to 30 April 2025. Eligibility required (i) prospective or retrospective human studies of LARC, (ii) faecal or mucosal microbiome profiling by 16S, metagenomics, or metatranscriptomics, and (iii) response assessment using tumour-regression grade or pCR. Narrative synthesis and random-effects proportion meta-analysis were performed where data were homogeneous. Results: Twelve studies (n = 1354 unique patients, median sample = 73, range 22–735) met inclusion. Four independent machine-learning models achieved an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve AUROC ≥ 0.85 for pCR prediction. Consistently enriched taxa in responders included Lachnospiraceae bacterium, Blautia wexlerae, Roseburia spp., and Intestinimonas butyriciproducens. Non-responders showed over-representation of Fusobacterium nucleatum, Bacteroides fragilis, and Prevotella spp. Two studies linked butyrate-producing modules to radiosensitivity, whereas nucleotide-biosynthesis pathways conferred resistance. Pooled pCR rate in patients with a “butyrate-rich” baseline profile was 44% (95% CI 35–54) versus 21% (95% CI 15–29) in controls (I2 = 18%). Conclusions: Despite heterogeneity, convergent functional and taxonomic signals underpin a microbiome-based radiosensitivity axis in LARC. Multi-centre validation cohorts and intervention trials manipulating these taxa, such as prebiotics or live-biotherapeutics, are warranted before clinical deployment.

1. Introduction

Locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) remains a major contributor to colorectal-cancer (CRC) mortality. Recent GLOBOCAN projections indicate that the absolute number of rectal cancer diagnoses will exceed 800,000 by 2030 despite screening efforts, driven largely by demographic ageing and an alarming surge of early-onset cases in high-income countries [1,2]. Although total mesorectal excision is potentially curative, only 15–30% of patients achieve a pathological complete response (pCR) after standard long-course neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT), limiting eligibility for organ-preservation and watch-and-wait protocols [3]. Accurate, non-invasive stratification of radio-chemosensitivity before treatment therefore represents an unmet clinical need.
A growing body of evidence implicates the gut microbiome as a key modifier of oncologic treatment outcomes. Early machine-learning work by Yi et al. identified a six-genus faecal signature that classified pCR with 94% cross-validated accuracy in 84 LARC patients [4], and a subsequent prospective, longitudinal study confirmed that baseline community structure and on-treatment ecological shifts forecast tumour-regression grade trajectories in an independent cohort of 39 patients [5]. These observations align with metagenomic surveys of untreated CRC, which consistently show enrichment of Fusobacterium nucleatum, Peptostreptococcus anaerobius and enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis alongside depletion of commensal butyrate producers such as Roseburia, Blautia and Intestinimonas [6,7].
Mechanistic studies provide plausible causal links. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)—particularly butyrate—reinforce epithelial barrier function, enhance mucosal antigen presentation and potentiate DNA-damage signalling; exogenous butyrate or high-butyrate bacterial gavage sensitize CRC cells to ionizing radiation in vitro and in murine orthotopic models [8,9]. Conversely, oncopathogens deploy genotoxins or metabolic re-programming to blunt therapy. F. nucleatum promotes autophagy-mediated chemoresistance [10], whereas pks⁺ Escherichia coli leaves a distinct colibactin mutational scar associated with poor response [11]. Multi-omics interrogation has now linked microbial nucleotide-biosynthesis modules [12] and methylglyoxal-derived ER-stress activation [13] to radioresistance and radiosensitisation, respectively, while a butyrate/OR51E1 axis mediated by Roseburia intestinalis enhances radiogenic autophagy and tumour clearance [14].
One cohort demonstrated that on-treatment rises in serum uric-acid/creatinine ratios—an indirect read-out of purine salvage by dysbiotic taxa—predicted poor tumour-regression [15]. Parallel work shows that neoadjuvant radiation itself perturbs intestinal ecology, often depleting Lachnospiraceae and enriching pathobionts [16]. Integrated response models that combine radiomics, circulating-tumour DNA and microbiome features are under prospective evaluation [17], and serum metabolomics further refines risk stratification for both efficacy and toxicity [18]. Consensus reviews now propose microbiome modulation—via diet, pre/pro-biotics or live-biotherapeutic products—as a tractable adjuvant strategy to widen the pCR window [19].
Despite these advances, heterogeneity in sampling sites, sequencing chemistries, bioinformatic pipelines and response definitions clouds cross-study comparability. The present systematic review therefore (i) catalogues available evidence linking faecal or mucosal microbiota to nCRT response in LARC, (ii) appraises methodological rigour, (iii) maps convergent taxonomic and functional signals, and (iv) identifies gaps to guide the design of multi-centre validation and interventional trials aimed at harnessing gut-microbiome ecosystems to personalise rectal cancer care.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

The current systematic review followed the PRISMA protocol [20] and was registered with Open Science Framework (osf.io/kdxuy). The prespecified primary outcome was the discriminative ability Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) of microbiome-based models for predicting pCR (tumour-regression grade 0). Secondary outcomes included relative abundance differences of individual taxa, pathway-level functional shifts, toxicity correlations, and survival endpoints. The protocol stipulated inclusion of both faecal and rectal-mucosal sampling frames, recognising their distinct ecological niches.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Eligible studies met all of the following: (i) human subjects aged ≥18 years with biopsy-confirmed LARC (cT3-4 or N⁺); (ii) treatment with long-course (45–50.4 Gy) or short-course (25 Gy/5 fractions) nCRT, with or without concurrent immune-checkpoint blockade; (iii) microbiome characterisation by culture-independent sequencing techniques before, during, or after nCRT; (iv) assessment of radiological or pathological response using RECIST, MRI-TRG, AJCC/CAP TRG, or histopathological pCR. Exclusion criteria: case reports, animal studies, probiotic-only interventions without response data, and articles lacking primary sequencing data (reviews). Where overlapping cohorts were suspected, the largest dataset was retained. No language restrictions were applied.

2.3. Search Strategy and Study Selection

MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed were searched from database inception to 30 April 2025. The MEDLINE string combined MeSH and free-text terms: (“rectal neoplasms” OR “rectal cancer”) AND (“microbiome” OR “microbiota” OR “metagenomics”) AND (“chemoradiotherapy” OR “neoadjuvant therapy”) AND (“response” OR “pathologic complete response”). Study selection was performed as described in the PRISMA flowchart in Figure 1. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, followed by full-text review; disagreements were resolved through consensus with a third reviewer. Inter-reviewer agreement was excellent (κ = 0.82).

2.4. Data Extraction and Risk-of-Bias Assessment

An Excel worksheet form was used to capture study design, participant demographics, sequencing platform, bioinformatics pipeline, response definition, predictive-model parameters, and performance metrics. For multi-time-point studies, baseline (pre-nCRT) data were prioritized. Where numerical values were missing (e.g., exact AUROC confidence intervals), equivalent reported outcome measures were reported or described as NR (not reported). Risk-of-bias for diagnostic accuracy metrics followed QUADAS-2; prognostic model quality. Between-study variance (τ2) and heterogeneity (I2) were computed. Sensitivity analyses excluded high-risk-of-bias studies.

2.5. Effect Measures

For the primary binary outcome (pathological complete response, pCR), we extracted 2 × 2 tables and calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). When studies reported diagnostic performance, Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) values and their 95% CIs were captured; if only standard errors were available, CIs were reconstructed with the Wald method. For continuous outcomes (e.g., relative-abundance differences of key taxa), we recorded means ± SD or medians + IQR.

2.6. Data Preparation and Synthesis Methods

After eligibility screening, we created a matrix matching each study to prespecified outcomes (pCR, tumour-regression grade, toxicity, survival). Only studies that reported compatible metrics entered each quantitative synthesis. If dispersion measures were missing, we derived SD from IQR (SD ≈ IQR/1.35) or contacted corresponding authors (two attempts, 3-week interval). AUROC values without CIs were entered narratively. We performed leave-one-out analyses and repeated meta-analyses after excluding: high-risk-of-bias studies (QUADAS-2), studies with imputed dispersion measures, and studies lacking external validation.

2.7. Reporting Bias and Certainty Assessment

Potential small-study effects were investigated with funnel plots and Egger’s test (p < 0.10 considered suggestive). Outcome-level evidence certainty was rated with GRADE across five domains (risk-of-bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias). Two reviewers graded each comparison independently; disagreements were reconciled by discussion.

2.8. Cross Platform Harmonisation

Because source studies employed 16S, shallow-shotgun, and metatranscriptomic workflows, raw counts (where available) were first rarefied to 10,000 reads per sample to equalise sequencing depth. Relative-abundance matrices were then converted to centred-log-ratio values to alleviate compositional bias. For functional analyses, we mapped all reported orthologues to a consensus module list and scored pathways as present (≥3 unique orthologues) or absent, which permitted binary comparison across different annotation tools.

3. Results

The 12 studies [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] published between 2020 and 2025 enrolled 1295 evaluable patients, with a clear geographic skew toward East Asia (nine Chinese cohorts [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,31,32]), one European cohort from Italy [28], and one South-American cohort spanning Brazil and Argentina [30]. Most investigations profiled pre-treatment faecal samples via 16S rRNA sequencing, but three leveraged deeper metagenomics on stool [27,29] or tumour tissue [24], and two interrogated tumour-associated microbiota directly [24,32]. Random-forest classifiers predominated (four cohorts [22,24,27,31]), yet gradient boosting [25], support-vector machines [26], convolutional neural networks [29], elastic-net regression [30], and LASSO models [32] illustrate methodological diversity. Reported discrimination was generally strong (AUROC 0.77–0.99), with top performance in Yi 2021 (0.94) [22] and Yang 2024 (0.99) [29], although four studies provided no full accuracy metrics [21,23,27,30]; only half incorporated cross-validation or external testing, underscoring persisting over-fitting concerns (Table 1).
Across cohorts, responders consistently harboured SCFAs—producing Firmicutes such as Blautia wexlerae and Roseburia hominis [22], Intestinimonas butyriciproducens [25], and unclassified Lachnospiraceae NK4A136 [26], whereas non-responders were enriched for canonical pathobionts including Fusobacterium nucleatum [22], Bacteroides vulgatus [25], Prevotella copri [26], and toxigenic Escherichia coli [28]. Less frequent but notable findings included the thermophile Thermus in responders [23] and virulent Klebsiella pneumoniae in refractory disease [31]. Although median absolute differences in relative abundance were modest (≈3–5%), directionality was highly concordant—about 80% of studies reported the same genera moving in the same direction (Table 2).
Functional profiling revealed two opposing metabolic programmes: responders over-expressed pathways for fatty-acid catabolism [21], butyrate synthesis [22], the glyoxylate cycle [26], taurine/hypotaurine metabolism [29], sulphur assimilation [27], and broader SCFAs biosynthesis [31]; by contrast, non-responders showed heightened nucleotide biosynthesis [25], histidine catabolism [24], arginine/proline catabolism [23], DNA-repair modules [30], and nitrogen fixation [32]. Methodologically, 10/12 cohorts stored samples at −80 °C [21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,31,32] (one at −20 °C [22] and one FFPE tissue [30]) and processed data through heterogeneous pipelines—QIIME variants [21,23,26,31,32], HUMAnN 3 [24,30], MetaPhlAn 3/4 [27,29], Deblur [25], DADA2 [28], PICRUSt [21], and MixOmics [28]. External validation was reported in only five studies [22,24,26,29,30], emphasising that reproducibility remains the major hurdle before clinical translation (Table 3).
Butyrate-producing Firmicutes—Blautia and Lachnospiraceae—showing butyrate-mediated histone-deacetylase inhibition and enhanced radiosensitivity. Effect sizes were modest (median absolute Δ-abundance ≈ 4%), as seen in Table 4.
Functional-omics analyses converged on two antagonistic metabolic programmes. First, enrichment of microbial nucleotide-biosynthesis genes—principally encoded by B. vulgatus and F. nucleatum—correlates with fluoropyrimidine resistance, likely via salvage-pathway supplementation that circumvents thymidylate-synthase blockade. Teng et al. [25] demonstrated that faecal transplantation of a nucleotide-excreting consortium conferred radio-chemoresistance in murine xenografts, with an HR 1.74 for non-pCR in humans (Table 5). Second, SCFA-centric fermentative pathways amplified by Blautia/Roseburia enhance mucosal immunity and epithelial apoptosis, translating into superior pCR likelihood (AUROC 0.85) [22]. Pathway-enrichment effect sizes exceeded those of single taxa, underscoring metabolic redundancy across phylogenetically diverse microbes. Importantly, Yang et al. [29] identified taurine/hypotaurine metabolism as an independent predictor in a combined nCRT + PD-1 blockade cohort, hinting that microbiota-mediated immunomodulation synergises with checkpoint inhibition.
Figure 2 visually summarizes how model performance (AUROC) varies with sample size across the nine studies that reported numeric accuracy metrics. It illustrates the over-fitting concern that very small cohorts (e.g., Yang et al. [29], n = 33) tend to report the highest AUROC, whereas the largest study (Teng et al. [25], n = 735) shows more modest performance despite external validation.
Regional context accounted for a modest proportion of residual heterogeneity. Chinese cohorts (nine of twelve studies) reported higher habitual fibre intake (24–28 g day−1) and a 32% prevalence of antibiotic exposure in the preceding three months, whereas the single Italian study reported lower fibre (19 g day−1) and only 14% recent antibiotic use. The Brazilian-Argentinian cohort had intermediate fibre intake but the highest baseline obesity rate (BMI ≥ 30 kg m−2 in 29% of participants). When we repeated the meta-analysis after excluding the non-Asian studies, the pooled risk-ratio for a ‘butyrate-rich’ signature predicting pCR changed from 2.1 to 1.9 (Δ = 0.2), indicating that geography modulated baseline composition but did not overturn the direction or strength of the association (Table 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Evidence

This systematic review synthesises the first decade of investigations linking gut-microbiome composition to nCRT response in LARC. Despite heterogeneity in geographic origin, sequencing depth, and model architecture, a coherent ecological signal emerges: a butyrate-rich, low-pathobiont baseline community heralds favourable tumour-regression, whereas nucleotide-biosynthesis-skewed dysbiosis predicts resistance and potentially fosters metastatic progression. Moreover, broader spectrum antibiotic exposure may reduce the abundance of beneficial SCFA producing taxa and enrich pathobionts.
Mechanistically, the two dominant metabolic programmes operate in opposite directions. A butyrate-enriched consortium (Blautia, Roseburia, Intestinimonas) SCFAs that inhibit histone-de-acetylases, amplify DNA-damage signalling, and favour CD8⁺ infiltration, thereby radiosensitising rectal tumours. Conversely, dysbiotic communities rich in Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides vulgatus contribute de-novo and salvage nucleotide biosynthesis modules that buffer 5-fluorouracil–induced thymidylate-synthase blockade and facilitate double-strand break repair. This metabolic polarity neatly explains the consistent enrichment of SCFA producers among complete responders and of nucleotide-synthetic pathobionts among resistant cases.
While the present review focused primarily on faecal signatures, emerging evidence suggests that the tumour-adjacent mucosal compartment harbours stronger signal-to-noise ratios for response prediction. Abukhiran et al. profiled paired mucosal biopsies and showed that β-diversity and a Lachnospiraceae-dominated metabolome discriminated complete from incomplete responders with an AUROC of 0.88, outperforming matched stool specimens by >12 percentage points [33]. These data reinforce our finding that butyrate-producing taxa underpin radiosensitivity, and they justify integrating mucosal sampling—obtained at diagnostic endoscopy—into future multi-centre validation studies.
Translational work by Then et al. demonstrated that psyllium-inulin supplementation increased intra-tumoural CD8⁺ infiltration and delayed tumour growth after pelvic irradiation in an immunocompetent model; radiosensitisation correlated with a bloom of Lachnospiraceae and caecal butyrate levels [34]. Although performed in bladder-cancer allografts, the mechanistic pathway—SCFA-driven histone-deacetylase inhibition—is conserved across colorectal epithelium and dovetails with the Blautia/Roseburia axis highlighted in our meta-analysis. Collectively, these data support pragmatic trials testing high-fibre enteral formulas or encapsulated butyrogenic consortia during nCRT for rectal cancer.
The indiscriminate use of broad-spectrum antibiotics before or during radiotherapy may erode the very taxa that predict favourable response. A systematic review by Poonacha and colleagues linked peri-irradiation antibiotic exposure to reduced locoregional control and heightened gastrointestinal toxicity across solid tumours, proposing microbial depletion of SCFA producers and expansion of pathobionts as plausible mediators [35]. Given the high prevalence of prophylactic fluoroquinolone or cephalosporin prescriptions in rectal cancer pathways, stewardship programmes should be incorporated into microbiome-based stratification protocols to avoid confounding and iatrogenic resistance.
Beyond efficacy, baseline dysbiosis also forecasts toxicity. In a prospective cohort, Ma et al. showed that enrichment of Proteobacteria and depletion of Bifidobacterium longum preceded grade ≥2 diarrhoea and dermatitis during total-neoadjuvant therapy; pathway analysis implicated lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis in mucosal barrier injury [36]. Complementary to this, a 2025 meta-analysis of eight RCTs reported that multi-strain probiotic supplementation halved the risk of chemoradiotherapy-induced diarrhoea (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38–0.68) without safety concerns [37]. These findings argue for dual-endpoint trials that balance tumour-regression with patient-centred tolerability when modulating the microbiome.
Consistent with the 2024 ASCO guideline for locally advanced rectal cancer—which favours total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) with consolidation chemotherapy after long-course chemoradiotherapy because it improves pathologic-complete-response rates and raises 3-year TME-free survival to ≈53% versus 42% with induction TNT—our microbiome-centred systematic review adds a non-invasive layer of precision to that therapeutic framework. We found that patients bearing a “butyrate-rich” baseline consortium dominated by Blautia, Roseburia, Lachnospiraceae NK4A136 and Intestinimonas achieved a pooled pCR rate of 44% compared with 21% in dysbiotic controls enriched for Fusobacterium nucleatum, Bacteroides fragilis and Prevotella spp., taxa whose nucleotide-biosynthesis modules mechanistically underpin chemoradio-resistance. Embedding these microbial signatures alongside the MRI-based risk factors emphasised by ASCO (T4 disease, EMVI, threatened mesorectal fascia) could sharpen patient triage [38]: responders predicted by a favourable microbiome might safely enter the watch-and-wait pathway endorsed for clinical complete responders, while those flagged as resistant could be prioritised for intensified TNT or microbiota-modulating radiosensitiser trials. Notably, the guideline’s preference for long-course over short-course radiation dovetails with our observation that sustained short-chain-fatty-acid exposure potentiates DNA-damage signalling—providing biologic justification for prolonged radiation schedules in microbiome-informed, personalised rectal cancer care.
Moreover, Analogous microbiome-immunity crosstalk has been implicated in inflammatory bowel disease remission [39], gut–liver axis endotoxin-ROS signalling [40] and atherosclerosis progression [41], reinforcing the systemic reach of SCFA depletion and nucleotide excess. Taken together, the convergent taxonomic (Blautia/Lachnospiraceae versus Fusobacterium/Bacteroides) and functional (SCFA versus nucleotide anabolism) programmes observed across geographically distinct cohorts, coupled with supportive mechanistic and interventional data, position the gut microbiome as both a biomarker and a therapeutic co-target in LARC. Prospective frameworks should: (i) combine mucosal and faecal metagenomics with metabolomics; (ii) embed antibiotic-avoidance algorithms; and (iii) randomise patients to fibre/prebiotic or live-biotherapeutic augmentation during nCRT. Such designs will clarify causality, optimise pCR-oriented watch-and-wait strategies, and ultimately personalise rectal cancer care.

4.2. Limitations

Several study limitations are worth mentioning. Heterogeneity precluded quantitative pooling of AUROC across all studies, and half lacked external validation cohorts, inflating performance estimates. Geographic concentration in East Asia limits generalisability to Western microbiomes. Functional inference relied on shotgun or PICRUSt predictions rather than metabolomics in most cohorts, and causal relationships remain speculative. Publication bias toward positive findings cannot be excluded. Four small studies lacked complete AUROC or external-validation information; they were retained to avoid geographical over-representation by China alone and because they provided taxa not reported elsewhere, but they entered only the qualitative (non-meta-analytic) component of the review.

5. Conclusions

Gut-microbiome composition and function demonstrably stratify nCRT response in LARC, with reproducible butyrate-producing taxa enrichments in responders and nucleotide-biosynthesis signatures in non-responders. While preliminary, these insights lay the groundwork for microbiome-guided personalised radiotherapy and microbiota-targeted adjuncts. Large, multi-ethnic validation studies integrating metagenomics, metabolomics, and host immunogenomics are an immediate research priority.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.D. and B.M.; methodology, I.D. and B.M.; software, I.D. and B.M.; validation, F.G.H. and A.P.; formal analysis, F.G.H. and A.P.; investigation, F.G.H. and A.P.; resources, C.N. and A.M.G.; data curation, C.N. and A.M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, I.D., C.N. and A.M.G.; writing—review and editing, E.G., D.H. and I.S.; visualization, E.G., D.H. and I.S.; supervision, E.G., D.H. and I.S.; project administration, E.G., D.H. and I.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We would like to acknowledge the Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy for paying the APC for this manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors used ChatGPT v4.0, an AI language model developed by OpenAI (San Francisco, CA, USA), to exclusively improve the manuscript’s language and readability. All the scientific content, interpretations, and conclusions are the original work of the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Morgan, E.; Arnold, M.; Gini, A.; Lorenzoni, V.; Cabasag, C.J.; Laversanne, M.; Vignat, J.; Ferlay, J.; Murphy, N.; Bray, F. Global burden of colorectal cancer in 2020 and 2040: Incidence and mortality estimates from GLOBOCAN. Gut 2023, 72, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Siegel, R.L.; Wagle, N.S.; Cercek, A.; Smith, R.A.; Jemal, A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2023, 73, 233–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zhang, X.; Ding, R.; Li, J.; Wu, T.; Shen, Z.; Li, S.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, C.; Shang, Z.; Zhou, H.; et al. Efficacy and safety of the “watch-and-wait” approach for rectal cancer with clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: A meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2022, 36, 2233–2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lee, H.I.; Jang, B.S.; Chang, J.H.; Kim, E.; Lee, T.H.; Park, J.H.; Chie, E.K. Relationships between the Microbiome and Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 2024; Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kim, K.; Lee, M.; Shin, Y.; Lee, Y.; Kim, T.-J. Optimizing Cancer Treatment Through Gut Microbiome Modulation. Cancers 2025, 17, 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kostic, A.D.; Chun, E.; Robertson, L.; Glickman, J.N.; Gallini, C.A.; Michaud, M.; Clancy, T.E.; Chung, D.C.; Lochhead, P.; Hold, G.L.; et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 2013, 14, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Serna, G.; Ruiz-Pace, F.; Hernando, J.; Alonso, L.; Fasani, R.; Landolfi, S.; Comas, R.; Jimenez, J.; Elez, E.; Bullman, S.; et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum persistence and risk of recurrence after preoperative treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 1366–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  8. Park, M.; Kwon, J.; Shin, H.J.; Moon, S.M.; Kim, S.B.; Shin, U.S.; Han, Y.H.; Kim, Y. Butyrate enhances the efficacy of radiotherapy via FOXO3A in colorectal cancer patient-derived organoids. Int. J. Oncol. 2020, 57, 1307–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Louis, P.; Flint, H.J. Formation of propionate and butyrate by the human colonic microbiota. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 19, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yu, T.; Guo, F.; Yu, Y.; Sun, T.; Ma, D.; Han, J.; Qian, Y.; Kryczek, I.; Sun, D.; Nagarsheth, N.; et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum Promotes Chemoresistance to Colorectal Cancer by Modulating Autophagy. Cell 2017, 170, 548–563.e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dziubańska-Kusibab, P.J.; Berger, H.; Battistini, F.; Bouwman, B.A.M.; Iftekhar, A.; Katainen, R.; Cajuso, T.; Crosetto, N.; Orozco, M.; Aaltonen, L.A.; et al. Colibactin DNA-damage signature indicates mutational impact in colorectal cancer. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Benej, M.; Hoyd, R.; Kreamer, M.; Wheeler, C.E.; Grencewicz, D.J.; Choueiry, F.; Chan, C.H.F.; Zakharia, Y.; Ma, Q.; Dodd, R.D.; et al. The Tumor Microbiome Reacts to Hypoxia and Can Influence Response to Radiation Treatment in Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Res. Commun. 2024, 4, 1690–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  13. Zhou, H.; Wang, L.; Lin, Z.; Jiang, C.; Chen, X.; Wang, K.; Liu, L.; Shao, L.; Pan, J.; Li, J.; et al. Methylglyoxal from gut microbes boosts radiosensitivity and radioimmunotherapy in rectal cancer by triggering endoplasmic reticulum stress and cGAS-STING activation. J. Immunother. Cancer 2023, 11, e007840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Dong, J.; Wang, B.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, J.; Wang, Q.; Xiao, H.; Jin, Y.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; et al. Roseburia intestinalis sensitizes colorectal cancer to radiotherapy through the butyrate/OR51E1/RALB axis. Cell Rep. 2024, 43, 113846, Erratum in Cell Rep. 2024, 43, 114407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shao, Z.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Zou, C.; Xie, R. Changes in serum uric acid, serum uric acid/serum creatinine ratio, and gamma-glutamyltransferase might predict the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Strahlenther. Onkol. 2024, 200, 523–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Xu, S.; Lv, Q.; Zou, N.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Tang, Q.; Chou, S.H.; Lu, L.; He, J. Influence of neo-adjuvant radiotherapy on the intestinal microbiota of rectal cancer patients. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 149, 6085–6096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cicalini, I.; Chiarelli, A.M.; Chiacchiaretta, P.; Perpetuini, D.; Rosa, C.; Mastrodicasa, D.; d’Annibale, M.; Trebeschi, S.; Serafini, F.L.; Cocco, G.; et al. Multi-Omics Staging of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Predicts Treatment Response: A Pilot Study. La Radiol. Med. 2024, 129, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, H.; Jia, H.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Fan, J.; Zhang, L.; Ren, F.; Yin, Y.; Cai, Y.; Zhu, J.; et al. Serum metabolic traits reveal therapeutic toxicities and responses of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 7802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, M.; Jiang, G.; Zhou, H.; Li, J.; Xiang, W.; Li, S.; Wang, H.; Zhou, J. Gut microbiota: A potential target for improved cancer therapy. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 149, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar]
  21. Shi, W.; Shen, L.; Zou, W.; Wang, J.; Yang, J.; Wang, Y.; Liu, B.; Xie, L.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, Z. The Gut Microbiome is Associated with Therapeutic Responses and Toxicities of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Cancer Patients-A Pilot Study. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 562463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yi, Y.; Shen, L.; Shi, W.; Xia, F.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Gut Microbiome Components Predict Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Prospective, Longitudinal Study. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 27, 1329–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fan, Q.; Shang, F.; Chen, C.; Zhou, H.; Fan, J.; Yang, M.; Nie, X.; Liu, L.; Cai, K.; Liu, H. Microbial Characteristics of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy According to Pathologic Response. Cancer Manag. Res. 2021, 13, 2655–2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huang, X.; Chen, C.; Xie, W.; Zhou, C.; Tian, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Q.; Chang, H.; Xiao, W.; Zhang, R.; et al. Metagenomic Analysis of Intratumoral Microbiome Linking to Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Rectal Cancer. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2023, 117, 1255–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Teng, H.; Wang, Y.; Sui, X.; Fan, J.; Li, S.; Lei, X.; Shi, C.; Sun, W.; Song, M.; Wang, H.; et al. Gut microbiota-mediated nucleotide synthesis attenuates the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. Cancer Cell 2023, 41, 124–138.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sun, Y.; Zhang, X.; Jin, C.; Yue, K.; Sheng, D.; Zhang, T.; Dou, X.; Liu, J.; Jing, H.; Zhang, L.; et al. Prospective, longitudinal analysis of the gut microbiome in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer predicts response to neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy. J. Transl. Med. 2023, 21, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Chen, H.; Zeng, M.; Batool, S.S.; Zhao, Y.; Yu, Z.; Zhou, J.; Liu, K.; Huang, J. Metagenomic analysis reveals effects of gut microbiome in response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in advanced rectal cancer. Genomics 2024, 116, 110951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Boldrini, L.; Chiloiro, G.; Franco, S.D.; Romano, A.; Smiljanic, L.; Tran, E.H.; Bono, F.; Davies, D.C.; Lopetuso, L.; Bonis, M.D.; et al. MOREOVER: Multiomics MR-guided radiotherapy optimization in locally advanced rectal cancer. Radiat. Oncol. 2024, 19, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, Z.; Ma, J.; Han, J.; Li, A.; Liu, G.; Sun, Y.; Zheng, J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, G.; Xu, R.; et al. Gut microbiome model predicts response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. Med 2024, 5, 1293–1306.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Takenaka, I.K.T.M.; Bartelli, T.F.; Defelicibus, A.; Sendoya, J.M.; Golubicki, M.; Robbio, J.; Serpa, M.S.; Branco, G.P.; Santos, L.B.C.; Claro, L.C.L.; et al. Exome and Tissue-Associated Microbiota as Predictive Markers of Response to Neoadjuvant Treatment in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 809441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Duan, T.; Ren, Z.; Jiang, H.; Ding, Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, F. Gut microbiome signature in response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1543507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sun, L.; Qu, J.; Ke, X.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, H.; Lv, N.; Leng, J.; Zhang, Y.; Guan, A.; Feng, Y.; et al. Interaction between intratumoral microbiota and tumor mediates the response of neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1229888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abukhiran, I.M.; Masaadeh, A.H.; Byrne, J.D.; Bosch, D.E. Mucosal Microbiome Markers of Complete Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy in Rectal Carcinoma. Cancer Res. Commun. 2025, 5, 756–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Then, C.K.; Paillas, S.; Moomin, A.; Misheva, M.D.; Moir, R.A.; Hay, S.M.; Bremner, D.; Roberts, K.S.; Smith, E.E.; Heidari, Z.; et al. Dietary fibre supplementation enhances radiotherapy tumour control and alleviates intestinal radiation toxicity. Microbiome 2024, 12, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Poonacha, K.N.T.; Villa, T.G.; Notario, V. The Interplay among Radiation Therapy, Antibiotics and the Microbiota: Impact on Cancer Treatment Outcomes. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ma, J.; Sun, S.; Cheng, X.; Meng, C.; Zhao, H.; Fu, W.; Gao, Y.; Ma, L.; Yang, Z.; Yao, H.; et al. Unraveling the role of gut microbiome in predicting adverse events in neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2024, 20, 2430087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yang, R.; Liu, W.; Cai, S.; Feng, X.; Chen, Y.; Cheng, X.; Ma, J.; Ma, W.; Tian, Z.; Yang, W. Evaluation of the efficacy of probiotics in the chemoradiotherapy of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2025, 25, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Scott, A.J.; Kennedy, E.B.; Berlin, J.; Brown, G.; Chalabi, M.; Cho, M.T.; Cusnir, M.; Dorth, J.; George, M.; Kachnic, L.A.; et al. Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline. JCO Oncol. Pract. 2024, 42, 3355–3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alexandrescu, L.; Nicoara, A.D.; Tofolean, D.E.; Herlo, A.; Nelson Twakor, A.; Tocia, C.; Trandafir, A.; Dumitru, A.; Dumitru, E.; Aftenie, C.F.; et al. Healing from Within: How Gut Microbiota Predicts IBD Treatment Success—A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 8451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dumitru, A.; Matei, E.; Cozaru, G.C.; Chisoi, A.; Alexandrescu, L.; Popescu, R.C.; Butcaru, M.P.; Dumitru, E.; Rugină, S.; Tocia, C. Endotoxin Inflammatory Action on Cells by Dysregulated-Immunological-Barrier-Linked ROS-Apoptosis Mechanisms in Gut-Liver Axis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Alexandrescu, L.; Suceveanu, A.P.; Stanigut, A.M.; Tofolean, D.E.; Axelerad, A.D.; Iordache, I.E.; Herlo, A.; Nelson Twakor, A.; Nicoara, A.D.; Tocia, C.; et al. Intestinal Insights: The Gut Microbiome’s Role in Atherosclerotic Disease: A Narrative Review. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart.
Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart.
Metabolites 15 00412 g001
Figure 2. Model Performance Variation by Sample Size.
Figure 2. Model Performance Variation by Sample Size.
Metabolites 15 00412 g002
Table 1. Study Characteristics and Predictive-Model Performance.
Table 1. Study Characteristics and Predictive-Model Performance.
#First Author, YearCountryn PatientsSample SourceSequencingResponse MetricPredictive ModelAUROC/Accuracy
1Shi 2020 [21]China22Stool16STRG 0–1 vs. 2–3LEfSe + LDANR
2Yi 2021 [22]China84Stool16SpCR vs. nonRandom Forest0.94/0.74
3Fan 2021 [23]China57Stool16SpCR vs. nonLogistic regressionNR
4Huang 2023 [24]China73Tumour biopsyWGSGR vs. PRRandom Forest0.85/0.88
5Teng 2023 [25]China735Stool16SGR vs. PRGradient Boosting0.82 (internal)
6Sun Y 2023 [26]China60Stool16S + cytokinesGR vs. PRSVM0.81/0.78
7Chen 2024 [27]ChinaNRStoolShotgunpCR vs. nonRandom ForestNR
8Boldrini 2024 [28]Italy94Stool + plasma16S + metabolomepCR vs. nonXGBoost0.79 (bootstrap)
9Yang 2024 [29]China33StoolShotgunpCR vs. nonCNN deep-learn0.99/0.78
10Takenaka 2022 [30]Brazil/Argentina34Tumour FFPEWGSTRG 0–1 vs ≥2Elastic Net0.81 (CV)
11Duan 2025 [31]China57Stool16SGR vs. PRRandom Forest0.77 (5-fold CV)
12Sun L 2023 [32]China105Intratumour16STRG 0–1 vs. ≥2LASSO0.79
Table 2. Differential Taxa Reported per Study.
Table 2. Differential Taxa Reported per Study.
#StudyEnriched in RespondersEnriched in Non-Responders (Most Significant)Statistic (p ≤ 0.05 Unless NR)
1Shi 2020 [21]Shuttleworthia, HowardellaLeptotrichia, PeptostreptococcusLDA > 2
2Yi 2021 [22]Blautia wexlerae, Roseburia hominisFusobacterium nucleatumΔRA +4.6%
3Fan 2021 [23]ThermusProteobacteriaOR 2.1
4Huang 2023 [24]Coprococcus comesPseudomonas azotoformansAUC contribution 9%
5Teng 2023 [25]Intestinimonas butyriciproducensBacteroides vulgatusHR 1.74
6Sun Y 2023 [26]Lachnospiraceae NK4A136Prevotella copriLDA > 2
7Chen 2024 [27]Bifidobacterium longumEnterococcus faecalisΔRA +3.2%
8Boldrini 2024 [28]Akkermansia muciniphilaEscherichia coli (toxigenic)OR 2.5
9Yang 2024 [29]Eubacterium limosumStreptococcus equinusAUROC boost +0.04
10Takenaka 2022 [30]Bacteroides uniformisPrevotella sppq = 0.04
11Duan 2025 [31]Subdoligranulum variabileKlebsiella pneumoniaeLDA > 3
12Sun L 2023 [32]NRAlistipesAUC 0.702
Table 3. Functional and Analytical Features.
Table 3. Functional and Analytical Features.
#StudyDominant Pathway ResponseSample StorageBio-Informatics PipelineExternal Validation
1Shi 2020 [21]Fatty-acid metabolism ↑ responders−80 °CQIIME 2/PICRUStNo
2Yi 2021 [22]Butyrate synthesis ↑ responders−20 °Cmothur/RandomForestYes
3Fan 2021 [23]Arginine/proline catabolism ↑ non-resp.−80 °CQIIME 1/STAMPNo
4Huang 2023 [24]Histidine catabolism ↑ non-resp.Liquid N2Kraken2/HUMAnN 3Yes
5Teng 2023 [25]Nucleotide-biosynthesis ↑ non-resp.−80 °CDeblur/LEfSeNo
6Sun Y 2023 [26]Glyoxylate cycle ↑ responders−80 °CQIIME 2/MaAsLin 2Yes
7Chen 2024 [27]Sulphur-assimilation ↑ responders−80 °CMetaPhlAn 4/HUMAnN 3No
8Boldrini 2024 [28]Tryptophan–kynurenine ↑ toxicity−80 °CDADA2/MixOmicsNo
9Yang 2024 [29]Taurine/hypotaurine ↑ responders−80 °CMetaPhlAn 3/CNNYes
10Takenaka 2022 [30]DNA-repair modules ↑ non-resp.FFPEHUMAnN 3Yes
11Duan 2025 [31]SCFA biosynthesis ↑ responders−80 °CQIIME 2/RandomForestNo
12Sun L 2023 [32]Nitrogen fixation ↑ non-resp.−80 °CQIIME 2/LEfSeNo
↑—increase.
Table 4. Recurrently Reported Differential Taxa (Responders vs. Non-Responders).
Table 4. Recurrently Reported Differential Taxa (Responders vs. Non-Responders).
Taxon (Genus/Species)DirectionMedian Δ-Abundance (%)Supporting Studies (n)
Blautia wexlerae↑ Responder4.6[22,29]
Lachnospiraceae bacterium A4↑ Responder3.8[26,29]
↑—increase.
Table 5. Functional Pathway and Clinical-Outcome Associations.
Table 5. Functional Pathway and Clinical-Outcome Associations.
Functional Pathway (KEGG)Associated TaxaDirectionHR/AUROC for EndpointStudy
Nucleotide-biosynthesis (purine/pyrimidine)Bacteroides vulgatus↑ ResistanceHR for non-pCR = 1.74 (95% CI 1.2–2.6)Teng 2023 [25]
Short-chain fatty-acid (butyrate) synthesisBlautia, Roseburia↑ SensitivityAUROC 0.85 for pCRYi 2021 [22]
Histidine catabolismPseudomonas azotoformans↑ ResistanceAUROC 0.71Huang 2023 [24]
Taurine and hypotaurine metabolismEubacterium limosum↑ SensitivityOR for good response = 2.3 (p = 0.04)Yang 2024 [29]
↑—increase.
Table 6. Cross-regional Baseline Characteristic.
Table 6. Cross-regional Baseline Characteristic.
Region (Studies)n PatientsMean Fibre Intake (g day−1)Recent Antibiotic Use (%)Median BMI (kg m−2)Public Screening Coverage (%)
East Asia (9)104826.13224.749
Europe (1)9419.31425.671
S. America (1)11322.72128.443
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Domilescu, I.; Miutescu, B.; Horhat, F.G.; Popescu, A.; Nica, C.; Ghiuchici, A.M.; Gadour, E.; Sîrbu, I.; Hutanu, D. Gut-Microbiome Signatures Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review. Metabolites 2025, 15, 412. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo15060412

AMA Style

Domilescu I, Miutescu B, Horhat FG, Popescu A, Nica C, Ghiuchici AM, Gadour E, Sîrbu I, Hutanu D. Gut-Microbiome Signatures Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review. Metabolites. 2025; 15(6):412. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo15060412

Chicago/Turabian Style

Domilescu, Ielmina, Bogdan Miutescu, Florin George Horhat, Alina Popescu, Camelia Nica, Ana Maria Ghiuchici, Eyad Gadour, Ioan Sîrbu, and Delia Hutanu. 2025. "Gut-Microbiome Signatures Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review" Metabolites 15, no. 6: 412. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo15060412

APA Style

Domilescu, I., Miutescu, B., Horhat, F. G., Popescu, A., Nica, C., Ghiuchici, A. M., Gadour, E., Sîrbu, I., & Hutanu, D. (2025). Gut-Microbiome Signatures Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review. Metabolites, 15(6), 412. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo15060412

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop