4.8 Article

Whole-Genome Sequencing of Asian Lung Cancers: Second-Hand Smoke Unlikely to Be Responsible for Higher Incidence of Lung Cancer among Asian Never-Smokers

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 74, 期 21, 页码 6071-6081

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-3195

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR)
  2. National Medical Research Council, Singapore [TCR11dec016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Asian nonsmoking populations have a higher incidence of lung cancer compared with their European counterparts. There is a long-standing hypothesis that the increase of lung cancer in Asian never-smokers is due to environmental factors such as second-hand smoke. We analyzed whole-genome sequencing of 30 Asian lung cancers. Unsupervised clustering of mutational signatures separated the patients into two categories of either all the never-smokers or all the smokers or ex-smokers. In addition, nearly one third of the ex-smokers and smokers classified with the never-smoker-like cluster. The somatic variant profiles of Asian lung cancers were similar to that of European origin with G.C>T.A being predominant in smokers. We found EGFR and TP53 to be the most frequently mutated genes with mutations in 50% and 27% of individuals, respectively. Among the 16 never-smokers, 69% had an EGFR mutation compared with 29% of 14 smokers/ex-smokers. Asian never-smokers had lung cancer signatures distinct from the smoker signature and their mutation profiles were similar to European never-smokers. The profiles of Asian and European smokers are also similar. Taken together, these results suggested that the same mutational mechanisms underlie the etiology for both ethnic groups. Thus, the high incidence of lung cancer in Asian never-smokers seems unlikely to be due to second-hand smoke or other carcinogens that cause oxidative DNA damage, implying that routine EGFR testing is warranted in the Asian population regardless of smoking status. (C)2014 AACR.

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

4.8
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