{"title":"The strength of organ, tissue, and body field effects determines the frequency of all neoplasia","authors":"Piet C. de Groen","doi":"10.1111/nyas.15306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 1953, Danely Slaughter proposed the concept of field cancerization, or field effect, to explain the development of additional neoplasia of similar type. A recent theory (de Groen, 2022) states that all DNA is exposed to a constant source of damage, resulting in a constant rate of germline and somatic DNA mutations. If the field effect and constant mutation theories are correct and a single somatic mutation causes the transition from non-neoplastic to neoplastic phenotype, then all rates of neoplasia formation can be modeled by exponential equations containing a single variable that determines the chance of phenotype transition. In this perspective, studies from 1953 till 2021 originating from America, Europe, and Asia about head, chest, abdomen, pelvic, and skin neoplasia were reviewed and showed consistent field effects that are modeled by tapering exponential equations containing a single variable defining field effect strength; Pearson and linear correlation coefficients for observed and modeled data range from 0.994 to 1. Thus, existing data are compatible with a constant rate of DNA damage. Organ-specific, tissue-specific, or body-wide mutagenesis conditions determine the rate of neoplasia development and explain the co-occurrence of seemingly unrelated neoplasia at predictable frequencies. Shared risk factors explain increased risk for additional neoplasia in persons with one neoplastic lesion.</p>","PeriodicalId":8250,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","volume":"1546 1","pages":"11-22"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.15306","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.15306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In 1953, Danely Slaughter proposed the concept of field cancerization, or field effect, to explain the development of additional neoplasia of similar type. A recent theory (de Groen, 2022) states that all DNA is exposed to a constant source of damage, resulting in a constant rate of germline and somatic DNA mutations. If the field effect and constant mutation theories are correct and a single somatic mutation causes the transition from non-neoplastic to neoplastic phenotype, then all rates of neoplasia formation can be modeled by exponential equations containing a single variable that determines the chance of phenotype transition. In this perspective, studies from 1953 till 2021 originating from America, Europe, and Asia about head, chest, abdomen, pelvic, and skin neoplasia were reviewed and showed consistent field effects that are modeled by tapering exponential equations containing a single variable defining field effect strength; Pearson and linear correlation coefficients for observed and modeled data range from 0.994 to 1. Thus, existing data are compatible with a constant rate of DNA damage. Organ-specific, tissue-specific, or body-wide mutagenesis conditions determine the rate of neoplasia development and explain the co-occurrence of seemingly unrelated neoplasia at predictable frequencies. Shared risk factors explain increased risk for additional neoplasia in persons with one neoplastic lesion.
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the New York Academy of Sciences, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences provides multidisciplinary perspectives on research of current scientific interest with far-reaching implications for the wider scientific community and society at large. Each special issue assembles the best thinking of key contributors to a field of investigation at a time when emerging developments offer the promise of new insight. Individually themed, Annals special issues stimulate new ways to think about science by providing a neutral forum for discourse—within and across many institutions and fields.