Is it possible that there is a connection between an individual’s gut microbiota and the ability to fight off gastrointestinal (GI) cancer? Findings from a preliminary research study performed by researchers in South Korea suggest that a link between the two may exist and that fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs) may enhance the efficacy of immunotherapies for GI cancer patients.
The proof-of-concept clinical trial, conducted at the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST), Gwangju 61005, Republic of Korea, analyzed how an FMT could help 13 patients with metastatic solid tumors that were resistant to the anti-PD-1 antibody drug known as nivolumab (Opdivo). Anti-PD-1 drugs are immunotherapies that help treat cancer by improving an individual’s immune response against cancer cells.
Four of the trial participants had gastric cancer, five had esophageal cancer, and the remaining four had hepatocellular carcinoma. The patients were given a colonoscopy to implant the FMTs. The recipients also received antibiotics to reduce the response of their existing microbiotas.
The FMT donors also had gastric cancer, esophageal cancer, or hepatocellular carcinoma. Prior to donating their fecal matter, the donors experienced complete or partial response to the anti-PD-1 drugs nivolumab or pembrolizumab (Keytruda) for at least six months after receiving initial treatments.
“This research highlights the complex interplay between beneficial and detrimental bacteria within the gut microbiota in determining treatment outcomes,” co-senior study author Hansoo Park, MD, PhD, Assistant Professor, Biomedical Science and Engineering, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology, told The ASCO Post. “While the connection between gut microbiota and immune response to cancer therapy has been a growing area of interest, our study provides concrete evidence and new avenues for improving treatment outcomes in a broader range of cancers,” he added. Further studies may confirm the need for microbiome testing by clinical laboratories to guide clinicians treating patients with colon cancers. (Photo copyright: Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology.)
Surprising Results
Fecal material for an FMT procedure combines donated fecal matter with a sterile saline solution which is then filtered to produce a liquid solution. That solution is then administered to the recipient via colonoscopy, upper GI endoscopy, enema, or an oral capsule. The solution may also be frozen for later use.
Upon analyzing the recipients, the scientists found that six of the patients (46.2%) who had experienced resistance to immunotherapies for their cancers, benefitted from the FMTs.
“Both donors were long-lasting, good responders to anti-PD-1 inhibitors, but because we did not yet know the causative bacteria responsible for the [FMT] response, we could not predict whether the treatment would be effective,” she added.
The researchers also determined that the presence of a bacterial strain known as Prevotella merdae helped to improve the effectiveness of the FMTs, while two strains of bacteria—Lactobacillus salivarius and Bacteroides plebeius (aka, Phocaeicola plebeius)—had a detrimental impact on the transplants.
Challenges to Widespread Adoption of FMTs
The researchers acknowledge there are challenges in widespread acceptance and use of FMTs in treating cancers but remain optimistic about the possibilities.
“Developing efficient and cost-effective methods for production and distribution is necessary for widespread adoption,” Sook Ryun Park told The ASCO Post. “Addressing these challenges through comprehensive research and careful planning will be essential for integrating FMT into the standard of care for cancer treatment.”
More research and clinical trials are needed before this use of FMTs can be utilized in clinical settings. However, the study does demonstrate that the potential benefits of FMTs may improve outcomes in patients with certain cancers. As this happens, microbiologists may gain a new role in analyzing the microbiomes of patients with gastrointestinal cancers.
“By examining the complex interactions within the microbiome, we hope to identify optimal microbial communities that can be used to enhance cancer treatment outcomes,” Hansoo Park told The ASCO Post. “This comprehensive approach will help us understand how the microbial ecosystem as a whole contributes to therapeutic success.”
Clinical laboratory scientists and microbiologists could play a role in helping doctors explain to patients the potential dangers of do-it-yourself medical treatments
Be careful what you wish for when you perform do-it-yourself (DIY) medical treatments. That’s the lesson learned by a woman who was seeking relief for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). When college student Daniell Koepke did her own fecal transplant using poop from her brother and her boyfriend as donors her IBS symptoms improved, but she began to experience medical conditions that afflicted both fecal donors.
“It’s possible that the bacteria in the stool can influence inflammation in the recipient’s body, by affecting their metabolism and activating their immune response,” microbial ecologist Jack Gilbert, PhD, Professor and Associate Vice Chancellor at University of California San Diego (UC San Diego) told Business Insider. “This would cause shifts in their hormonal activity, which could promote the bacteria that can cause acne on the skin. We nearly all have this bacterium on skin, but it is often dormant,” he added.
A Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT) is a procedure where stool from a healthy donor is transplanted into the microbiome of a patient plagued by a certain medical condition.
Our guts are home to trillions of microorganisms (aka, microbes), known as the gut microbiota, that serve many important functions in the body. The microbiome is a delicate ecosystem which can be pushed out of balance when advantageous microbes are outnumbered by unfavorable ones. An FMT is an uncomplicated and powerful method of repopulating the microbiome with beneficial microbes.
“With fecal microbiome transplants there is really compelling evidence, but the science is still developing. We’re still working on if it actually has benefits for wider populations and if the benefit is long-lasting,” said Gilbert in a Netflix documentary titled, “Hack Your Health: The Secrets of Your Gut.”
“The microbial community inside our gut can have surprising influences on different parts of our body,” microbial ecologist Jack Gilbert, PhD (above), of the Gilbert Lab at University of California San Diego told Business Insider. “Stools are screened before clinical FMTs, and anything that could cause major problems, such as certain pathogens, would be detected. When you do this at home, you don’t get that kind of screening.” Doctors and clinical laboratories screening patients for IBS understand the dangers of DIY medical treatments. (Photo copyright: University of California San Diego.)
Changing Poop Donors
When Koepke began experiencing symptoms of IBS including indigestion, stabbing pains from trapped gas and severe constipation, she initially turned to physicians for help.
In the Netflix documentary, Koepke stated that she was being prescribed antibiotics “like candy.” Over the course of five years, she completed six rounds of antibiotics per year, but to no avail.
She also changed her diet, removing foods that were making her symptoms worse. This caused her to lose weight and she eventually reached a point where she could only eat 10 to 15 foods.
“It’s really hard for me to remember what it was like to eat food before it became associated with anxiety and pain and discomfort,” she said.
In an attempt to relieve her IBS symptoms, Koepke made her own homemade fecal transplant pills using donated stool from her brother. After taking them her IBS symptoms subsided and she slowly gained weight. But she developed hormonal acne just like her brother.
Koepke then changed donors, using her boyfriend’s poop to make new fecal transplant pills. After she took the new pills, her acne dissipated but she developed depression, just like her boyfriend.
“Over time, I realized my depression was worse than it’s ever been in my life,” Koepke stated in the documentary.
She believes the microbes that were contributing to her boyfriend’s depression were also transplanted into her via the fecal transplant pills. When she reverted to using her brother’s poop, her depression abated within a week.
Gilbert told Business Insider his research illustrates that people who suffer from depression are lacking certain bacteria in their gut microbiome.
“She may have had the ‘anti-depressant’ bacteria in her gut, but when she swapped her microbiome with his, her anti-depressant bacteria got wiped out,” he said.
FDA Approves FMT Therapy for Certain Conditions
Typically, the fecal material for an FMT procedure performed by a doctor comes from fecal donors who have been rigorously screened for infections and diseases. The donations are mixed with a sterile saline solution and filtered which produces a liquid solution. That solution is then administered to a recipient or frozen for later use.
On November 30, 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first FMT therapy, called Rebyota, for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile (C. diff.) in adults whose symptoms do not respond to antibiotic therapies. Rebyota is a single-dose treatment that is administered rectally into the gut microbiome at a doctor’s office.
Then, in April of 2023, the FDA approved the use of a medicine called Vowst, which is the first oral FMT approved by the FDA.
According to the Cleveland Clinic, scientists are exploring the possibility that fecal transplants may be used as a possible treatment for many health conditions, including:
Doctors and clinical laboratories know that do-it-yourself medicine is typically not a good idea for obvious reasons. Patients seldom appreciate all the implications of the symptoms of an illness, nor do they fully understand the potentially dangerous consequences of self-treatment. Scientists are still researching the benefits of fecal microbiota transplants and hope to discover more uses for this treatment.
Accurate blood-based clinical laboratory testing for cancer promises to encourage more people to undergo early screening for deadly diseases
One holy grail in diagnostics is to develop less-invasive specimen types when screening or testing for different cancers. This is the motivation behind the creation of a new assay for colorectal (colon) cancer that uses a blood sample and that could be offered by clinical laboratories. The data on this assay and its performance was featured in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM).
The company developing this new test recognized that more than 50,000 people will die in 2024 from colon cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. That’s primarily because people do not like colonoscopies even though the procedure can detect cancer in its early stages. Similarly, patients tend to find collecting their own fecal samples for colon cancer screening tests to be unpleasant.
But the clinical laboratory blood test for cancer screening developed by Guardant Health may make diagnosing the deadly disease less invasive and save lives. The test “detects 83% of people with colorectal cancer with specificity of 90%,” a company press release noted.
“Early detection could prevent more than 90% of colorectal cancer-related deaths, yet more than one third of the screening-eligible population is not up to date with screening despite multiple available tests. A blood-based test has the potential to improve screening adherence, detect colorectal cancer earlier, and reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality,” the study authors wrote in the NEJM.
As noted above, this is the latest example of test developers working to develop clinical laboratory tests that are less invasive for patients, while equaling or exceeding the sensitivity and specificity of existing diagnostic assays for certain health conditions.
“I do think having a blood draw versus undergoing an invasive test will reach more people, My hope is that with more tools we can reach more people,” Barbara H. Jung, MD (above), President of the American Gastroenterological Association, told NPR. Clinical laboratory blood tests for cancer may encourage people who do not like colonoscopies to get regular screening. (Photo copyright: American Gastroenterology Association.)
Developing the Shield Blood Test
Colorectal cancer is the “third most common cancer among men and women in the US,” according to the American Gastrological Association (AGA). And yet, millions of people do not get regular screening for the disease.
To prove their Shield blood test, Guardant Health, a precision oncology company based in Redwood City, Calif., enrolled more than 20,000 patients between the ages of 45-84 from across the US in a prospective, multi-site registrational study called ECLIPSE (Evaluation of ctDNA LUNAR Assay In an Average Patient Screening Episode).
“We assessed the performance characteristics of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The coprimary outcomes were sensitivity for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) relative to screening colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions,” the study authors wrote in the NEJM.
In March, Guardant completed clinical trials of its Shield blood test for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) in men and women. According to the company press release, the test demonstrated:
83% sensitivity in detecting individuals with CRC.
88% sensitivity in detecting pathology-confirmed Stages I-III.
Additionally, the Shield test showed sensitivity by stage of:
65% for pathology-confirmed Stage I,
55% for clinical Stage I,
100% for Stage II, and
100% for Stage III.
“The results of the study are a promising step toward developing more convenient tools to detect colorectal cancer early while it is more easily treated,” said molecular biologist and gastroenterologist William M. Grady, MD, Medical Director, Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Program at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and corresponding author of the ECLIPSE study in the press release. “The test, which has an accuracy rate for colon cancer detection similar to stool tests used for early detection of cancer, could offer an alternative for patients who may otherwise decline current screening options.”
Are Colonoscopies Still Needed?
“More than three out of four Americans who die from colorectal cancer are not up to date with their recommended screening, highlighting the need for a more convenient and less invasive screening method that can overcome barriers associated with traditional options,” Daniel Chung, MD, gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in the Guardant press release.
Barbara H. Jung, MD, President of the American Gastroenterological Association, says that even if Guardant’s Shield test makes it to the public the “dreaded colonoscopy” will still be needed because the procedure is used to locate and test polyps. “And when you find those you can also remove them, which in turn prevents the cancer from forming,” she told NPR.
There is hope that less invasive clinical laboratory testing will encourage more individuals to get screened for cancer earlier and regularly, and that the shift will result in a reduction in cancer rates.
“Colorectal cancer is highly treatable if caught in the early stages,” said Chris Evans, President of the Colon Cancer Coalition, in the Guardant press release.
Guardant Health’s ECLIPSE study is a prime example of the push clinical laboratory test developers are making to create user-friendly test options that make it easier for patients to follow through with regular screening for early detection of diseases. It echoes a larger effort in the medical community to think outside the box and come up with creative solutions to reach wider audiences in the name of prevention.
Norwegian researchers reviewed large clinical trials of six common cancer screenings, including clinical laboratory tests, but some experts question the findings
Cancer screenings are a critical tool for diagnosis and treatment. But how much do they actually extend the lives of patients? According to researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway, not by much. They recently conducted a review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term clinical trials, five of the six most commonly used types of cancer screening—including two clinical laboratory tests—and found that with few exceptions, the screenings did not significantly extend lifespans.
The 18 long-term clinical trials included in the study were randomized trials that collectively included a total of 2.1 million participants. Median follow-up periods of 10 to 15 years were used to gauge estimated lifetime gain and mortality.
“The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy,” the researchers wrote in their published paper.
The researchers noted, however, that their analysis does not suggest all screenings should be abandoned. They also acknowledged that some lives are saved by screenings.
“Without screening, these patients may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage,” the scientists wrote, MedPage Today reported. “Thus, these patients experience a gain in lifetime.”
Still, some independent experts questioned the validity of the findings.
Gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD (above), a professor at the University of Oslo in Norway led the research into cancer screenings. In their JAMA Internal Medicine paper, he and his team wrote, “The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy may extend life by approximately three months; lifetime gain for other screening tests appears to be unlikely or uncertain.” How their findings might affect clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology screening for cancer remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: University of Oslo.)
Pros and Cons of Cancer Screening
The clinical trials, according to MedPage Today and Oncology Nursing News covered the following tests:
Mammography screening for breast cancer (two trials).
As reported in these trials, “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life,” the researchers wrote. “An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using computed tomography, but estimates are uncertain.”
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends certain types of screening tests to detect cancers and pre-cancers before they can spread, thus improving the chances for survival.
The ACS advises screenings for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and cervical cancer regardless of whether the individual is considered high risk. Lung cancer screenings are advised for people with a history of smoking. Men who are 45 to 50 or older should discuss the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening with their healthcare providers, the ACS states.
A CNN report about the University of Oslo study noted that the benefits and drawbacks of cancer screening have long been well known to doctors.
“Some positive screening results are false positives, which can lead to unnecessary anxiety as well as additional screening that can be expensive,” CNN reported. “Tests can also give a false negative and thus a false sense of security. Sometimes too, treatment can be unnecessary, resulting in a net harm rather than a net benefit, studies show.”
In their JAMA paper, the University of Oslo researchers wrote, “The critical question is whether the benefits for the few are sufficiently large to warrant the associated harms for many. It is entirely possible that multicancer detection blood tests do save lives and warrant the attendant costs and harms. But we will never know unless we ask,” CNN reported.
Hidden Impact on Cancer Mortality
ACS Chief Scientific Officer William Dahut, MD, told CNN that screenings may have an impact on cancer mortality in ways that might not be apparent from randomized trials. He noted that there’s been a decline in deaths from cervical cancer and prostate cancer since doctors began advising routine testing.
“Cancer screening was never really designed to increase longevity,” Dahut said. “Screenings are really designed to decrease premature deaths from cancer.” For example, “if a person’s life expectancy at birth was 80, a cancer screening may prevent their premature death at 65, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d live to be 90 instead of the predicted 80,” CNN reported.
Dahut told CNN that fully assessing the impact of cancer screenings on life expectancy would require a clinical trial larger than those in the new study, and one that followed patients “for a very long time.”
“From its title, one would have expected this paper to be based on analysis of individual lifetime data. However, it is not,” he wrote in a compilation of expert commentary from the UK’s Science Media Center. “The paper’s conclusions are based on arithmetic manipulation of relative rates of all-cause mortality in some of the screening trials. It is therefore difficult to give credence to the claim that screening largely does not extend expected lifetime.”
He also questioned the inclusion of one particular trial in the University of Oslo study—the Canadian National Breast Screening Study—“as there is now public domain evidence of subversion of the randomization in this trial,” he added.
Another expert, Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter in the UK, described the University of Oslo study as “methodologically sound with some limitations which the authors clearly state.”
But he observed that “the focus on 2.1 million individuals is slightly misleading. The study considered many different screening tests and 2.1 million was indeed the total number of included patients, however, no calculation included that many people.”
Jackson also characterized the length of follow-up as a limitation. “This may have limited the amount of data included and also not considering longer follow-up may tend to underestimate the effects of screening,” he said.
This published study—along with the range of credible criticisms offered by other scientists—demonstrates how analysis of huge volumes of data is making it possible to tease out useful new insights. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect to see other examples of researchers assembling large quantities of data across different areas of medicine. This huge pools of data will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of many medical procedures that have been performed for years with a belief that they are helpful.
GI pathologists will be interested in how the Endoculus device uses tank-like treads to traverse the gastrointestinal tract, where it can capture images and perform biopsies
Gastroenterologists (GI) may soon gain a useful new tool for use in gathering both biopsies and diagnostic information when examining the gastrointestinal tract. Ongoing development of a new robotic device promises both capabilities using technology that will be of interest to GI pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists.
The minute robotic device uses tank-like treads to traverse the colon. While there, it can capture live images and perform biopsies under the control of a gastroenterologist. The researchers believe the robotic technology will benefit GIs performing the colonoscopies as well as the pathologists called upon to analyze biopsies.
“Currently, endoscopy consists of a gastroenterologist using a semi-rigid, long rope-like device and endoscope to propel through your colon manually,” Gregory Formosa, PhD (above) a member of the AMTL team that developed Endoculus, said in a YouTube video describing the device. “We think that a robotic capsule endoscope can replace conventional endoscopes by making them faster, safer, and more robust than a human operator can do currently with traditional techniques,” he added. (Photo copyright: University of Colorado.)
AMTL researcher Gregory Formosa, PhD, said the team’s goal is to “have a capsule-sized robot that can actively traverse [a patient’s] entire gastrointestinal tract and send out diagnostics in real time, as well as autonomously navigate itself to localize problematic areas within [the] intestinal tract.”
Formosa noted that colorectal cancer is “the third-most fatal and diagnosed cancer in the United States.” But if caught at an early stage, these cancers are “95% treatable,” he added. “So, if we can get people screened early, we definitely can reduce the fatality rate of colorectal cancers significantly.”
Currently about the size of a C battery, Endoculus (above) is a “fully packed medical device, complete with a camera, an air pump for inflating the colon, a water pump for cleaning, and a tool port for holding biopsy snares,” states a University of Colorado news story, titled, “A Robot May One Day Perform Your Colonoscopy.” (Photo copyright: University of Colorado.)
How Endoculus Works
One key to the device are the four treads, which are designed for traction on digestive tissue.
“You have to forget about everything you know from a locomotion standpoint because driving around inside the body is very different than driving around in a car,” said Rentschler in the University of Colorado news story. “The environment is highly deformable. It’s very slick. There are sharp peaks that you have to go over.”
The university news story noted the current availability of ingestible “pill cams” that can take photos as they travel through the digestive system. But once swallowed, their movements cannot be controlled.
“For our robots to be able to reach those regions that [can be] reached with a pill-cam—but also be able to stop and look around—that could be a big paradigm shift in the way we view these procedures,” said Micah Prendergast, PhD, an AMTL research team member.
Could Biopsies Be Diagnosed In Situ with Endoculus?
The researchers currently view Endoculus as a potentially better way to perform conventional biopsies. But could it lead to bigger advancements?
“Researchers continue to develop devices to help various specialist physicians—in this case GIs—do more when treating patients,” said Dark Daily Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Robert Michel. “This device fits that description. It is designed to improve the ability of GIs to evaluate the colon. Not only does this device do that, but it can also collect a biopsy at sites of interest. In this way, it is a device that can be a benefit to pathologists who will analyze the biopsy.
“With improvements in digital cameras and associated AI-powered analytical tools, the day might not be far off when a device like this can use the camera and artificial intelligence to diagnose the tissue of interest in situ,” he added. “This might create the opportunity for pathologists to be present in the exam room during the procedure, or even viewing the images remotely.
“Not only would that eliminate the need to collect a tissue specimen that must then be sent to a pathology lab, but it would create a new opportunity for pathologists to add value to patient care while shortening the time to diagnosis for the tissue of interest during these procedures,” Michel noted.
