https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5768-2714
Figures
Abstract
Probiotics have become increasingly popular among cancer patients. However, there is limited data from a real-world setting. This study aims to conduct a retrospective analysis to understand the trend of probiotic prescriptions in Chinese colorectal cancer patients. The Mann-Kendall and Cochran-Armitage trend test was applied to estimate the trend significance. Gephi software identified the combination of probiotic strains. The binary logistic regression investigated influence factors, and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient calculated correlations between probiotics and antitumor drug usage. The probiotic prescription percentage increased from 3.3% in 2015 to 4.2% in 2021 (Z = 12.77, p < 0.001). Although 48.3% of probiotic prescriptions had no indication-related diagnosis, diarrhea (OR 10.91, 95% CI 10.57–11.26) and dyspepsia (3.97, 3.82–4.12) included prescriptions most likely to contain probiotics. Prescriptions from the tertiary hospital (1.43,1.36–1.50), clinics (1.30, 1.28–1.33), and senior patients (1.018 per year, 1.017–1.019) were more likely to contain probiotics. Most probiotic prescriptions (95.0%) contained one probiotic product but multiple strains (69.3%). Enterococcus faecalis (49.7%), Lactobacillus acidophilus (39.4%), and Clostridium butyricum (27.9%) were the most prescribed strains. The probiotics co-prescribed with antitumor agents increased rapidly from 6.6% to 13.8% in seven years (Z = 15.31, p < 0.001). Oral fluorouracil agents (2.35, 2.14–2.59), regorafenib (1.70,1.27–2.26), and irinotecan (1.27,1.15–1.41) had a higher probability to co-prescribed with probiotics. There was no correlation between probiotic strain selection and specific antitumor drug use. The increasing prescription of probiotics in colorectal cancer patients in China may be related to treating the gastrointestinal toxicity of anti-cancer drugs. With unapproved indications and a lack of strain selectivity, evidence-based guidelines are urgently needed to improve probiotic use in this population.
Citation: Yao D, He W, Hu Y, Yuan Y, Xu H, Wang J, et al. (2023) Prevalence and influencing factors of probiotic usage among colorectal cancer patients in China: A national database study. PLoS ONE 18(9): e0291864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291864
Editor: José António Baptista Machado Soares, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, ECUADOR
Received: November 8, 2022; Accepted: September 7, 2023; Published: September 21, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Yao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data that support the findings of this study contains potentially sensitive patient information. The Committee of the 2nd Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University has imposed the restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from corresponding author Haibin Dai with the permission of the Ethics Committee of the 2nd Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University. The contact information of the Ethics Committee is keyanlunli_zheer@163.com.
Funding: This study is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province(No. LYY22H310016), awarded by YH. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignant tumours worldwide, accounting for the third-highest incidence (10.0%) and second-highest (9.4%) mortality [1, 2]. CRC incidence rates tend to rise uniformly with socioeconomic development [3]. Compared with transitioning countries, incidence and mortality rates in transitioned countries are approximately 4-fold and 2.6-fold higher [1]. The trends of CRC incidence and mortality in transitioned countries (the United States, Japan, and France) are stabilizing or decreasing. However, the incidence and mortality of CRC patients in China have increased in the last decade [4, 5]. According to the estimates from GLOBOCAN (https://gco.iarc.fr/), there were 555477 new CRC patients and 286162 CRC-related deaths in China in 2020, accounting for 28.8% and 30.6% of the global total [1]. In 2020, the incidence and mortality of CRC ranked second (12.2%) and fourth (9.5%) among all cancers in China. There is growing evidence that gut microbiota can alter the toxicity and effectiveness of CRC treatments [6–9].
Probiotics are live microorganisms that benefit the host when given in sufficient amounts [10]. Many probiotic genera are reported in CRC studies, including Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Bifidobacterium, Clostridium, Bacillus, Saccharomyces, Pediococcus, and Leuconostoc [11–16]. The role of probiotics in CRC is becoming increasingly evident [12, 17–19]. By altering the composition of gut microorganisms, enhancing gut tight junctions, and changing the expression of intestinal inflammatory factors [13, 14, 20], probiotics improve intestinal function and reduce complications in CRC patients [9, 13, 15–18, 21–25]. However, since probiotics may cause sepsis, the safety of probiotics in cancer patients is also a continuing concern [26–29].
Clinical probiotic indications include diarrhea, constipation, indigestion, and gastroenteritis caused by gut microbiota dysbiosis [30, 31]. In 2011, an extensive telephone survey showed that 25.4% of 873 consumers in New Zealand used probiotics [32]. Most probiotic users (75.2%) took it on medical recommendations. Probiotics were primarily alongside antibiotic treatment (23%) and gastrointestinal disorders (27.5%). In a study of 145 US hospitals, probiotics were used in about 2.6% of hospitalizations in 2012 [33]. The top-used probiotic formulations were Saccharomyces boulardii (32%), Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus (30%), Lactobacillus acidophilus (28%), and Lactobacillus rhamnosus (11%). Probiotic use increased significantly from 1.0% in 2006 to 2.9% in 2012. Another survey of probiotic use among patients at a tertiary medical center in the U.S. showed that 55% (333) responders had recently used probiotics, including food products (90% of probiotic users) and/or supplements (60%) [34, 35]. Most patients (56%) choose a probiotic mixture. Only a few patients (12%) were recommended for use by physicians. Another U.S. consumer survey conducted in 2017 found that 39.4% of responders (n = 396) used probiotics [36]. In 2017, a Slovakia prospective outpatient survey study reported for the first time the prevalence, side effects, and factors that most likely influence probiotic use in cancer patients [30]. In a database descriptive cross-sectional study involving 212 patients with and without cancer, probiotics were used by 9.9% of cancer patients and 7.3% of non-cancer patients before receiving integrative medicine and health consultations [37].
The usage of probiotics varies significantly from study to study due to the different subjects included and the different definitions of probiotic use (such as whether probiotic foods are included or not). The prevalence of probiotics usage in reality Chinese cancer patients, especially CRC patients, has not been reported. In addition, the most prescribed probiotic strains or mixtures in clinical research are not necessarily consistent with those in clinical practice. Hospital prescription sample research helps quantitatively estimate the current probiotic prescription trends in reality CRC patients. It provides the basis for clinical guidance, public health work, and research direction. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate and characterize the hospital probiotic prescription trends in Chinses CRC patients.
Materials and methods
Study design and ethical approval
We extracted the prescription data retrospectively from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project (HPACP). The ethics committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University approved this study (2020–827) and the newly added prescription data from 2020 to 2021 as the revised content of the research plan (2023–167). The same committee waived informed consent as part of the approval.
Data source and prescription information extraction
HPACP is a national multi-center hospital prescription database [38–46]. Each participating hospital randomly selects ten days from its prescription information and uploads it to this database every quarter. Different prescriptions for the same patient are defined as individual data. One hundred and one hospitals in eight major Chinese cities collected CRC prescriptions for this study. S1 Table describes the distribution and grade of hospitals.
Prescriptions that met the following criteria were included: (1) Prescriptions from hospitals located in eight major areas of China (Beijing, Chengdu, Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Shenyang, Tianjin, and Zhengzhou); (2) Prescriptions from secondary and tertiary hospitals that participated in the program continuously from 2015 to 2021; (3) Prescriptions written during 2015 and 2021; (4) Prescriptions written for patients with the diagnosis of colon, rectal, or colorectal cancer.
Data for 2015 to 2019 were collected from October 15, 2020, to October 20, 2020. Data for 2020 to 2021 were collected from February 22, 2023, to February 24, 2023. HPACP applied Microsoft Access for data storage, filtration and extraction. According to the inclusion criteria, there 1216700 prescriptions were initially included. After removing 295 prescriptions for patients under 18 and 96 prescriptions from first-class hospitals, 1216309 prescriptions for patients with colorectal cancer were left. Prescription code, patient gender, age, hospital location, diagnosis, inpatient or outpatient, generic name, and price of probiotics were collected. HPACP used prescription coding to de-identify patient information and protect patient identity. The authors could not identify individual participants during or after data collection. The ethics committees approved the prescription extraction of HPACP of participating hospitals. This study began on October 21, 2020.
Statistical analysis
We applied Sankey Diagrams by RAWGraghs 2.0 (https://www.rawgraphs.io/) to visualize the source of prescriptions. We analyzed the consumption and expenditure of probiotics as a whole and separately according to different formulations and strains. The average cost per visit was the yearly probiotic expenditure divided by the number of probiotic prescriptions. The statistical significance of trends for the usage and cost of total probiotics was analyzed using the Mann-Kendall test. Other probiotic trends were estimated using the Cochran-Armitage trend test R V.3.3.0 (http://www.R-project.org). We demonstrate the mixture of different probiotic strains by Gephi software (version 0.9.4). Backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression with SPSS 26.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Ill) investigated risk factors for antitumor agents co-prescribed with probiotics. Variables with p < 0.2 in single-variable comparisons were included in a multivariable logistic regression model. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Relative risk was estimated using odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient with SPSS 26.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc, Chicago, Ill) calculated correlations between probiotic strain and antitumor drug usage. A p-value less than 0.05 is statistically significant.
Results
Overall trends and expenditure of probiotic prescriptions
There were 1216309 CRC prescriptions from 2415 departments of 101 hospitals. The number of CRC prescriptions varied significantly among the 101 hospitals, ranging from 0.0 to 378.5 per day, with an average of 43.0 ± 69.7 (S2 Table). The 15 hospitals with the most prescriptions were 190.9 prescriptions per day. In the remaining 86 hospitals, the average number of daily prescriptions was 17.2. Among them, 47290 prescriptions from 1089 departments of 93 hospitals contained probiotics.
According to co-prescription drugs and diagnostic analysis, 48.3% of probiotic prescriptions were without gastrointestinal symptoms (OR 0.57, 0.56–0.58, p < 0.001). Besides, gastroenteritis (27.7%, 1.38, 95% CI 1.35–1.41, p < 0.001) was the most common gastrointestinal symptom for probiotic prescriptions, followed by constipation (13.5%, 1.34, 1.30–1.38, p < 0.001), diarrhea (13.4%, 10.91, 10.57–11.26, p < 0.001), gastrointestinal dysfunction (12.5%, 0.77,0.75–0.79, p < 0.001), dyspepsia (8.8%, 3.97, 3.82–4.12, p < 0.001). In addition, tertiary hospital (1.43,1.36–1.50, p < 0.001), outpatient (1.30, 1.28–1.33, p < 0.001), older CRC patients (1.018 per year, 1.017–1.019, p < 0.001) prescriptions were more likely to have probiotics.
There were 21 probiotic products identified, including 13 formulations in 20 dosage units and 15 probiotic strains (S3 Table). All products are Chinese Pharmacopoeia listed. The probiotic strains come from healthy human flora or other species [47]. Over the seven years, the annual probiotic prescription number increased by 82.1%, and the proportion of probiotic prescriptions increased significantly from 3.3% to 4.2% (Z = 12.771, p < 0.001, Table 1). Meanwhile, the yearly and average visit cost of probiotics increased by 109.0% (z = 3.00, p = 0.003) and 14.8% (z = 2.40, p = 0.016), respectively.
In 2015, there was 6.6% of probiotics co-prescribed with antitumor drugs. In 2021, it increased to 13.8% (Z = 15.31, p < 0.001). At the same time, the proportion of probiotics co-prescribed with antibiotics or antibiotics plus antitumor drugs was relatively stable. Probiotics co-prescribed with antibiotics accounted for about 15% of all prescriptions (Z = 4.34, p < 0.001). Less than 1% of probiotics were co-prescribed antitumor drugs and antibiotics (Z = 0.90, p = 0.368).
Descriptive statistics of probiotic prescriptions
Table 2 shows the demographic data of the probiotic prescriptions. Male patients’ prescriptions accounted for 61.5% of the seven-year probiotic prescriptions. The probiotic prescriptions for patients under 40 was the least (3.5%), followed by patient aged 40–49 (7.8%) within seven years. Gender and age distribution were relatively stable during the study period. The mean patient age of probiotic prescriptions was 65.9 ± 13.7 years over seven years. Among them, patients co-prescribed antitumor drugs (60.3 ± 11.8, p < 0.001) or antibiotics (63.8 ± 12.8, p < 0.001) were younger. There was no significant difference in gender.
As shown in Fig 1, probiotic prescriptions varied considerably across hospitals and medical departments. The proportion of probiotic prescriptions in different hospitals ranged from 0 to 12 percent. The top 10 hospitals and top 20 departments accounted for 50.5% and 43.0% of probiotic prescriptions. In addition, the number of probiotic prescriptions varied by medical specialty. Surgery accounted for 48.6%, and internal medicine for 41.3%. Radiology, traditional Chinese medicine, intensive critical care, and other specialties accounted for 10.1% of the total.
Hospitals and medical departments are listed in descending order according to the probiotic prescription number. H1 is the hospital with the most probiotic prescriptions. CW1 is the department with the most probiotic prescriptions. Percentages in parentheses are the percentage of total probiotic prescriptions over seven years.
The prescribing trend of probiotic formulations
According to different strain numbers of probiotic formulations (S3 Table), prescriptions were classified and analyzed. Three-strain probiotic formulations ranked first in percent of visits (PV), as shown in Fig 2A, accounting for 56.7% of probiotic prescriptions during the study period (Z = 0.03, p = 0.978). The PV of single-strain probiotics was 34.7% (Z = 1.21, p = 0.225). Two-strain probiotics were the only class of probiotics in which PV decreased from 13.9% in 2015 to 6.7% in 2021 (Z = -9.87, p < 0.001). Four-strain probiotic PV increased from 2.8% in 2015 to 7.7% in 2021 (Z = 11.36, p < 0.001).
(A) The proportion of probiotic prescriptions; (B) The total probiotic prescription cost; (C) The average cost per probiotic prescription.
The ranking of total probiotic expenditure was consistent with the order of prescription quantity. From 2015–2021, ¥1.94 million (Chinese currency Yuan) was spent on three-strain probiotics, making it the highest class in the total expenses (Fig 2B) and per capita expenses (Fig 2C). Single-strain probiotics ranked second in all four classes, costing ¥ 0.69 million. Two-strain and four-strain probiotic products cost 0.24 and 0.10, respectively. The yearly expense for three-strain (Z = 19.82, p < 0.001) and four-strain (Z = 75.33, p < 0.001) probiotic products increased significantly during 2015–2021. Meanwhile, the total yearly expense of single-strain (Z = -81.66, p < 0.001) and two-strain (Z = -81.55, p < 0.001) probiotic products dramatically declined.
The prescribing trends of individual probiotic formulations were analyzed. There were a total of six single-strain probiotic formulations identified. Bacillus licheniformis (15.2%, Z = 8.08, p < 0.001), Clostridium butyricum (14.9%, Z = -1.09, p = 0.277), and Bifidobacterium adolescentis (3.6%, Z = -6.53, p < 0.001) (Fig 3) were the most prescribed single-strain probiotic fornulations, The PV of Bacillus coagulans (0.4%, Z = -10.03, p < 0.001), Bacillus Cereus, or Saccharomyces Boulardii was less than 0.5% (0.5%, Z = 0.01, p = 0.99), with a non-increasing prescribing trend.
(A) Single-strain formulations; (B) Two-strain formulations; (C) Three-strain formulations.
Within the study years, there was a decrease in the use of two-strain probiotic formulations. Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus faecium accounted from 10.7% to 6.6% (Z = -2.65, p = 0.008). Clostridium butyricum and Bifidobacterium infantis declined from 3.2% to 0.1% (Z = -13.08, p = 0.008).
The number of prescriptions for the three-strain formulas remained stable. Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus faecalis, and Bacillus subtilis were the most prescribed probiotic mixture in this study, which accounted for 21.3% PV in total (Z = -1.65, p = 0.100). Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis accounted for 14.3% (Z = -1.32, p = 0.187) of probiotic prescriptions. The seven-year PV of Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, and Streptococcus thermophilus was 11.2% (Z = 1.02, p = 0.307). The seven-year PV of Clostridium butyricum, Bacillus mesentericus, and Enterococcus faecalis was 10.9% with a decreasing trend (Z = -4.40, p < 0.001).
The only four-strain probiotic formulation consisted of Bifidobacterium infantis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Bacillus cereus. The PV of this formulation significantly increased from 2.8% to 7.7% (Z = 11.36, p < 0.001).
Trends of probiotic prescribing patterns
Most prescriptions contained just a single probiotic product (95.0%, Z = 0.124, p = 0.902, S4 Table) but multi strains (69.3%, Z = -0.36, p = 0.719). The combined use of probiotic strains was consistent with the trend of formulation application. There were 30.7% single-strain probiotic prescriptions (Z = -0.615, p = 0.538). Three-stain combination accounted for 52.5% of probiotic prescriptions (Z = 0.436, p = 0.663). The two-strain combination decreased from 13.4% to 6.1% (Z = -9.49, p < 0.001). Prescriptions containing four or more probiotic strains increased from 6.2% to 12.0% (Z = 6.28, p < 0.001).
There were the prescribing trends of specific probiotic strains in the S4 Table. Enterococcus spp, Bacillus spp, Lactobacillus spp, and Bifidobacterium spp were the most prescribed probiotic genus. Enterococcus faecalis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bacillus subtilis, Bifidobacterium longum, and Clostridium butyricum were the most prescribed probiotic strains, accounting for 50.6% (Z = 1.36, p = 0.173), 40.0% (Z = 3.59, p < 0.001), 27.6% (Z = 0.25, p = 0.799), 25.7% (Z = -0.313, p = 0.754), and 17.4% (Z = -5.70, p < 0.001), respectively. Among them, the prescription of Bacillus cereus (4.7%, Z = 8.85, p < 0.001), Bifidobacterium adolescentic (5.1%, Z = 5.16, p < 0.001), and Lactobacillus acidophilus increased over seven years. Other probiotic strain usage remained stable or decreasing trend.
To identify the co-prescribing of different probiotic strains, we applied Gephi software for network analysis. As shown in Fig 4, nine of the 15 probiotic strains were never used alone (red node label) because there are no single-strain formulations for these nine strains. The most prescribed of these nine strains is Enterococcus faecalis, which consists of four formulations, including the most prescribed formulation. The remaining six strains were prescribed alone or in combination (black node label). Bacillus coagulans and Clostridium butyricum form multi-strain formulations with other probiotics. Therefore, there was a higher co-prescribed rate of Bacillus cereus (90.2%) and Clostridium butyricum (49.9%) than Bacillus licheniformis (20.0%), Bifidobacterium adolescentis (4.6%) and Bacillus coagulans (0.0%). Saccharomyces boulardii is the only fungus probiotic in this study, which also had a high proportion of combination (93.6%) with other probiotic strains.
Node labels consist of the probiotic strain name and the percentage of this strain co-prescribed with other strains. Node color indicates probiotic genus. Node size corresponds to the prescription number of strains. The red node label color indicates that the probiotic strain is 100% co-prescribed with other strains, while black means, not 100%. The thickness of the edges is the number of co-prescriptions of probiotic strains at both ends.
Prevalence and influence factors of probiotics co-prescribed with antitumor drugs
Over the seven years, the proportion of probiotic prescriptions co-prescribed with antitumor drugs increased gradually from 6.6% to 13.8% (Z = 15.31, p <0.001, Table 1). To further clarify the reasons for the increase in co-prescription, we collected 189030 antitumor drug prescriptions without probiotics prescriptions for analysis. As shown in Table 3, the proportion of specific antitumor drugs co-prescribed with probiotics varies. Doxifluridine had the highest co-prescription rate of 8.7%, and tegafur had the lowest co-prescription rate of 0.4%.
To identify risk factors for co-prescribing antineoplastic drugs and probiotics. Binary regression analysis included the age, gender, diagnosis, source of prescription (clinic or ward), hospital grade, and co-prescribed antineoplastic drugs. There were 236320 prescriptions in the analysis. The main risk factors identified for co-prescribing were the source of prescription, patient age, diagnosis, and specific antitumor drug (Fig 5). Outpatients (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.16–1.29, p < 0.001), senior patients (1.008 per year, 1.006–1.011, p < 0.001), and colon cancer patients (1.08, 1.02–1.14, p = 0.007) were more likely to receive probiotics along with antitumor therapy. The specific antitumor drug used mattered more. Doxifluridine (4.78, 4.05–5.64, p < 0.001), capecitabine (2.21, 2.02–2.42, p < 0.001), TGO (2.03, 1.79–2.29, p < 0.001), regorafenib (1.70, 1.27–2.26, p < 0.001), irinotecan (1.33, 1.20–1.48, p < 0.001), and bevacizumab (1.27, 1.15–1.41, p < 0.001) were more likely to prescribe with probiotics.
Odds ratio on the X-axis, values <1 confer antitumor drug prescribed without probiotic, values >1 confer antitumor drug co-prescribed with probiotic. The confidence interval is a horizontal black line for each variable. The black box or the white rhombus represents the odds ratio referenced. TGO, tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil potassium.
To identify the factors influencing the selection of single or multiple strains of probiotics co-prescribed with antitumor drugs, we conducted a binary linear regression analysis of 47290 probiotic prescriptions. The binary regression analysis included the age, gender, diagnosis, source of prescription (clinic or ward), hospital grade, and co-prescribed antitumor drugs. The prescriptions with multi-strain probiotics were more likely from tertiary hospitals (2.96, 2.70–3.26, p < 0.001) (Fig 6) or co-prescribed with fluorouracil (1.44, 0.22–0.34, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, irinotecan (0.28, 0.22–0.34, p < 0.001), TGO (0.32, 0.26–0.38, p < 0.001), cetuximab (0.51, 0.35–0.73, p < 0.001), oxaliplatin (0.66, 0.58–0.76, p < 0.001), and bevacizumab (0.74, 0.60–0.90, p = 0.003) were more like to co-prescribed with single-strain probiotics.
Odds ratio on the X-axis, values <1 confer antitumor drug co-prescribed with single strain probiotic, values >1 confer antitumor drug co-prescribed with the multi-strain probiotic. The confidence interval is a horizontal black line for each variable. The black box represented the odds ratio referenced to the X-axis. CI, confidence interval. TGO, tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil potassium.
Finally, we explored the correlation between specific antitumor drugs and probiotic prescribing. We included 5681 antitumor drugs and probiotic co-prescribed prescriptions for correlation analysis. We applied Spearman’s rank correlation to assess the association between anticancer drugs and probiotic strains. Take a correlation coefficient greater than 0.8 as a strong correlation. There was no strong correlation (correlation coefficient ≥ 0.8) found between particular probiotics and antitumor drugs (Fig 7).
The probiotic strains are in the rows, and the antitumor drugs are in the columns. The grid color represents a positive (red) or negative (green) correlation. The closer the absolute value of the correlation coefficient to 1, the higher the color saturation. The numbers in the grid are the correlation coefficients between probiotics and antitumor drugs on the corresponding vertical axis. **, p < 0.001. The p-value is not marked unless the absolute value of the correlation coefficient is more than 0.3. TGO, tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil potassium.
Discussion
In this study, which included 101 hospitals across China, a fair amount of CRC prescriptions contained probiotics. According to 2019 data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation-Global Burden of Disease (IHME-GBD), there are over 3.5 million CRC patients in China, accounting for 31% of the global total. The proportion of probiotic prescriptions was not high in this study. However, considering the total number of CRC patients in China, many patients might have received probiotics in medical services. Moreover, probiotics used in Chinese CRC patients showed a significant upward trend, similar to those previously reported in inpatients in the United States [48].
Between 2015 and 2021, probiotics accounted for 3.3% to 4.4% of Chinese CRC prescriptions. A previous survey reported that the probiotic utilization rate among cancer outpatients in Slovakia was 28.5% [30]. Since we only included hospital prescriptions, the Slovakia study included probiotic foods and dietary supplements, which may be reasonable for our study’s lower rate of probiotics. Another 2012 tally of discharged patients in the U.S. showed that 2.6% of children and adult patients had used probiotics during their hospital stay. The hospital’s proportion of discharged patients treated with probiotics varied from 0.3% to 8.5% [48]. In contrast to the U.S. study (non-cancer patients), our study included prescriptions for CRC patients in which gastrointestinal disorders are common. The main indication for probiotics is gastrointestinal disorders [49]. So, it may be reasonable that CRC patients have a higher proportion of probiotic prescriptions. Therefore, the difference in probiotic prevalence might be acceptable in our study population.
The prescriptions of the most prescribed seven probiotic formulations came from 98.7% of hospitals in our study. This result is comparable with the previously mentioned U.S. study [48], in which seven probiotic formulations came from 96% of the 145 hospitals. Meanwhile, each hospital in our study prescribed an average of 3.3 probiotic formulations (3.3±1.4; range 1–7) in 2021, higher than the reported U.S. hospitals, which may be related to the relatively large number (n = 15) of probiotic formulations in the Chinese pharmacopeia.
At the strain level, U.S. probiotics are significantly different from Chinese probiotics. Previous research has reported that the five most commonly used probiotics in U.S. inpatients were Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus gasseri, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Saccharomyces boulardii [48, 50]. In CRC randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus were the most popular probiotics [18]. The most prescribed strains in our study were Enterococcus faecalis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Clostridium butyricum, Bacillus subtilis, and Bifidobacterium longum. Although the probiotic genera in our study were similar to the U.S. study, the probiotic strains were different. Due to the influence of different regions [51], diets, human genotypes, and listed probiotic strains, these differences may be acceptable.
To our knowledge, no guidelines recommend probiotics in CRC patients. However, many clinical studies have explored the effectiveness of probiotic therapy in CRC patients [16, 21, 22, 52].
There needs to be more research evidence for specific probiotic strains listed in China. Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium longum mixture could reduce cancer treatment-related mucositis [14]. As a widely used probiotic in multi-strain probiotic formulations in China, the role of Enterococcus spp. in CRC is still controversial [53, 54]. Preclinical studies have shown positive results regarding Clostridium butyricum and Bacillus subtilis in animal CRC models [55–58]. However, clinical evidence for using these probiotics in CRC patients still lacks [59].
Some studies showed that probiotic mixtures might provide more biological activities and benefits [21, 60]. Perhaps because of such considerations, about 70% of probiotic prescriptions were multi-strain in our study. However, other studies believe that multiple strains do not bring more benefits [61]. It may explain the other 30% single strain prescriptions. The decrease in two-strain probiotic prescriptions may be related to the lack of recommendations for such formulations (Enterococcus faecium and Bacillus subtilis). I Neither the 2016 Chinese consensus clinical application of microecological modulators for the digestive tract (in Chinese) nor the 2017 Chinese evidence-based guidelines for pediatric clinical application of probiotics (in Chinese) recommended this formula. There is also consensus on recommendations for specific probiotic formulation (live combined Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and Enterococcus) for use in cancer patients [62].
Since most prescriptions contained one probiotic product in our study, the prescribing pattern of probiotic strains is highly related to the formulation of multi-strain products. Although there is some evidence of multi-strain formulations in CRC patients [18, 21], the multi-strain formulations in our study were significantly different from those in previous studies. Overall, evidence for using these probiotics in cancer, particularly colorectal cancer, remains limited. Therefore, more research is needed to explore the role of these multi-strain formulations in CRC patients.
The relationship between probiotics and antitumor drugs is attracting increasing attention [19, 63]. We estimated the reality connection between antitumor agents and probiotic prescribing. Overall, antitumor drugs with higher gastrointestinal toxicities were more likely to be co-prescribed with probiotics. It may be related to the higher incidence of mucositis and diarrhea of fluorouracil drugs [64]. However, there was no increase in co-prescribing probiotics for fluorouracil injection in our study. It may be related to the much longer duration of administration and the higher diarrhea incidence of oral fluoropyrimidines [64, 65]. The number of prescriptions for tegafur, another oral fluorouracil, declined significantly over seven years, perhaps contributing to the low co-prescribing probiotic risk. Diarrhea occurred in 34% of patients treated with regorafenib, with 7% experiencing grade 3 or 4 [66]. Irinotecan also has high gastrointestinal toxicity [67]. Bevacizumab rarely causes diarrhea and mucositis, but it may be co-prescribed with other gastrointestinal toxic agents.
The mixture of probiotic strains might be more efficacious [21]. We analyzed the influencing factors of the multi-strain combination when co-prescribed with antitumor drugs. The results showed that prescriptions from tertiary hospitals were the most prominent driving factor for multi-strain probiotic use. It may be related to the rapid updating of doctors’ treatment concepts in tertiary hospitals.
Although some studies reported that changes in specific gut microbiota in CRC treatment are associated with treatment toxicity [68]. Our analysis found no association between specific antitumor agents and probiotic strains prescribing. It may be related to the unavailability of probiotic strains used in many studies and the lack of guidelines for the clinical use of local probiotic products in China cancer patients, which makes it difficult for physicians to select probiotic strains based on sufficient research evidence.
Our study described the current status and trends of probiotic prescriptions and expenditure of Chinese CRC patients for the first time. There are limitations to this study. First, due to the prevalence of prescription omissions in clinical indications, we indirectly obtained the possible reasons for using probiotics by analyzing co-prescribed drugs for other gastrointestinal symptoms, which may lead to some bias in the results. Second, since hospitals with HPACP locate in large cities, sampling might be biased. Third, we evaluated the probiotic use based on hospital data, the prevalence represented only physician prescriptions of probiotics.
The increase in probiotic prescriptions in Chinese CRC patients may suggest that more doctors believe in the benefits of probiotics. However, insufficient clinical evidence supports the use of currently available probiotics in such medical settings [69]. Follow-up studies should pay more attention to the efficacy, safety, dosage, timing, and course of treatment of specific probiotics for CRC patients.
In conclusion, the present study shows that probiotic prescription is increasing in Chinese colorectal patients. The increasing trends may be related to co-prescription growth with anticancer drugs. With unapproved indications and a lack of strain selectivity, evidence-based guidelines are urgently needed to improve probiotic use in this population.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Distribution and grade of hospitals (n = 101).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291864.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Number of prescriptions from different hospitals (n = 101).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291864.s002
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Application trend of probiotics in prescribing patterns for colorectal cancer patients.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291864.s004
(DOCX)
S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291864.s005
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2021;71(3):209–49. Epub 2021/02/05. pmid:33538338.
- 2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2018;68(6):394–424. Epub 2018/09/13. pmid:30207593.
- 3. Fidler MM, Soerjomataram I, Bray F. A global view on cancer incidence and national levels of the human development index. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(11):2436–46. Epub 2016/08/16. pmid:27522007.
- 4. Hospital Authority of National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China; Chinese Society of Oncology CMA. Chinese protocol of diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer (2020 edition) Chinese Journal of Surgery. 2020;58(8):561–85. pmid:32727186
- 5. Arnold M, Sierra MS, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut. 2017;66(4):683–91. Epub 2016/01/29. pmid:26818619.
- 6. Wong SH, Yu J. Gut microbiota in colorectal cancer: mechanisms of action and clinical applications. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2019;16(11):690–704. Epub 2019/09/27. pmid:31554963.
- 7. Dolgin E. Fighting cancer with microbes. Nature. 2020;577(7792):S16–s8. Epub 2020/01/31. pmid:31996833.
- 8. Roberti MP, Yonekura S, Duong CPM, Picard M, Ferrere G, Tidjani Alou M, et al. Chemotherapy-induced ileal crypt apoptosis and the ileal microbiome shape immunosurveillance and prognosis of proximal colon cancer. Nature medicine. 2020;26(6):919–31. Epub 2020/05/27. pmid:32451498.
- 9. Yoon BJ, Oh HK, Lee J, Cho JR, Kim MJ, Kim DW, et al. Effects of probiotics on bowel function restoration following ileostomy closure in rectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal disease: the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2020. Epub 2020/11/29. pmid:33247529.
- 10. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2014;11(8):506–14. Epub 2014/06/11. pmid:24912386.
- 11. McQuade JL, Daniel CR, Helmink BA, Wargo JA. Modulating the microbiome to improve therapeutic response in cancer. The Lancet Oncology. 2019;20(2):e77–e91. Epub 2019/02/05. pmid:30712808.
- 12. Sivamaruthi BS, Kesika P, Chaiyasut C. The Role of Probiotics in Colorectal Cancer Management. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020;2020:3535982. pmid:32148539.
- 13. Darbandi A, Mirshekar M, Shariati A, Moghadam MT, Lohrasbi V, Asadolahi P, et al. The effects of probiotics on reducing the colorectal cancer surgery complications: A periodic review during 2007–2017. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(8):2358–67. pmid:31831184.
- 14. Picó-Monllor JA, Mingot-Ascencao JM. Search and Selection of Probiotics That Improve Mucositis Symptoms in Oncologic Patients. A Systematic Review. Nutrients. 2019;11(10). Epub 2019/10/05. pmid:31581434; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6835542.
- 15. Ting NL, Lau HC, Yu J. Cancer pharmacomicrobiomics: targeting microbiota to optimise cancer therapy outcomes. Gut. 2022. Epub 2022/03/13. pmid:35277453.
- 16. Eslami M, Yousefi B, Kokhaei P, Hemati M, Nejad ZR, Arabkari V, et al. Importance of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer. Journal of cellular physiology. 2019;234(10):17127–43. Epub 2019/03/27. pmid:30912128.
- 17. Wierzbicka A, Mańkowska-Wierzbicka D, Mardas M, Stelmach-Mardas M. Role of Probiotics in Modulating Human Gut Microbiota Populations and Activities in Patients with Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials. Nutrients. 2021;13(4). Epub 2021/05/01. pmid:33915854; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8066620.
- 18. Dikeocha IJ, Al-Kabsi AM, Eid EEM, Hussin S, Alshawsh MA. Probiotics supplementation in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2021;80(1):22–49. Epub 2021/05/25. pmid:34027974.
- 19. Li W, Deng X, Chen T. Exploring the Modulatory Effects of Gut Microbiota in Anti-Cancer Therapy. Front Oncol. 2021;11:644454. Epub 2021/05/01. pmid:33928033; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8076595.
- 20. Molska M, Reguła J. Potential Mechanisms of Probiotics Action in the Prevention and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer. Nutrients. 2019;11(10). pmid:31615096.
- 21. Feng J, Gao M, Zhao C, Yang J, Gao H, Lu X, et al. Oral Administration of Probiotics Reduces Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea and Oral Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Nutr. 2022;9:823288. Epub 2022/03/19. pmid:35299763; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8922230.
- 22. Bajramagic S, Hodzic E, Mulabdic A, Holjan S, Smajlovic SV, Rovcanin A. Usage of Probiotics and its Clinical Significance at Surgically Treated Patients Sufferig from Colorectal Carcinoma. Med Arch. 2019;73(5):316–20. pmid:31819304.
- 23. Hendler R, Zhang Y. Probiotics in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer. Medicines (Basel, Switzerland). 2018;5(3). Epub 2018/09/13. pmid:30205429; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6164107.
- 24. Lee JY, Chu SH, Jeon JY, Lee MK, Park JH, Lee DC, et al. Effects of 12 weeks of probiotic supplementation on quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2014;46(12):1126–32. Epub 2014/12/03. pmid:25442120.
- 25. Ohigashi S, Hoshino Y, Ohde S, Onodera H. Functional outcome, quality of life, and efficacy of probiotics in postoperative patients with colorectal cancer. Surgery today. 2011;41(9):1200–6. Epub 2011/08/30. pmid:21874415.
- 26. Redman MG, Ward EJ, Phillips RS. The efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer: a systematic review. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2014;25(10):1919–29. Epub 2014/03/13. pmid:24618152.
- 27. Pace F, Macchini F, Massimo Castagna V. Safety of probiotics in humans: A dark side revealed? Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2020;52(9):981–5. Epub 2020/06/22. pmid:32563720.
- 28. Zeng Z, Mishuk AU, Qian J. Safety of dietary supplements use among patients with cancer: A systematic review. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology. 2020;152:103013. Epub 2020/06/23. pmid:32570150.
- 29. Van den Nieuwboer M, Brummer RJ, Guarner F, Morelli L, Cabana M, Claasen E. The administration of probiotics and synbiotics in immune compromised adults: is it safe? Beneficial microbes. 2015;6(1):3–17. Epub 2014/10/12. pmid:25304690.
- 30. Ciernikova S, Mego M, Semanova M, Wachsmannova L, Adamcikova Z, Stevurkova V, et al. Probiotic Survey in Cancer Patients Treated in the Outpatient Department in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Integrative cancer therapies. 2017;16(2):188–95. Epub 2016/05/07. pmid:27151581; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5739119.
- 31. Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, Prescott SL, Reimer RA, Salminen SJ, et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2017;14(8):491–502. Epub 2017/06/15. pmid:28611480.
- 32. Schultz M, Baranchi A, Thurston L, Yu YC, Wang L, Chen J, et al. Consumer demographics and expectations of probiotic therapy in New Zealand: results of a large telephone survey. The New Zealand medical journal. 2011;124(1329):36–43. Epub 2011/04/09. PubMed PMID: pmid:21475358.
- 33. John GM, Hershman DL, Falci L, Shi Z, Tsai WY, Greenlee H. Complementary and alternative medicine use among US cancer survivors. Journal of cancer survivorship: research and practice. 2016;10(5):850–64. Epub 2016/02/28. pmid:26920872; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5001939.
- 34. Draper K, Ley C, Parsonnet J. A survey of probiotic use practices among patients at a tertiary medical centre. Beneficial microbes. 2017;8(3):345–51. Epub 2017/04/14. pmid:28403649.
- 35. Lu K, Dong S, Wu X, Jin R, Chen H. Probiotics in Cancer. Front Oncol. 2021;11:638148. Epub 2021/04/02. pmid:33791223; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8006328.
- 36. Nguyen M, Ferge KK, Vaughn AR, Burney W, Teng LH, Pan A, et al. Probiotic Supplementation and Food Intake and Knowledge Among Patients and Consumers. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2020;12(3):824–33. Epub 2019/11/13. pmid:31713116.
- 37. Arring NM, Millstine D, Barton DL, Lyons KS, Girardo M, Hutson A, et al. Trends in integrative medicine and health consults: differences between cancer survivors and patients without cancer. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2020. Epub 2020/10/16. pmid:33057818.
- 38. Yu Z, Zhao Y, Jin J, Zhu J, Yu L, Han G. Antiviral treatment in outpatients with herps zoster in six major areas of China, 2010–2019. Front Public Health. 2022;10:942377. Epub 2022/08/16. pmid:35968424; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9372588.
- 39. Lou G, Yu Z, Chen L, Zhou Y, Zhang L. Trends in Prescriptions for Insomnia in a Province in China Between 2015 and 2019. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:915823. Epub 2022/07/08. pmid:35795021; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9251053.
- 40. Wang Z, Wu X, Yu Z, Yu L. Utilization of Drugs for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Among Young Patients in China, 2010–2019. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12:802489. Epub 2022/03/01. pmid:35222107; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8863856.
- 41. Yu Z, Wu X, Zhu J, Jin J, Zhao Y, Yu L. Trends in Topical Prescriptional Therapy for Old Patients With Dry Eye Disease in Six Major Areas of China: 2013–2019. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:690640. Epub 2021/08/28. pmid:34447308; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8383279.
- 42. Yu Z, Zhu J, Jin J, Yu L, Han G. Trends in Outpatient Prescribing Patterns for Ocular Topical Anti-Infectives in Six Major Areas of China, 2013–2019. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021;10(8). Epub 2021/08/28. pmid:34438966; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8388675.
- 43. Yu L, Zhu W, Zhu X, Lu Y, Yu Z, Dai H. Anti-seizure Medication Prescription in Adult Outpatients With Epilepsy in China, 2013–2018. Front Neurol. 2021;12:649589. Epub 2021/06/11. pmid:34108928; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8180859.
- 44. Yu L, Feng J, Yu Z, Dai H. Trends of anti-seizure medication use in pediatric patients in six cities in China from 2013 to 2018. Epilepsy Res. 2020;167:106448. Epub 2020/09/12. pmid:32916644.
- 45. Yu Z, Zhang J, Zheng Y, Yu L. Trends in Antidepressant Use and Expenditure in Six Major Cities in China From 2013 to 2018. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:551. Epub 2020/08/09. pmid:32765307; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7378967.
- 46. Yu Z, Yu L, Shan C. Trends of ambulatory oral anticoagulant prescription in five major cities of China, 2012–2017. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):209. Epub 2020/03/14. pmid:32164710; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7069019.
- 47.
Commission CP. Pharmacopoeia of The People’s Republic of China: Chemical Industry Press; 2020. 44 p.
- 48. Yi SH, Jernigan JA, McDonald LC. Prevalence of probiotic use among inpatients: A descriptive study of 145 U.S. hospitals. American journal of infection control. 2016;44(5):548–53. Epub 2016/01/30. pmid:26822808.
- 49. Su GL, Ko CW, Bercik P, Falck-Ytter Y, Sultan S, Weizman AV, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Role of Probiotics in the Management of Gastrointestinal Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(2):697–705. Epub 2020/06/13. pmid:32531291.
- 50. Abe AM, Gregory PJ, Hein DJ, Cochrane ZR, Wilson AF. Survey and Systematic Literature Review of Probiotics Stocked in Academic Medical Centers within the United States. Hospital pharmacy. 2013;48(10):834–47. Epub 2014/01/15. pmid:24421437; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3859277.
- 51. Vangay P, Johnson AJ, Ward TL, Al-Ghalith GA, Shields-Cutler RR, Hillmann BM, et al. US Immigration Westernizes the Human Gut Microbiome. Cell. 2018;175(4):962-72.e10. Epub 2018/11/06. pmid:30388453; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6498444.
- 52. Das M. Probiotics for chemoradiotherapy-induced oral mucositis. The Lancet Oncology. 2019;20(1):e14. Epub 2018/12/18. pmid:30555021.
- 53. de Almeida CV, Taddei A, Amedei A. The controversial role of Enterococcus faecalis in colorectal cancer. Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology. 2018;11:1756284818783606. Epub 2018/07/18. pmid:30013618; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6044108.
- 54. Chung IC, OuYang CN, Yuan SN, Lin HC, Huang KY, Wu PS, et al. Pretreatment with a Heat-Killed Probiotic Modulates the NLRP3 Inflammasome and Attenuates Colitis-Associated Colorectal Cancer in Mice. Nutrients. 2019;11(3). Epub 2019/03/03. pmid:30823406; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6471765.
- 55. Chen ZF, Ai LY, Wang JL, Ren LL, Yu YN, Xu J, et al. Probiotics Clostridium butyricum and Bacillus subtilis ameliorate intestinal tumorigenesis. Future microbiology. 2015;10(9):1433–45. Epub 2015/09/09. pmid:26346930.
- 56. Chen D, Jin D, Huang S, Wu J, Xu M, Liu T, et al. Clostridium butyricum, a butyrate-producing probiotic, inhibits intestinal tumor development through modulating Wnt signaling and gut microbiota. Cancer letters. 2020;469:456–67. Epub 2019/11/18. pmid:31734354.
- 57. Zhao H, Li J, Zhang Y, Lei S, Zhao X, Shao D, et al. Potential of iturins as functional agents: safe, probiotic, and cytotoxic to cancer cells. Food & function. 2018;9(11):5580–7. Epub 2018/10/20. pmid:30335105.
- 58. Gerhard D, Sousa F, Andraus RAC, Pardo PE, Nai GA, Neto HB, et al. Probiotic therapy reduces inflammation and improves intestinal morphology in rats with induced oral mucositis. Brazilian oral research. 2017;31:e71. Epub 2017/07/06. pmid:28678976.
- 59. Wei D, Heus P, van de Wetering FT, van Tienhoven G, Verleye L, Scholten RJ. Probiotics for the prevention or treatment of chemotherapy- or radiotherapy-related diarrhoea in people with cancer. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;8(8):Cd008831. Epub 2018/09/01. pmid:30168576; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6513393 Geertjan van Tienhoven: none known. Leen Verleye: none known. Rob JPM Scholten: none known.
- 60. Kwoji ID, Aiyegoro OA, Okpeku M, Adeleke MA. Multi-Strain Probiotics: Synergy among Isolates Enhances Biological Activities. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(4). Epub 2021/05/01. pmid:33924344; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8070017.
- 61. McFarland LV. Efficacy of Single-Strain Probiotics Versus Multi-Strain Mixtures: Systematic Review of Strain and Disease Specificity. Dig Dis Sci. 2021;66(3):694–704. Epub 2020/04/11. pmid:32274669.
- 62.
Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Digestion FJ, Yang Yunsheng, Xie Weifen. Chinese expert consensus on application of live combined Bifidobacterium,Lactobacillus and Enterococcus powder/capsule in digestive system diseases(version 2021). Chinese Journal of Digestion. 2022;42(4).
- 63. Wan X, Song M, Wang A, Zhao Y, Wei Z, Lu Y. Microbiome Crosstalk in Immunotherapy and Antiangiogenesis Therapy. Front Immunol. 2021;12:747914. Epub 2021/11/09. pmid:34745119; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8566949.
- 64. Chionh F, Lau D, Yeung Y, Price T, Tebbutt N. Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;7(7):Cd008398. Epub 2017/07/29. pmid:28752564; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6483122 educational meeting. DL has received an educational grant from Roche. TP is on advisory boards for Roche and Amgen. NT is on advisory boards for Roche, Amgen and Bayer.
- 65. Iacovelli R, Pietrantonio F, Palazzo A, Maggi C, Ricchini F, de Braud F, et al. Incidence and relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil: a meta-analysis of published trials. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;78(6):1228–37. Epub 2014/06/26. pmid:24962653; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4256612.
- 66. Krishnamoorthy SK, Relias V, Sebastian S, Jayaraman V, Saif MW. Management of regorafenib-related toxicities: a review. Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology. 2015;8(5):285–97. Epub 2015/09/04. pmid:26327919; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4530428.
- 67. Eng C. Toxic effects and their management: daily clinical challenges in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(4):207–18. Epub 2009/04/01. pmid:19333227.
- 68. Shi W, Shen L, Zou W, Wang J, Yang J, Wang Y, et al. 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. Epub 2020/12/29. pmid:33363048; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7756020.
- 69. Hassan H, Rompola M, Glaser AW, Kinsey SE, Phillips RS. Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2018;26(8):2503–9. Epub 2018/04/29. pmid:29704110.