4.6 Review

Using tumour phylogenetics to identify the roots of metastasis in humans

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 258-272

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.238

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. US Department of Defence [W81XWH-11-1-0146]
  2. Breast Cancer Innovator Award [W81XWH-10-1-0016]
  3. US National Institutes of Health [P01CA080124, R01CA163815]
  4. Proton Beam/Federal Share Program
  5. National Foundation for Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In cancer, much uncertainty remains regarding the origins of metastatic disease. Models of metastatic progression offer competing views on when dissemination occurs (at an early or late stage of tumour development), whether metastases at different sites arise independently and directly from the primary tumour or give rise to each other, and whether dynamic cell exchange occurs between synchronously growing lesions. Although it is probable that many routes can lead to the establishment of systemic disease, clinical observations suggest that distinct modes of metastasis might prevail in different tumour types. Gaining a more-comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary processes that underlie metastasis is not only relevant from a basic biological perspective, but also has profound clinical implications. The 'tree of life' of metastatic cancer contains answers to many outstanding questions about the development of systemic disease, but has only been reconstructed in a limited number of patients. Here we review available data on the phylogenetic relationships between primary solid tumours and their metastases, and examine to what degree they support different models of metastatic progression. We provide a description of experimental methods for lineage tracing in human cancer, ranging from broad DNA-sequencing approaches to more-targeted techniques, and discuss their respective benefits and caveats. Finally, we propose future research questions in the area of cancer phylogenetics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据