4.8 Article

Dynamic clonal equilibrium and predetermined cancer risk in Barrett's oesophagus

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12158

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. The Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF)
  2. The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  3. Fonds NutsOhra
  4. European Research Council (ERC-StG)
  5. Gutclub foundation
  6. Abbott Molecular
  7. QMUL Research-IT
  8. EPSRC [EP/K000128/1]
  9. Cancer Research UK
  10. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
  11. NIH [P01 CA91955, R01 CA149566, R01 CA170595, R01 CA185138, R01 CA140657]
  12. CDMRP Breast Cancer Research Program Award [BC132057]
  13. Cancer Research UK [19771] Funding Source: researchfish
  14. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K000233/1, EP/K000128/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  15. EPSRC [EP/K000233/1, EP/K000128/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus allows us to study the evolutionary dynamics of a human neoplasm over time. Here we use multicolour fluorescence in situ hybridization on brush cytology specimens, from two time points with a median interval of 37 months in 195 non-dysplastic Barrett's patients, and a third time point in a subset of 90 patients at a median interval of 36 months, to study clonal evolution at single-cell resolution. Baseline genetic diversity predicts progression and remains in a stable dynamic equilibrium over time. Clonal expansions are rare, being detected once every 36.8 patient years, and growing at an average rate of 1.58 cm(2) (95% CI: 0.09-4.06) per year, often involving the p16 locus. This suggests a lack of strong clonal selection in Barrett's and that the malignant potential of 'benign' Barrett's lesions is predetermined, with important implications for surveillance programs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available