Introduction
We greatly appreciate the insightful commentary that accompanied our recent systematic review, titled “Human gut, breast, and oral microbiome in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis” (1). The thoughtful remarks not only highlight the importance of our work but also contribute significantly to the broader dialogue surrounding microbiome-focused systematic reviews. We are grateful for the meticulous examination conducted by esteemed colleagues, as it undoubtedly enriches the credibility of our findings.
Commentary and discussion
Regarding the classification of breast cancer subtypes, we acknowledge the clarification provided. The AJCC Cancer Staging approach by Amin et al. (2017) utilizes a TNM-based system for assessing disease extent on a population level (2), while the molecular hallmarks-based classification for breast cancer by Loibl et al., 2021 is indeed the accurate concept (3). We appreciate your reference to the work by Orrantia-Borunda et al. (2022) that sheds light on the utilization of HER2 markers in classifying luminal A and B subtypes (4).
The need for correction in Table 5 is well noted, and it needs to be revised as “gynecological cancer”. With regard to Tables 3-5, we recognize your point about presenting microbiota detection methods in greater detail, specifying various sequencing techniques. We chose to highlight sequencing platforms to maintain clarity for general readers, given our primary focus on the microbiota findings in breast cancer.
We concur fully with the observation regarding the use of different measures of dispersion in the cited studies. The discrepancies between standard error in the study by Goedert in 2015 (5) and standard deviation in the study by Byrd in 2021 (6) were unintended oversights during our analysis. It is evident that data transposition errors of this nature are not uncommon in the realm of meta-analysis (7). The review conducted by Daniel et al. not only emphasized the pervasiveness of such concerns but also underscored the imperative of upholding meticulous statistical accuracy. Their findings shed light on the prevalence of these issues, revealing that within the domain of strength and conditioning research, nearly 85% of the 20 most extensively referenced meta-analyses were plagued by statistical inaccuracies. Of note, almost half of these studies (45%) contained at least one instance where effect sizes had been erroneously calculated using standard error instead of standard deviation (8).
This commentary underscores our commitment to scientific rigor and precision. It has also highlighted several key takeaways: the importance of accurately conveying information and referencing sources in the introduction, the sensitivity of data input in meta-analysis due to unit differences; and the potential benefits of providing more sequencing method details for a comprehensive view of microbiome diversity.
In conclusion, we primarily followed the PRISMA reporting guidelines (9) for our review. However, we recognize that there were aspects, particularly related to data items and synthesis methods, where data unit checks were lacking. We acknowledge the potential for improvement in future PRISMA reports to enhance accuracy and conciseness. Through this discourse, our aim is to fortify the foundation of microbiome studies, facilitating a deeper understanding of the intricate connections that underlie breast cancer’s development and progression. Thank you once again for the meticulous analysis and valuable contribution to advancing the quality of scientific research in this field.
Statements
Author contributions
MT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KP: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
ThuMSChotirosniramitKNopsoponTHirankarnNPongpirulK. Human gut, breast, and oral microbiome in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol (2023) 13:1144021. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1144021
2
AminMBGreeneFLEdgeSBComptonCCGershenwaldJEBrooklandRKet al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin (2017) 67(2):93–9. doi: 10.3322/caac.21388
3
LoiblSPoortmansPMorrowMDenkertCCuriglianoG. Breast cancer. Lancet (2021) 397(10286):1750–69. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32381-3
4
Orrantia-BorundaEAnchondo-NuñezPAcuña-AguilarLEGómez-VallesFORamírez-ValdespinoCA. Subtypes of breast cancer. In: MayrovitzHN, editor. Breast Cancer. Brisbane (AU: Exon Publications (2022).
5
GoedertJJJonesGHuaXXuXYuGFloresRet al. Investigation of the association between the fecal microbiota and breast cancer in postmenopausal women: a population-based case-control pilot study. J Natl Cancer Inst (2015) 107(8):djv147. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv147
6
ByrdDAVogtmannEWuZHanYWanYClegg-LampteyJNet al. Associations of fecal microbial profiles with breast cancer and nonmalignant breast disease in the Ghana Breast Health Study. Int J Cancer (2021) 148(11):2712–23. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33473
7
Granados-DuqueVGarcía-PerdomoHA. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Which pitfalls to avoid during this process. Int Braz J Urol (2021) 47(5):1037–41. doi: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2020.0746
8
KadlecDSainaniKLNimphiusS. With great power comes great responsibility: common errors in meta-analyses and meta-regressions in strength & Conditioning research. Sports Med (2023) 53(2):313–25. doi: 10.1007/s40279-022-01766-0
9
PageMJMoherDBossuytPMBoutronIHoffmannTCMulrowCDet al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (2021) 372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160
Summary
Keywords
microbiome, breast cancer, cancer staging, standard deviation, standard error
Citation
Thu MS and Pongpirul K (2023) Response: Commentary: Human gut, breast, and oral microbiome in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Oncol. 13:1279862. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1279862
Received
18 August 2023
Accepted
17 October 2023
Published
30 October 2023
Volume
13 - 2023
Edited by
George Grant, University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Peter Bai, University of Debrecen, Hungary; Di Ran, University of Illinois Chicago, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Thu and Pongpirul.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Krit Pongpirul, doctorkrit@gmail.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.