Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17683619›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2007

Paradoxes in carcinogenesis: new opportunities for research directions.

Stuart G Baker, Barnett S Kramer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Revisiting Epithelial Carcinogenesis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Differential distribution of immune cells in breast invasive carcinoma vs. breast carcinomaInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cancer as a mitochondrial metabolic disease.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2015
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Cancer stem cell theory and the warburg effect, two sides of the same coin?International journal of molecular sciences · 2014
    Article
  18. Competing views on cancer.Journal of biosciences · 2014
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stuart G BakerDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. sb16i@nih.gov
Barnett S Kramer
National Cancer Institute · USOffice of Disease Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevailing paradigm in cancer research is the somatic mutation theory that posits that cancer begins with a single mutation in a somatic cell followed by successive mutations. Much cancer research involves refining the somatic mutation theory with an ever increasing catalog of genetic changes. The problem is that such research may miss paradoxical aspects of carcinogenesis for which there is no likely explanation under the somatic mutation theory. These paradoxical aspects offer opportunities for new research directions that should not be ignored. DISCUSSION: Various paradoxes related to the somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis are discussed: (1) the presence of large numbers of spatially distinct precancerous lesions at the onset of promotion, (2) the large number of genetic instabilities found in hyperplastic polyps not considered cancer, (3) spontaneous regression, (4) higher incidence of cancer in patients with xeroderma pigmentosa but not in patients with other comparable defects in DNA repair, (5) lower incidence of many cancers except leukemia and testicular cancer in patients with Down's syndrome, (6) cancer developing after normal tissue is transplanted to other parts of the body or next to stroma previously exposed to carcinogens, (7) the lack of tumors when epithelial cells exposed to a carcinogen were transplanted next to normal stroma, (8) the development of cancers when Millipore filters of various pore sizes were was inserted under the skin of rats, but only if the holes were sufficiently small. For the latter paradox, a microarray experiment is proposed to try to better understand the phenomena. SUMMARY: The famous physicist Niels Bohr said "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." The same viewpoint should apply to cancer research. It is easy to ignore this piece of wisdom about the means to advance knowledge, but we do so at our peril.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarcinogensCell Transformation, NeoplasticDNADNA RepairHumansMutationNeoplasm Regression, SpontaneousNeoplasmsRatsResearchCarcinogensDNA

Identifiers

PMID17683619
PMCPMC1993836
OpenAlexW2113284016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.