ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2026
A guide to understanding tumour evolution through the lens of population genetics.
Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every cancer carries the history of its own evolution, hidden in its genome. Modern DNA sequencing can catalogue millions of mutations and profile tumours across space and time, but sequencing alone struggles to answer the questions that matter most: when did key adaptations emerge, how strongly were they selected, why do some tumours relapse whereas others do not, and how will the cancer evolve next? The reason is fundamental: sequencing is a snapshot, whereas evolution is a dynamic process. Bridging this gap requires moving beyond descriptive cancer genomics towards quantitative evolutionary inference. In this Review, we argue that population genetics provides the mathematical framework needed to extract evolutionary dynamics from cancer genomes. We show how models of mutation, selection and drift transform allele frequencies from descriptive measurements into quantitative estimates of clonal fitness and evolutionary timings. We discuss how these principles extend to epigenetic inheritance, plasticity and ecological interactions within the tumour ecosystem, and examine the assumptions and limitations for their application to modern sequencing data. By reframing cancer genomes as quantitative records of evolutionary processes rather than catalogues of mutations, researchers have used population genetics to provide a foundation for understanding - and ultimately predicting - the trajectories of cancer evolution.
Identifiers
42717056What 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.