Evidence Hub

Pathogenic mechanisms and resistance profiles of microbial pulmonary infections in lung cancer: a systematic review

Sheervalilou M, Ghanei M, Arabfard M

BMC infectious diseases, 2025

2,598 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary infections caused by microorganisms in lung cancer patients contribute to disease progression and treatment challenges. This systematic review aims to explore the clinical and pathophysiological characteristics of microbial pulmonary infections in lung cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted across Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, covering studies published between January 1, 2015 and February 1, 2025, without restrictions on population or language. We included original studies reporting findings in human, animal, cell, or in silico models that examined non-viral microbial pulmonary infections in the context of lung cancer, with a focus on pathogen profiles, antimicrobial resistance, and associated molecular mechanisms. Evidence synthesis was narrative. RESULTS: A total of 8,879 records were identified, with 37 studies included comprising 14 human, 14 in vitro, 8 in vivo and one in silico studies. Of the 14 human studies, 8 studies reported microbial strain prevalence in 2,598 lung cancer patients. The most common pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (21.1%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.0%), Staphylococcus spp. (16.1%), Streptococcus spp. (14.1%), Candida spp. (12.4%), Haemophilus influenzae (7.9%), Enterobacter spp. (7.7%), and Aspergillus spp. (3.1%). Antibiotic sensitivity varied, with K. pneumoniae showing complete sensitivity to tigecycline and S. pneumoniae exhibiting low clindamycin sensitivity (~6%).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,598 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free