| 1. |
- Campbell, PJ, et al.
(author)
-
Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes
- 2020
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 578:7793, s. 82-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale1–3. Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter4; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation5,6; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution7; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity8,9; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes8,10–18.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Schoemaker, Minouk J., et al.
(author)
-
Adult weight change and premenopausal breast cancer risk : A prospective pooled analysis of data from 628,463 women
- 2020
-
In: International Journal of Cancer. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0020-7136 .- 1097-0215. ; 147:5, s. 1306-1314
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Early-adulthood body size is strongly inversely associated with risk of premenopausal breast cancer. It is unclear whether subsequent changes in weight affect risk. We pooled individual-level data from 17 prospective studies to investigate the association of weight change with premenopausal breast cancer risk, considering strata of initial weight, timing of weight change, other breast cancer risk factors and breast cancer subtype. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained using Cox regression. Among 628,463 women, 10,886 were diagnosed with breast cancer before menopause. Models adjusted for initial weight at ages 18-24 years and other breast cancer risk factors showed that weight gain from ages 18-24 to 35-44 or to 45-54 years was inversely associated with breast cancer overall (e.g., HR per 5 kg to ages 45-54: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) and with oestrogen-receptor(ER)-positive breast cancer (HR per 5 kg to ages 45-54: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.94-0.98). Weight gain from ages 25-34 was inversely associated with ER-positive breast cancer only and weight gain from ages 35-44 was not associated with risk. None of these weight gains were associated with ER-negative breast cancer. Weight loss was not consistently associated with overall or ER-specific risk after adjusting for initial weight. Weight increase from early-adulthood to ages 45-54 years is associated with a reduced premenopausal breast cancer risk independently of early-adulthood weight. Biological explanations are needed to account for these two separate factors.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
