Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33323077›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2020

Determining cancer risk: the evolutionary multistage model or total stem cell divisions?

Leonard Nunney, Kevin Thai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

Leonard NunneyDepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Kevin ThaiDepartment of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent hypothesis proposed that the total number of stem cell divisions in a tissue (TSCD model) determine its intrinsic cancer risk; however, a different model-the multistage model-has long been used to understand how cancer originates. Identifying the correct model has important implications for interpreting the frequency of cancers. Using worldwide cancer incidence data, we applied three tests to the TSCD model and an evolutionary multistage model of carcinogenesis (EMMC), a model in which cancer suppression is recognized as an evolving trait, with natural selection acting to suppress cancers causing a significant mean loss of Darwinian fitness. Each test supported the EMMC but contradicted the TSCD model. This outcome undermines results based on the TSCD model quantifying the relative importance of 'bad luck' (the random accumulation of somatic mutations) versus environmental and genetic factors in determining cancer incidence. Our testing supported the EMMC prediction that cancers of large rapidly dividing tissues predominate late in life. Another important prediction is that an indicator of recent oncogenic environmental change is an unusually high mean fitness loss due to cancer, rather than a high lifetime incidence. The evolutionary model also predicts that large and/or long-lived animals have evolved mechanisms of cancer suppression that may be of value in preventing or controlling human cancers.

Indexed as

Stem CellsAnimalsBiological EvolutionCell DivisionGenetic FitnessHumansIncidenceModels, BiologicalNeoplasmsSelection, Geneticcancerevolutionlifetime stem cell divisionsmultistage carcinogenesismultistep carcinogenesisPeto's paradox

Identifiers

PMID33323077
PMCPMC7779499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.