Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40322791›Full record

ReviewCancer medicine2025

Accelerated Aging in Cancer and Cancer Treatment: Current Status of Biomarkers.

Soniya Abraham, Jay Parekh, Seohyuk Lee, Humayra Afrin, Mariya Rozenblit, Kim R M Blenman, Rachel J Perry, Leah M Ferrucci, Jessica Liu, Melinda L Irwin and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. p16GeroScience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Large fiber contribution to symptoms in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Soniya AbrahamDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale-New Haven Health Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1596-258X
Jay ParekhDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale-New Haven Health Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA.
Seohyuk LeeYale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Humayra AfrinDivision of Medical Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Mariya RozenblitDivision of Medical Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Kim R M BlenmanDivision of Medical Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Rachel J PerryDepartment of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Leah M FerrucciYale School of Public Health, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Jessica LiuYale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Melinda L IrwinYale School of Public Health, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Maryam LustbergDivision of Medical Oncology, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8559-5645

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAging in humans is a heterogeneous process influenced by both biological and chronological factors. Biological age reflects an individual's physiological reserve and functional status. Increasing evidence suggests that cancer and its therapies accelerate biological aging. Many biomarkers have been evaluated to assess the biological age of patients with cancer. These biomarkers are emerging as potential tools to predict cancer-related toxicity and an individual's functional capacity as well as to individualize treatment.

methodsThis review summarizes the current literature on aging biomarkers in cancer patients, with a focus on markers of cellular senescence and epigenetic modification. We evaluate the existing evidence supporting their use as predictors of toxicity in patients undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy.

resultsBiomarkers such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), leukocyte telomere length (LTL), and DNA methylation age show potential for assessing biological age, frailty, and functional reserve. The expression of p16INK4A has demonstrated promise in predicting therapy-induced toxicity and making treating decisions. However, additional confirmatory studies are necessary to further validate these biomarkers before they can be utilized as decision aids.

conclusionAging biomarkers hold promise for individualizing cancer therapy and predicting treatment-related toxicity. However, further studies are essential to validate their reliability and support their integration into clinical practice.

Indexed as

AgingBiomarkers, TumorNeoplasmsBiomarkersCellular SenescenceDNA MethylationEpigenesis, GeneticHumansBiomarkersBiomarkers, Tumoraccelerated agingbiomarkers of agingcancer therapy toxicitycellular senescence

Identifiers

PMID40322791
PMCPMC12051034

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.