Cited by 309Cancer Genomics and DiagnosticsCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

The mutational footprints of cancer therapies

Open access
Pich, Oriol, Muiños, Ferran, Lolkema, Martijn Paul, Steeghs, Neeltje, Gonzalez-Perez, Abel, Lopez-Bigas, Nuria·2019·Nature Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Some cancer therapies damage DNA and cause mutations in both cancerous and healthy cells. Therapy-induced mutations may underlie some of the long-term and late side effects of treatments, such as mental disabilities, organ toxicity and secondary neoplasms. Nevertheless, the burden of mutation contributed by different chemotherapies has not been explored. Here we identify the mutational signatures or footprints of six widely used anticancer therapies across more than 3,500 metastatic tumors originating from different organs. These include previously known and new mutational signatures generated by platinum-based drugs as well as a previously unknown signature of nucleoside metabolic inhibitors. Exploiting these mutational footprints, we estimate the contribution of different treatments to the mutation burden of tumors and their risk of contributing coding and potential driver mutations in the genome. The mutational footprints identified here allow for precise assessment of the mutational risk of different cancer therapies to understand their long-term side effects. Analysis of whole-genome sequences from more than 3,500 metastatic tumors identifies mutational signatures associated with different chemotherapies and provides estimates of the relative contribution of different treatments to tumor mutational burden.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41588-019-0525-5

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Common cancer treatments in general do not induce mutations that may interfere with CHORD predictions.

    “Two recent studies showed that common cancer treatments in general do not induce mutations that may interfere with CHORD predictions16,17.”

    From Pan-cancer landscape of homologous recombination deficiency. (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results section, “The mutational footprints of six anti-cancer therapies,” identifies mutational signatures caused by widely used platinum-based treatments, contrary to the claim that common treatments generally do not induce mutations. The paper does not assess whether treatment-induced mutations interfere with CHORD predictions, so that specific effect cannot be judged from this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Radiotherapy has the potential to induce deletions with flanking microhomology, which could lead to false-positive HRD classifications.

    “However, these two studies (as well as one by Behjati et al.18) did show that radiotherapy had the potential to induce deletions with flanking microhomology, which could potentially lead to false-positive HRD classifications.”

    From Pan-cancer landscape of homologous recombination deficiency. (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results (page unavailable) report higher activity of a radiation-associated insertion/deletion signature in irradiated tumors, including HR-proficient tumors. Extended Data Fig. 4 also links that signature to HR deficiency. Neither passage specifies deletions with flanking microhomology or says that radiotherapy could cause false-positive HRD classifications. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The most common cancer treatments have been shown to have little or no contribution to microhomology deletions, with the exception of radiotherapy.

    “The most common cancer treatments have been shown to have little or no contribution to microhomology deletions, with the exception of radiotherapy16–18.”

    From Pan-cancer landscape of homologous recombination deficiency. (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results (page unavailable) report an indel signature associated with radiation and higher activity in irradiated than non-irradiated tumors. They do not identify that signature as microhomology deletions or show that common treatments make little or no contribution to those deletions. The Discussion (page unavailable) also cautions that other treatment associations may have gone undetected. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pich, O., Muiños, F., Lolkema, M. P., Steeghs, N., Gonzalez-Perez, A., & Lopez-Bigas, N.
Affiliations
  • Institute for Research in Biomedicine (ES)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2019-11-18
Volume
51
Issue
12
Pages
1732-1740
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2983330893
Cited by
309
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 2
FWCI
11.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Institute for Research in Biomedicine
  • Centres de Recerca de Catalunya
  • Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology
  • Generalitat de Catalunya
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (RYC2013-14554, SAF2015-66084-R)
  • Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht
  • H2020 European Research Council (682398)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Keywords
mutational signatures, cancer chemotherapy, platinum drugs, tumor mutational burden, metastatic cancer, secondary malignancies, treatment side effects, driver mutations, whole genome sequencing
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Humans, Mutation, Neoplasms, Radiotherapy, Risk Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review