ArticlePloS one2016
Lack of Correlation between Stem-Cell Proliferation and Radiation- or Smoking-Associated Cancer Risk.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The strength of organ, tissue, and body field effects determines the frequency of all neoplasia.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- A mathematical model for cancer risk and accumulation of mutations caused by replication errors and external factors.PloS one · 2023Article
- Stem cell replication, somatic mutations and role of randomness in the development of cancer.European journal of epidemiology · 2019Review
- Osmolyte Induced Tumorigenesis and Metastasis: Interactions With Intrinsically Disordered Proteins.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Article
- Mathematical models of tissue stem and transit target cell divisions and the risk of radiation- or smoking-associated cancer.PLoS computational biology · 2017Article
- Article
- Cell Fusion in the War on Cancer: A Perspective on the Inception of Malignancy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.