Peto's paradox revisited: black box vs mechanistic approaches to understanding the roles of mutations and promoting factors in cancer

Mutations, Bottlenecks, and Clonal Sweeps: How Environmental Carcinogens and Genomic Changes Shape Clonal Evolution during Tumor Progression

The transition from a single, initiated cell to a full-blown malignant tumor involves significant genomic evolution. Exposure to carcinogens-whether directly mutagenic or not-can drive progression toward malignancy, as can stochastic acquisition of cancer-promoting genetic events. Mouse models using both carcinogens and germline genetic manipulations have enabled precise inquiry into the evolutionary dynamics that take place as a tumor progresses from benign to malignant to metastatic stages. Tumor progression is characterized by changes in somatic point mutations and copy-number alterations, even though any single tumor can itself have a high or low burden of genomic alterations. Further, lineage-tracing, single-cell analyses and CRISPR barcoding have revealed the distinct clonal dynamics within benign and malignant tumors. Application of these tools in a range of mouse models can shed unique light on the patterns of clonal evolution that take place in both mouse and human tumors.

Chance, ignorance, and the paradoxes of cancer: Richard Peto on developing preventative strategies under uncertainty

During the early 1980s both cancer biology and epidemiological methods were being transformed. In 1984 the leading cancer epidemiologist Richard Peto - who, in 1981, had published the landmark Causes of Cancer with Richard Doll - wrote a short chapter on "The need for ignorance in cancer research", in which the worlds of epidemiology and speculative Darwinian biology met. His reflections on how evolutionary theory related to cancer have become known as "Peto's paradox", whilst his articulation of "black box epidemiology" provided the logic of subsequent practice in the field. We reprint this sparkling and prescient example of biologically-informed epidemiological theorising at its best in this issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology, together with four commentaries that focus on different aspects of its rich content. Here were provide some contextual background to the 1984 chapter, and our own speculations regarding various paradoxes in cancer epidemiology. We suggest that one reason for the relative lack of progress in indentifying novel modifiable causes of cancer over the last 40 years may reflect such exposures being ubiquitous within environments, and discuss the lessons for epidemiology that would follow from this.