| 1. |
- Campbell, Brittany B., et al.
(author)
-
Comprehensive Analysis of Hypermutation in Human Cancer
- 2017
-
In: Cell. - : Elsevier BV. - 0092-8674 .- 1097-4172. ; 171:5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- © 2017 Elsevier Inc. We present an extensive assessment of mutation burden through sequencing analysis of > 81,000 tumors from pediatric and adult patients, including tumors with hypermutation caused by chemotherapy, carcinogens, or germline alterations. Hypermutation was detected in tumor types not previously associated with high mutation burden. Replication repair deficiency was a major contributing factor. We uncovered new driver mutations in the replication-repair-associated DNA polymerases and a distinct impact of microsatellite instability and replication repair deficiency on the scale of mutation load. Unbiased clustering, based on mutational context, revealed clinically relevant subgroups regardless of the tumors' tissue of origin, highlighting similarities in evolutionary dynamics leading to hypermutation. Mutagens, such as UV light, were implicated in unexpected cancers, including sarcomas and lung tumors. The order of mutational signatures identified previous treatment and germline replication repair deficiency, which improved management of patients and families. These data will inform tumor classification, genetic testing, and clinical trial design. A large-scale analysis of hypermutation in human cancers provides insights into tumor evolution dynamics and identifies clinically actionable mutation signatures.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(author)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
