Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27031507›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Lack of Correlation between Stem-Cell Proliferation and Radiation- or Smoking-Associated Cancer Risk.

Mark P Little, Jolyon H Hendry, Jerome S Puskin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark P LittleRadiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Rockville, Maryland, United States of America.
Jolyon H HendryChristie Medical Physics and Engineering, Christie Hospital and University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Jerome S PuskinRadiation Protection Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, United States of America.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA recent paper by Tomasetti and Vogelstein (Science 2015 347 78-81) suggested that the variation in natural cancer risk was largely explained by the total number of stem-cell divisions, and that most cancers arose by chance. They proposed an extra-risk score as way of distinguishing the effects of the stochastic, replicative component of cancer risk from other causative factors, specifically those due to the external environment and inherited mutations.

objectivesWe tested the hypothesis raised by Tomasetti and Vogelstein by assessing the degree of correlation of stem cell divisions and their extra-risk score with radiation- and tobacco-associated cancer risk.

methodsWe fitted a variety of linear and log-linear models to data on stem cell divisions per year and cumulative stem cell divisions over lifetime and natural cancer risk, some taken from the paper of Tomasetti and Vogelstein, augmented using current US lifetime cancer risk data, and also radiation- and tobacco-associated cancer risk.

resultsThe data assembled by Tomasetti and Vogelstein, as augmented here, are inconsistent with the power-of-age relationship commonly observed for cancer incidence and the predictions of a multistage carcinogenesis model, if one makes the strong assumption of homogeneity of numbers of driver mutations across cancer sites. Analysis of the extra-risk score and various other measures (number of stem cell divisions per year, cumulative number of stem cell divisions over life) considered by Tomasetti and Vogelstein suggests that these are poorly predictive of currently available estimates of radiation- or smoking-associated cancer risk-for only one out of 37 measures or logarithmic transformations thereof is there a statistically significant correlation (p<0.05) with radiation- or smoking-associated risk.

conclusionsThe data used by Tomasetti and Vogelstein are in conflict with predictions of a multistage model of carcinogenesis, under the assumption of homogeneity of numbers of driver mutations across most cancer sites. Their hypothesis that if the extra-risk score for a tissue type is high then one would expect that environmental factors would play a relatively more important role in that cancer's risk is in conflict with the lack of correlation between the extra-risk score and other stem-cell proliferation indices and radiation- or smoking-related cancer risk.

Indexed as

RadiationSmokingCell ProliferationHumansIncidenceLinear ModelsModels, TheoreticalNeoplasmsRiskStem Cells

Identifiers

PMID27031507
PMCPMC4816383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.