Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Human Cancer Biology

Telomere Content and Risk of Second Malignant Neoplasm in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

Maria M. Gramatges, Qi Liu, Yutaka Yasui, M. Fatih Okcu, Joseph P. Neglia, Louise C. Strong, Gregory T. Armstrong, Leslie L. Robison and Smita Bhatia
Maria M. Gramatges
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Qi Liu
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yutaka Yasui
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Fatih Okcu
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph P. Neglia
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louise C. Strong
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gregory T. Armstrong
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leslie L. Robison
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Smita Bhatia
1Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine; 2The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; 3School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; 4Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; 5St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee; and 6City of Hope, Duarte, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2076 Published February 2014
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: Shorter constitutional telomere length has been associated with increased cancer incidence. Furthermore, telomere shortening is observed in response to intensive chemotherapy and/or ionizing radiation exposure. We aimed to determine whether less telomere content was associated with treatment-related second malignant neoplasms (SMN) in childhood cancer survivors.

Experimental Design: Using a nested case–control design, 147 cancer survivors with breast cancer, thyroid cancer, or sarcoma developing after treatment for childhood cancer (cases) were matched (1:1) with childhood cancer survivors without a SMN (controls). Cases and controls were matched by primary cancer diagnosis, years since diagnosis, age at the time of sample collection, years of follow-up from childhood cancer diagnosis, exposure to specific chemotherapy agents, and to specific radiation fields. We performed conditional logistic regression using telomere content as a continuous variable to estimate ORs with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for development of SMN. ORs were also estimated for specific SMN types, i.e., breast cancer, thyroid cancer, and sarcoma.

Results: There was an inverse relationship between telomere content and SMN, with an adjusted OR of 0.3 per unit change in telomere length to single-copy gene ratio (95% CI, 0.09–1.02; P = 0.05). Patients with thyroid cancer SMN were less likely to have more telomere content (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00–0.55; P = 0.01), but statistically significant associations could not be demonstrated for breast cancer or sarcoma.

Conclusions: A relation between less telomere content and treatment-related thyroid cancer was observed, suggesting that shorter telomeres may contribute to certain SMNs in childhood cancer survivors. Clin Cancer Res; 20(4); 904–11. ©2013 AACR.

This article is featured in Highlights of This Issue, p. 777

See related article by Shay, p. 779

Translational Relevance

Shortened constitutional telomeres are a well-established risk factor for the development of primary malignancies. This association is thought to derive from genomic instability due to excessive telomere shortening, predisposing cells toward malignant transformation. In this study, we hypothesized that second cancers may also be associated with shortened telomeres. To investigate this hypothesis, we obtained biologic specimens from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and performed a matched case–control analysis of telomere content between survivors with and without second malignant neoplasm (SMN). Our results suggest an association between shortened telomeres and SMN that is primarily driven by thyroid SMN. This study represents the first report of telomere content analysis in childhood cancer survivors. As approximately 1 out of 3 cancer survivors with SMN develops additional cancers, our results suggest a genetic predisposition for cancer related to telomere biology, whether due to inherited short telomeres, therapy-related telomere shortening, or other factors affecting telomere homeostasis.

Introduction

Second malignant neoplasms (SMN) are a well-recognized late effect of cancer therapy, and have emerged as the leading cause of non relapse-related late mortality after childhood cancer (1–3). The cumulative incidence of SMNs (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers) approaches 8% at 30 years from primary cancer diagnosis, and childhood cancer survivors are at a 3- to 6-fold increased risk of SMNs when compared with an age- and sex-matched general population (3–5). Exposure to radiation and specific chemotherapeutic agents is associated with an increased risk of developing SMNs (6, 7). Evidence that 28% of Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) participants with a history of a second neoplasm will subsequently develop additional neoplasms (8), coupled with an increased risk of cancer observed in siblings and other family members of childhood cancer survivors with SMNs (9, 10), may suggest that, in addition to exogenous exposures, underlying genetic factors that increase genomic instability may contribute to increased SMN risk.

Telomeres are repetitive DNA–protein structures localized to chromosome ends that protect chromosome integrity by preventing end-to-end fusions as well as loss of proximal terminal coding regions during DNA replication. Telomere length is determined by associated telomeric proteins, i.e., telomerase, the telomeric environment, and genetic factors (11, 12). In somatic cells in which sufficient telomerase is lacking, telomeric DNA shortens progressively with each cell division until a critically short length is reached. Critically short telomeres are recognized as DNA damage, resulting in cellular senescence or apoptosis (13); thus, progressive telomere shortening serves as a molecular clock for cellular replicative aging. In the absence of cellular senescence or apoptosis, short telomeres lose their protective capacity, permitting chromosomal fusions and breakage–fusion–breakage cycles that may result in genomic instability and a potential for malignant transformation (12). Therefore, telomere shortening that naturally occurs with age has been proposed as a mechanism for the increased cancer risk observed in older populations (14). Indeed, the relation between risk for de novo cancers and estimates of average constitutional telomere length suggest that shortened telomeres may be a marker for cancer susceptibility (15–17).

In addition to the effect of aging upon telomere length, chemotherapy and ionizing radiation can significantly impair telomere maintenance and function in human cells (18). In fact, exposure to ionizing radiation has been shown to result in persistent irreparable damage to telomeric DNA (19). Thus, cancer therapy–induced telomere dysfunction may predispose cancer survivors to development of additional cancers. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that less telomere content would be associated with SMNs among childhood cancer survivors.

Materials and Methods

Participants

The study population was drawn from the CCSS: a multi-institutional retrospective cohort of more than 5-year survivors of leukemia, brain tumor, Hodgkin lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms tumor, neuroblastoma, soft-tissue sarcoma, or bone tumor diagnosed before the age of 21 years and between 1970 and 1986 (20). All participating institutions obtained local institutional review board approval for the CCSS protocol and participants provided informed consent for data collection, medical record abstraction, and banking of a biologic specimen. The current study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board, where the quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis was performed.

Study design

Using a nested case–control design, CCSS participants with a confirmed SMN (cases) were compared with survivors who had not developed a SMN (controls). We restricted this analysis to three SMN types, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, and sarcomas, thus capturing the most common SMNs observed in this population. To be eligible for the current study, subjects must have had a buccal cell DNA sample available in the CCSS biorepository and should not have received hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Subjects with buccal cell samples procured before the development of their first SMN (n = 41) were prioritized. However, to ensure adequate sample size, we did include subjects with samples procured after first (n = 96) and second SMN diagnosis (n = 10). Among the 10 subjects with a second SMN, those with breast cancer as a first SMN (n = 5) had developed breast (n = 4) and thyroid (n = 1) as second SMNs; those with sarcoma as first SMN (n = 3) had developed sarcoma (n = 2) and thyroid (n = 1) second SMNs; those with thyroid cancer as first SMN (n = 2) had developed melanoma (n = 1) and sarcoma (n = 1) second SMNs.

In selecting the appropriate control group for this study, our goal was to ensure that both cases and controls had equal opportunity for developing a SMN. Accordingly, controls comprised CCSS participants matched (1:1) to cases by primary diagnosis, age at time of sample collection [±10 years, with 87 (59.2%) pairs falling within ±2 years, 33 pairs (22.4%) falling between 2+ and 5 years, and 27 pairs (18.4%) falling within 5+ years], number of years between primary cancer diagnosis and sample collection (exceeded the latency between primary cancer diagnosis and development of SMN for the index case by a mean of 4.4 ± 6.7 years [with 79 (53.7%) pairs falling within ±2 years, 56 pairs (38.1%) falling between 2+ and 5 years, and 12 pairs (8.2%) falling within 5+ years], exposure (yes/no) to specific classes of chemotherapeutic agents (anthracyclines, alkylators, epipodophyllotoxins, other, or none), and exposure (yes/no) to specific radiation fields (chest/spine, brain/neck/head, abdomen/pelvis, other, or none). The case–control pairs were generated by density sampling and, as with cases, HCT recipients were excluded from consideration as controls.

Source of DNA and methods of isolation

Estimations of constitutional telomere length may be made using DNA extracted from blood, buccal cell samples, or fibroblasts as a representative cell population for the organism as a whole (21, 22). In individuals with an underlying defect of telomere biology, these three cell types have demonstrated significant intraindividual correlation when telomere content is measured by qPCR (21). However, because telomere length may vary between cell populations, only subjects with DNA from mouthwash samples were included in this study, to minimize potential intraindividual variability (see Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Figs. S1 and S2). Samples were collected using methods described previously (23), and genomic DNA was isolated from buccal cells using Qiagen kits. DNA was quantified using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific) after vortexing to ensure accurate and uniform concentration. Samples were stored at −80°C until time of use.

qPCR for telomere content

We used a qPCR technique to measure the telomere content in buccal cell DNA. The data generated are a relative rather than absolute quantification, with the value corresponding to the amount of telomere DNA amplified relative to a single-copy gene (36B4). Because this technique estimates telomere DNA quantity relative to the quantity of a single-copy gene, we refer to the output of this measure as “telomere content,” rather than “telomere length.” The qPCR technique, as first described by Cawthon and colleagues (24), does correlate with telomere length measured by the Southern blot analysis of telomere restriction fragments (25), and was selected to accommodate the large number of samples and the limited quantity and quality of DNA available (see Supplementary Methods). Following PCR amplification, wells with threshold cycle (Ct) values greater than 0.5 from the middle value of each triplicate or those wells failing to amplify were excluded, so that the Ct values ascribed to the remaining two wells were averaged for the telomere content calculation. Case and control samples were intermixed at random so that the investigators were blinded to the case/control status at the time of telomere content measurement and calculation.

Statistical analysis

To account for matching, we compared cases and controls with respect to the distributions of potential confounders using the Generalized Estimating Equation (26) when the outcomes were continuous or binary, and the bootstrap method (27) when the outcomes were from three or more categories (Tables 1 and 2). The Generalized Estimating Equation (26) was also used to compare cases and controls with respect to mean telomere content (Table 3). ORs and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for developing an SMN per unit change in telomere content (a continuous variable) were estimated by conditional logistic regression, adjusting for age at diagnosis of primary cancer, sex, race/ethnicity, smoking status, and family history of cancer in a first-degree relative. ORs were first estimated for all SMNs, and then by specific SMN type (Table 3). The same analyses were repeated using only the case–control pairs with the case sample drawn before SMN diagnosis (Table 4), and then only pairs whose cases were exposed to ionizing radiation. All tests were two-sided, with a two-sided P value of < 0.05 considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software version 9.2 (SAS Institute).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Distribution of childhood cancer survivors with and without SMN

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Distribution of childhood cancer survivors with and without SMN for criteria not used in matching

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Association between telomere content and SMN, cases versus controls

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Association between telomere content and SMN, cases versus controls, with case sample drawn before SMN diagnosis

Results

A total of 159 SMN cases (breast cancer: n = 75, thyroid cancer: n = 49, and sarcoma: n = 35) and 153 matched controls were identified. Two cases and two controls were excluded because of failure to amplify in all three wells or because the difference between all three values in the triplicate was greater than 0.5, leaving 157 cases and 151 controls. Exclusion of cases without matched controls resulted in a final analysis set of 147 case–control pairs. The 147 cases included 68 cases with breast cancer, 48 with thyroid cancer, and 31 with sarcoma. The clinical characteristics of the cases and controls are summarized in Table 1, and the distribution of potential confounding factors not included in the matching criteria are shown in Table 2, with corresponding P values. Significant differences between cases and controls were noted in the sex distribution, primarily reflective of the number of women developing breast cancer SMN, and smoking status, with more “>1 pack/week for 5+ years” smokers among controls than cases.

Telomere content was obtained for the 294 samples. All unknown Ct values were within the range of the standard curve, with correlation coefficients of ≥0.98. The average coefficient of variation for telomere Ct values was 0.58% (0.02%–1.86%), and for 36B4 was 0.39% (0.004%–1.28%). Paired analysis of telomere content indicated no significant difference in mean telomere content between the cases and controls for all SMNs (P = 0.71), or when analysis was conducted by type of SMN (breast cancer, thyroid cancer, or sarcoma; Table 3).

We conducted a multivariable analysis with telomere content as a continuous explanatory variable, adjusting for age at diagnosis of primary disease, sex, race, family history of cancer in a first-degree relative, and smoking status. For all SMNs, cases had less telomere content than controls (adjusted OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.09–1.02; P = 0.05), a finding that seemed to be primarily driven by observations in cases with thyroid cancer (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00–0.55; P = 0.01). This effect was not observed in the sarcoma and breast cancer SMN subgroups (Table 3).

We then examined only pairs in which the case sample was taken before their SMN diagnosis (41 pairs; Table 4). In this group, for all SMNs, the adjusted OR was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01–1.11; P = 0.06), suggesting that the SMN risk associated with less telomere content may not have been the result of additional treatment exposure for the SMN. For this subanalysis, the population was too small to conduct the analysis for individual SMN types.

To understand the relation between telomere content and SMN among patients exposed to radiation, we restricted the analysis to case–control pairs with a history of exposure to radiation (116 pairs). In this group, for all SMNs, the adjusted OR was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.09–1.70; P = 0.21). Within the individual SMN types, the observed difference between cases and controls exposed to radiation was only significant for those pairs including cases with thyroid cancer as a SMN (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.00–0.92; P = 0.04). A similar analysis restricted to case–control pairs exposed only to chemotherapy was uninformative due to small sample size.

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrated an association between less telomere content and SMNs in childhood cancer survivors, an observation primarily driven by subjects with secondary thyroid cancer. The three SMN types included in the current study, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, and sarcoma, are among the most prevalent SMNs in childhood cancer survivors and are associated primarily with exposure to radiation, and to a lesser extent, chemotherapy (28–33), factors that are known to affect telomere maintenance. By selecting controls matched to cases by primary diagnosis and specific therapeutic exposures, we were able to account for the risk associated with these variables in the development of SMN.

Evidence exists for telomere shortening and downregulation of telomerase activity after chemotherapy or radiation exposure in vitro (18), with effects that are irreversible (19). These results have also been noted in vivo, as both telomere shortening and reduced telomerase activity were noted in individuals who had received chemotherapy, compared with samples taken before the exposure (34). In addition, when compared with age-matched healthy controls, those who received chemotherapy had significantly shorter telomeres, suggesting that chemotherapeutic agents may accelerate the natural shortening that occurs with the aging process (35). Exposure to ionizing radiation also impairs telomere maintenance in vivo, as evidenced in Chernobyl workers exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation where telomeric shortening was seen even 20 years after exposure, further suggesting that the effect of radiation-induced telomere loss is prolonged (36). In a prospective study of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, those with shorter telomeres, more complex chromosome rearrangements, and in vitro radiation sensitivity were more likely to develop SMN compared with those who did not demonstrate those characteristics (37). Therefore, individuals with constitutionally short telomeres or telomere damage after chemotherapy or radiation exposure may be at increased risk for developing SMN.

Our study suggests a relation between SMN and telomere content for all SMNs. Cases and controls were closely matched by age, diagnosis, and therapeutic considerations to allow each group an equal opportunity to develop an SMN. Of note, significant differences in both sex distribution and tobacco exposure between the two groups may have acted as potential confounders, although adjustments for these factors were included in our statistical analyses. In considering specific SMN diagnoses, the association between telomere content and thyroid cancer, breast cancer, and sarcoma varied among the three subtypes examined. A statistically significant association was observed between less telomere content and thyroid cancer. Risk for secondary thyroid cancer (in particular the papillary variant) has been associated primarily with radiation exposure, although associations with chemotherapy have also been described (28, 32). This risk exhibits a dose–response relationship, as demonstrated previously in the larger CCSS cohort, of which this study is a subset (28). Interestingly, constitutional telomere shortening has been described in subjects with familial papillary thyroid carcinoma, when compared with those with sporadic thyroid cancers (38, 39). Moreover, evidence of damage to telomeric DNA, such as increased number of telomeric fusions and spontaneous telomeric interactions, was observed in familial papillary thyroid cancer subjects when compared with healthy subjects and patients with spontaneous thyroid cancer, suggesting an underlying genomic instability predisposing these patients to cancer (40). These findings support the existence of abnormalities in telomere maintenance specific to thyroid cancer with hereditary predisposition, which may be a contributing factor to the significant association between secondary thyroid cancer and shortened telomeres observed in our study population.

Our results fail to demonstrate a relation between telomere content and secondary breast cancer. Findings with regard to telomere length and risk for de novo breast cancer have been inconsistent. Although most retrospective studies show an association with shorter telomeres, this association loses significance when the question is examined prospectively, suggesting that treatment effect may play a role in observed telomere shortening (41, 42). Therefore, the absence of an association with regard to secondary breast cancer is perhaps not surprising. We observed a statistically nonsignificant positive association between telomere content and secondary sarcoma. Of the three SMN types considered in the current study, the sarcoma population was the most limited, both by sample size and heterogeneity, as samples represented both soft-tissue sarcomas and bone sarcomas such as the Ewing sarcoma or osteosarcoma. Recently, a case–control study showed longer leukocyte telomeres to be associated with an increased risk for soft-tissue sarcomas (43). In contrast, another case–control study examining constitutional telomere length and risk for de novo osteosarcoma demonstrated a statistically significant association with shortened telomeres among females (44). Osteosarcoma is often associated with chromosomal aneuploidy (45), suggesting a predisposing underlying chromosomal instability. However, no significant correlations with polymorphisms in telomere biology genes have been found thus far (44). In addition, the matched controls for our sarcoma SMN group consisted of a disproportionately high number of heavy smokers compared with the study population as a whole, which may have confounded the analysis, as smoking has been shown to shorten telomere length with each pack-year smoked (46). Although attempts were made to adjust for smoking status, an imbalance of tobacco exposure may in part explain the observation of less mean telomere content among the sarcoma cases. Furthermore, restricting the sarcoma population to those whose sample was collected before SMN reversed the direction of the association to what was observed in the breast and thyroid cancer populations.

The association between telomere content and the subsequent development of SMN is most reliable when the sample is taken before the diagnosis of the SMN. One limitation to our study was that a significant proportion of our SMN cases had samples taken after their SMN diagnosis, raising the concern for further reduction in telomere content as a result of additional chemotherapy rather than as an observation that preceded SMN diagnosis. We examined this possibility by conducting a subanalysis among the cases that had samples collected before SMN diagnosis, demonstrating a maintained association between less telomere content and SMN that was concordant with our hypothesis. Such an association would be further strengthened if there were a measurable trajectory of telomere attrition before the development of SMN, as was shown by Chakraborty and colleagues to occur preceding development of therapy-related myelodysplasia (47).

Additional limitations include the relatively small cohort size, and the small amount of DNA available for analysis, which precluded our ability to validate our qPCR findings by Southern blot analysis by probing for telomere DNA. Similarly, although it is the shortest telomere end, rather than the average telomere length, that contributes to chromosomal instability (48), the limited amount of DNA available also prohibited performance of single telomere length analysis. There may be additional confounders potentially affecting the telomere length, such as presence of gingival inflammation at the time of sample procurement, that we were unable to control for in our analysis due to lack of information. For example, we were unable to determine the influence of familial cancer syndromes on our data set, as information with regard to p53 or BRCA status, for example, was also not available. However, we did control for family history of cancer in a first-degree relative; furthermore, previous estimates of the proportion of familial cancer syndromes within the CCSS cohort, based upon self-reported family history, are low (9).

To our knowledge, this study represents the only investigation of an association between telomere content and SMNs in childhood cancer survivors. Our findings in this unique cohort suggest value in further study of shortened telomeres as a predisposing factor to development of SMN. Prospective validation of our results may elucidate whether subjects with SMN had short telomeres preceding their first diagnosis of cancer or had inappropriately rapid germline telomere attrition in response to chemotherapy or radiation. It is worth noting that the CCSS cohort is still relatively young, with the oldest subjects now in their fifth decade of life. Therefore, the effects of further age-related telomere shortening may yet be forthcoming, so that revisiting this question in 5 to 10 years may provide a larger sample size and a stronger statistical comparison. Current recommendations for SMN surveillance are based upon known risk factors, such as patient demographics and therapeutic exposures (49). Methods for predicting risk for SMN in childhood cancer survivors have been proposed on the basis of statistical modeling that incorporate clinical and demographic variables (50). Prospective confirmation of our findings may lead to incorporation of telomere length measurements into such predictive algorithms in the future, thus targeting surveillance to those at highest risk for developing SMNs.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Authors' Contributions

Conception and design: M.M. Gramatges, M.F. Okcu, J.P. Neglia, L.C. Strong, G.T. Armstrong, S. Bhatia

Development of methodology: M.M. Gramatges, M.F. Okcu

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): J.P. Neglia, L.L. Robison

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): M.M. Gramatges, Q. Liu, Y. Yasui, M.F. Okcu, L.L. Robison

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: M.M. Gramatges, Y. Yasui, M.F. Okcu, J.P. Neglia, L.C. Strong, G.T. Armstrong, L.L. Robison, S. Bhatia

Study supervision: J.P. Neglia, L.C. Strong, G.T. Armstrong

Grant Support

This work was supported by The National Cancer Institute (U24 CA 55727; to L.L. Robison), the NIH-NCI (5K12CA090433-10; Pediatric Oncology Clinical Research Training Grant to M.M. Gramatges), and the American Lebanese Syrian Associate Charities (ALSAC).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the patients and their families who have participated in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Footnotes

  • Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Received July 26, 2013.
  • Revision received October 15, 2013.
  • Accepted November 11, 2013.
  • ©2013 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Mertens AC,
    2. Liu Q,
    3. Neglia JP,
    4. Wasilewski K,
    5. Leisenring W,
    6. Armstrong GT,
    7. et al.
    Cause-specific late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:1368–79.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Jenkinson HC,
    2. Hawkins MM,
    3. Stiller CA,
    4. Winter DL,
    5. Marsden HB,
    6. Stevens MC
    . Long-term population-based risks of second malignant neoplasms after childhood cancer in Britain. Br J Cancer 2004;91:1905–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Friedman DL,
    2. Whitton J,
    3. Leisenring W,
    4. Mertens AC,
    5. Hammond S,
    6. Stovall M,
    7. et al.
    Subsequent neoplasms in 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1083–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Reulen RC,
    2. Frobisher C,
    3. Winter DL,
    4. Kelly J,
    5. Lancashire ER,
    6. Stiller CA,
    7. et al.
    Long-term risks of subsequent primary neoplasms among survivors of childhood cancer. JAMA 2011;305:2311–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Olsen JH,
    2. Moller T,
    3. Anderson H,
    4. Langmark F,
    5. Sankila R,
    6. Tryggvadottir L,
    7. et al.
    Lifelong cancer incidence in 47,697 patients treated for childhood cancer in the Nordic countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:806–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. de Vathaire F,
    2. Francois P,
    3. Hill C,
    4. Schweisguth O,
    5. Rodary C,
    6. Sarrazin D,
    7. et al.
    Role of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the risk of second malignant neoplasms after cancer in childhood. Br J Cancer 1989;59:792–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Armstrong GT,
    2. Stovall M,
    3. Robison LL
    . Long-term effects of radiation exposure among adult survivors of childhood cancer: results from the childhood cancer survivor study. Radiat Res 2010;174:840–50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Armstrong GT,
    2. Liu W,
    3. Leisenring W,
    4. Yasui Y,
    5. Hammond S,
    6. Bhatia S,
    7. et al.
    Occurrence of multiple subsequent neoplasms in long-term survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3056–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Friedman DL,
    2. Kadan-Lottick NS,
    3. Whitton J,
    4. Mertens AC,
    5. Yasui Y,
    6. Liu Y,
    7. et al.
    Increased risk of cancer among siblings of long-term childhood cancer survivors: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1922–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Strong LC,
    2. Stine M,
    3. Norsted TL
    . Cancer in survivors of childhood soft tissue sarcoma and their relatives. J Natl Cancer Inst 1987;79:1213–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nordfjall K,
    2. Svenson U,
    3. Norrback KF,
    4. Adolfsson R,
    5. Roos G
    . Large-scale parent-child comparison confirms a strong paternal influence on telomere length. Eur J Hum Genet 2010;18:385–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Raynaud CM,
    2. Sabatier L,
    3. Philipot O,
    4. Olaussen KA,
    5. Soria JC
    . Telomere length, telomeric proteins and genomic instability during the multistep carcinogenic process. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008;66:99–117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Artandi SE,
    2. Attardi LD
    . Pathways connecting telomeres and p53 in senescence, apoptosis, and cancer. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2005;331:881–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Shay J,
    2. Wright W,
    3. Werbin H
    . Loss of telomeric DNA during aging may predispose cells to cancer (review). Int J Oncol 1993;3:559–63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Wentzensen IM,
    2. Mirabello L,
    3. Pfeiffer RM,
    4. Savage SA
    . The association of telomere length and cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:1238–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Ma H,
    2. Zhou Z,
    3. Wei S,
    4. Liu Z,
    5. Pooley KA,
    6. Dunning AM,
    7. et al.
    Shortened telomere length is associated with increased risk of cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e20466.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Willeit P,
    2. Willeit J,
    3. Mayr A,
    4. Weger S,
    5. Oberhollenzer F,
    6. Brandstatter A,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length and risk of incident cancer and cancer mortality. JAMA 2010;304:69–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Li P,
    2. Hou M,
    3. Lou F,
    4. Bjorkholm M,
    5. Xu D
    . Telomere dysfunction induced by chemotherapeutic agents and radiation in normal human cells. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 2012;44:1531–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Fumagalli M,
    2. Rossiello F,
    3. Clerici M,
    4. Barozzi S,
    5. Cittaro D,
    6. Kaplunov JM,
    7. et al.
    Telomeric DNA damage is irreparable and causes persistent DNA-damage-response activation. Nat Cell Biol 2012;14:355–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Robison LL,
    2. Armstrong GT,
    3. Boice JD,
    4. Chow EJ,
    5. Davies SM,
    6. Donaldson SS,
    7. et al.
    The childhood cancer survivor study: A national cancer institute-supported resource for outcome and intervention research. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2308–18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Gadalla SM,
    2. Cawthon R,
    3. Giri N,
    4. Alter BP,
    5. Savage SA
    . Telomere length in blood, buccal cells, and fibroblasts from patients with inherited bone marrow failure syndromes. Aging 2010;2:867–74.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Sakoff JA,
    2. De Waal E,
    3. Garg MB,
    4. Denham J,
    5. Scorgie FE,
    6. Enno A,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length in haemopoietic stem cells can be determined from that of mononuclear blood cells or whole blood. Leuk Lymphoma 2002;43:2017–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Ness KK,
    2. Li C,
    3. Mitby PA,
    4. Radloff GA,
    5. Mertens AC,
    6. Davies SM,
    7. et al.
    Characteristics of responders to a request for a buccal cell specimen among survivors of childhood cancer and their siblings. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010;55:165–70.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Cawthon RM
    . Telomere measurement by quantitative PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30:e47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Aviv A,
    2. Hunt SC,
    3. Lin J,
    4. Cao X,
    5. Kimura M,
    6. Blackburn E
    . Impartial comparative analysis of measurement of leukocyte telomere length/DNA content by Southern blots and qPCR. Nucleic Acids Res 2011;39:e134.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Zeger SL,
    2. Liang KY,
    3. Albert PS
    . Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988;44:1049–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Efron B,
    2. Tibshirani R
    . An introduction to the bootstrap. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1994.
  28. 28.↵
    1. Bhatti P,
    2. Veiga LH,
    3. Ronckers CM,
    4. Sigurdson AJ,
    5. Stovall M,
    6. Smith SA,
    7. et al.
    Risk of second primary thyroid cancer after radiotherapy for a childhood cancer in a large cohort study: an update from the childhood cancer survivor study. Radiat Res 2010;174:741–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Hawkins MM,
    2. Wilson LM,
    3. Burton HS,
    4. Potok MH,
    5. Winter DL,
    6. Marsden HB,
    7. et al.
    Radiotherapy, alkylating agents, and risk of bone cancer after childhood cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:270–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Taylor AJ,
    2. Croft AP,
    3. Palace AM,
    4. Winter DL,
    5. Reulen RC,
    6. Stiller CA,
    7. et al.
    Risk of thyroid cancer in survivors of childhood cancer: results from the British Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Int J Cancer 2009;125:2400–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Inskip PD,
    2. Robison LL,
    3. Stovall M,
    4. Smith SA,
    5. Hammond S,
    6. Mertens AC,
    7. et al.
    Radiation dose and breast cancer risk in the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3901–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Veiga LH,
    2. Bhatti P,
    3. Ronckers CM,
    4. Sigurdson AJ,
    5. Stovall M,
    6. Smith SA,
    7. et al.
    Chemotherapy and thyroid cancer risk: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:92–101.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Henderson TO,
    2. Whitton J,
    3. Stovall M,
    4. Mertens AC,
    5. Mitby P,
    6. Friedman D,
    7. et al.
    Secondary sarcomas in childhood cancer survivors: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:300–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Schroder CP,
    2. Wisman GB,
    3. de Jong S,
    4. van der Graaf WT,
    5. Ruiters MH,
    6. Mulder NH,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length in breast cancer patients before and after chemotherapy with or without stem cell transplantation. Br J Cancer 2001;84:1348–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Beeharry N,
    2. Broccoli D
    . Telomere dynamics in response to chemotherapy. Curr Mol Med 2005;5:187–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Ilyenko I,
    2. Lyaskivska O,
    3. Bazyka D
    . Analysis of relative telomere length and apoptosis in humans exposed to ionising radiation. Exp Oncol 2011;33:235–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. M'Kacher R,
    2. Bennaceur-Griscelli A,
    3. Girinsky T,
    4. Koscielny S,
    5. Delhommeau F,
    6. Dossou J,
    7. et al.
    Telomere shortening and associated chromosomal instability in peripheral blood lymphocytes of patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma prior to any treatment are predictive of second cancers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:465–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Capezzone M,
    2. Cantara S,
    3. Marchisotta S,
    4. Busonero G,
    5. Formichi C,
    6. Benigni M,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length in neoplastic and nonneoplastic tissues of patients with familial and sporadic papillary thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2011;96:E1852–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. He M,
    2. Bian B,
    3. Gesuwan K,
    4. Gulati N,
    5. Zhang L,
    6. Nilubol N,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length is shorter in affected members of families with familial nonmedullary thyroid cancer. Thyroid 2012.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Cantara S,
    2. Pisu M,
    3. Frau DV,
    4. Caria P,
    5. Dettori T,
    6. Capezzone M,
    7. et al.
    Telomere abnormalities and chromosome fragility in patients affected by familial papillary thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:E1327–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. De Vivo I,
    2. Prescott J,
    3. Wong JY,
    4. Kraft P,
    5. Hankinson SE,
    6. Hunter DJ
    . A prospective study of relative telomere length and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:1152–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. 42.↵
    1. Pooley KA,
    2. Sandhu MS,
    3. Tyrer J,
    4. Shah M,
    5. Driver KE,
    6. Luben RN,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length in prospective and retrospective cancer case-control studies. Cancer Res 2010;70:3170–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Xie H,
    2. Wu X,
    3. Wang S,
    4. Chang D,
    5. Pollock RE,
    6. Lev D,
    7. et al.
    Long telomeres in peripheral blood leukocytes are associated with an increased risk of soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer 2013;119:1885–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Mirabello L,
    2. Richards EG,
    3. Duong LM,
    4. Yu K,
    5. Wang Z,
    6. Cawthon R,
    7. et al.
    Telomere length and variation in telomere biology genes in individuals with osteosarcoma. Int J Mol Epidemiol Genet 2011;2:19–29.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Sandberg AA,
    2. Bridge JA
    . Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue tumors: osteosarcoma and related tumors. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2003;145:1–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Valdes AM,
    2. Andrew T,
    3. Gardner JP,
    4. Kimura M,
    5. Oelsner E,
    6. Cherkas LF,
    7. et al.
    Obesity, cigarette smoking, and telomere length in women. Lancet 2005;366:662–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Chakraborty S,
    2. Sun CL,
    3. Francisco L,
    4. Sabado M,
    5. Li L,
    6. Chang KL,
    7. et al.
    Accelerated telomere shortening precedes development of therapy-related myelodysplasia or acute myelogenous leukemia after autologous transplantation for lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:791–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. 48.↵
    1. Hemann MT,
    2. Strong MA,
    3. Hao LY,
    4. Greider CW
    . The shortest telomere, not average telomere length, is critical for cell viability and chromosome stability. Cell 2001;107:67–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Hudson MM,
    2. Mulrooney DA,
    3. Bowers DC,
    4. Sklar CA,
    5. Green DM,
    6. Donaldson SS,
    7. et al.
    High-risk populations identified in Childhood Cancer Survivor Study investigations: implications for risk-based surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:2405–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Dinu I,
    2. Liu Y,
    3. Leisenring W,
    4. Mertens AC,
    5. Neglia JP,
    6. Hammond S,
    7. et al.
    Prediction of second malignant neoplasm incidence in a large cohort of long-term survivors of childhood cancers. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2008;50:1026–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 20 (4)
February 2014
Volume 20, Issue 4
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Telomere Content and Risk of Second Malignant Neoplasm in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Telomere Content and Risk of Second Malignant Neoplasm in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Maria M. Gramatges, Qi Liu, Yutaka Yasui, M. Fatih Okcu, Joseph P. Neglia, Louise C. Strong, Gregory T. Armstrong, Leslie L. Robison and Smita Bhatia
Clin Cancer Res February 15 2014 (20) (4) 904-911; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2076

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Telomere Content and Risk of Second Malignant Neoplasm in Survivors of Childhood Cancer: A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Maria M. Gramatges, Qi Liu, Yutaka Yasui, M. Fatih Okcu, Joseph P. Neglia, Louise C. Strong, Gregory T. Armstrong, Leslie L. Robison and Smita Bhatia
Clin Cancer Res February 15 2014 (20) (4) 904-911; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2076
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors' Contributions
    • Grant Support
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Contact Guidance Controls T-cell Migration in PDAC
  • MET in Papillary RCC
  • Identification of T-cell Antigens by Minigene Screening
Show more Human Cancer Biology
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement