1. Introduction
In the current era of medical treatments, the cure rate of cancer has reached approximately 80% in children [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] and 67% in adults [ 4 ]. Although many treatment modalities are being developed, the main components of therapy still include surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. During the 19th and the first part of the 20th century, surgical resection was the only possible treatment for cancers. Radiotherapy became available around 1900 but proved, like surgery, unsuccessful in many patients. Cure rates improved after the invention of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was first introduced shortly after World War II with nitrogen mustard as a treatment modality against lymphomas, leukemias, and Hodgkin’s disease [ 5 ]. Shortly after, aminopterin, a predecessor of methotrexate, was prescribed to children with acute leukemia [ 6 ]. More chemotherapeutic drugs were developed during the 20th century, which are nowadays used in different combinations in various treatment schedules depending on a.o. tumor type, risk stratification group, and genetic landscape [ 7 , 8 ]. Treatment protocols are being updated continuously to increase survival rates. In addition, the focus of treatment optimization has shifted to diminish therapy-related toxicity. Some of the most common side-effects induced by anti-cancer treatments are secondary (therapeutic-induced) malignancies, nephro-, hepato-, neuro-, cardio-, and ototoxicity [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. To kill tumor cells, chemo- and radiotherapy are frequently used that mainly target DNA, but these therapies also elevate DNA damage in (surrounding) healthy tissue, causing toxicities and accelerated aging [ 10 , 12 , 14 , 15 ].
Reduction of therapy-induced side-effects would be of benefit to all age groups. Since life expectancy has increased over the last decades, more cancer survivors and especially children still have many years to live with a lowered quality of life after being cured from cancer. Generally, children tolerate higher drug doses (in mg per m 2 body surface area) than adults, likely due to higher drug clearance rates and larger volumes of drug distribution [ 16 ]. These differences are perhaps caused by better functioning of detoxifying organs, liver, and kidneys, and larger total body water percentage compared to adults [ 16 ]. As drug dose is guided by the maximum tolerated dose, children are often treated with higher dosages of the same drug compared to adults [ 16 ]. This might contribute to varying degrees of toxicity in pediatric patients compared to adult patients [ 17 ]. As most pediatric cancer patients are subjected to combination therapy, it is hard to link the observed side-effects to one specific chemotherapeutic. Knowledge of medications used during cancer treatment, their mechanism of action, and toxicities occurring in different organs is required to timely observe development of toxicity, adjust treatment accordingly, and prevent further deterioration. The conventional chemotherapeutics can be divided into agents that do or do not lead to DNA damage. In case of DNA damage, DNA repair mechanisms can be activated according to the type of damage inflicted [ 18 ] ( Figure 1 ). However, the doses of cytostatic agents are usually high, making it impossible for the cells to repair the damage adequately. In case of non-DNA-damaging agents, cellular processes involved in duplication or proliferation are inhibited, preventing further expansion, ultimately leading to cell death [ 19 ]. This review focuses on the classical chemotherapeutics and their consequential side-effects observed in patients ( Table 1 ). Organ-specific toxicities are described, alongside their causative agents and (potential) underlying mechanisms.
2. Chemotherapy Side-Effects Observed in Cancer Survivors
2.1. Nephrotoxicity
Many chemotherapeutic drugs are cleared from our body by the kidneys [ 27 , 31 , 69 ]. The two major drug excretion routes are via glomerular filtration and tubular secretion [ 24 ]. Renal tissue is therefore exposed to higher concentrations of most drugs than blood and likely other organs, frequently leading to acute kidney injury (AKI) or late-life nephrotoxicity [ 24 , 27 , 31 , 42 , 69 ].
2.1.1. Alkylating Agents
Frequently used chemotherapy subtypes are alkylating agents, such as platinum agents, cyclophosphamide, and ifosfamide. Platinum agents, used for multiple cancers, mostly injure proximal tubule cells, as uptake of these chemotherapeutics by proximal and distal tubular cells is necessary for active secretion into urine, resulting in accumulation of the drug in these cells [ 27 , 70 , 71 ]. The most common platinum drug, cisplatin, is also highly toxic as it easily reacts with DNA [ 33 ]. Cisplatin is taken up via membrane transporters such as organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and high affinity copper uptake protein 1 (CTR1), which are highly expressed on proximal tubular cells [ 72 , 73 ]. As soon as cisplatin is transported into the cell’s cytoplasm, it becomes reactive by the replacement of one or two of its chloride groups. After this process, also known as aquation, cisplatin will bind covalently with the DNA, forming intrastrand or interstrand crosslinks [ 15 , 74 ] ( Figure 1 ). Crosslinks between two strands of DNA are more harmful, since these block DNA replication and are less efficiently tackled by the DNA repair machinery [ 15 ]. Due to the absence of an intact template strand, crosslink repair is prone to errors, which can lead to double-strand breaks, cell-cycle arrest, and eventually senescence or programmed cell death, contributing to aging and development of secondary cancers [ 74 , 75 ]. Other platinum agents, such as carboplatin or oxaliplatin, have one of the two chloride groups replaced by carboxylate or cyclobutane, respectively, making these compounds less reactive [ 24 ]. Concentrations of cisplatin are approximately 5-fold higher in proximal tubular cells than in blood [ 42 , 76 ], and as both the renal tubules and glomeruli are actively involved in cisplatin elimination, complications may arise in both structures [ 42 ]. Besides directly causing DNA damage, platinum agents can also increase reactive oxygen species (ROS), generating cellular damage, ER stress, and stimulating the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway [ 25 , 69 , 77 ]. On a microscopic level, exposure to high doses of cisplatin leads to inadequate reabsorption of small molecules (e.g., glucose and amino acids) also known as Fanconi syndrome (FS), interstitial oedema, and dilation of the proximal and distal tubules [ 27 , 31 ]. Potential clinical manifestations of cisplatin-induced kidney damage are reduced creatinine clearance, impaired magnesium reabsorption, decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR), AKI, distal renal tubular acidosis, thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), and chronic renal failure [ 21 , 31 , 78 ].
Other alkylating agents, such as ifosfamide, used against sarcomas, lymphomas, and testicular/ovarian cancers, appear to be nephrotoxic mostly at high doses [ 31 ]. Toxic side-effects can be caused by the agent itself or by its metabolite chloroacetaldehyde. Like platinum agents, ifosfamide is taken up by the proximal tubule cells, causing tubular dysfunction and FS [ 21 , 27 , 29 ]. Due to acute tubular necrosis (ATN) and impaired sensitivity to anti-diuretic hormone (ADH), the kidneys fail to concentrate urine. This so-called nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (NDI) will result in polyuria causing severe dehydration and electrolyte imbalances [ 29 , 79 ].
2.1.2. Antimetabolites
Antimetabolites (e.g., methotrexate, pemetrexed, and gemcitabine) are competitive inhibitors of metabolic processes and are predominantly eliminated by the kidneys, leading to nephrotoxicity. Generally, incorporation of antimetabolites in DNA or RNA (precursors) leads to inhibition of DNA and RNA synthesis, halting cell division and triggering cell death [ 27 ]. Methotrexate, an antifolic antimetabolite, is one of the most widely used antineoplastic agents against leukemias, lymphomas, and osteosarcomas [ 27 ]. This drug and its metabolites precipitate into renal tubule cells, due to insufficient dissolution in urine at low pH, causing crystal nephropathy [ 27 , 29 , 31 , 33 ]. This crystal deposition causes intratubular obstruction, leading to renal dysfunction and eventually AKI [ 33 , 80 ]. Methotrexate also transiently decreases GFR due to vasoconstriction of afferent renal arteries, ultimately leading to glomerular dysfunction [ 33 ]. Pemetrexed, often used to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), is an antimetabolite that inhibits enzymes involved in purine/pyrimidine synthesis [ 24 , 27 ]. This drug is often associated with impaired creatinine clearance, tubular damage, and AKI [ 24 ]. Gemcitabine is primarily used against carcinomas in lung, pancreas, bladder, and breast, and its antiproliferative activity also depends on inhibition of DNA synthesis. This occurs as soon as gemcitabine is incorporated in DNA, which leads to termination of DNA elongation by DNA polymerase [ 81 ]. Treatment with gemcitabine can cause drug-induced TMA, AKI, and sometimes renal failure, indicating the severe toxic side-effects of this drug [ 21 , 24 , 35 ].
2.1.3. Anti-Cancer Antibiotics
Anthracyclines, a subgroup of anti-cancer antibiotics also known as topoisomerase II inhibitors, are mostly toxic to the heart (see below); but in addition, the anthracycline doxorubicin also causes nephrotoxicity. This drug is mostly used against breast cancer, aggressive lymphomas, childhood solid tumors, and soft tissue sarcomas and its mechanism of action is predominantly based on DNA intercalation [ 82 ]. As a result, DNA and RNA synthesis are blocked and DNA lesions such as double- and single-strand breaks emerge [ 83 , 84 ], causing nephrotic syndrome, glomerular sclerosis, TMA, and AKI [ 33 , 36 ]. Anti-cancer antibiotics often have TMA manifested as hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), leading to AKI. Mitomycin is an alkylating agent that inhibits DNA synthesis by interstrand crosslink formation. Its uptake frequently leads to direct damage to the renal parenchyma leading to TMA, HUS, and AKI [ 33 , 35 ].
2.2. Hepatotoxicity
The liver’s role in detoxification, drug metabolism, and excretion of waste products partially explains why many cancer therapies are harmful to the liver [ 38 ]. However, the specific mechanisms underlying hepatotoxicity of many agents remain to be elucidated. Various therapies are associated with liver toxicity, including irinotecan, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, and irradiation, which can manifest in several ways [ 40 , 85 ]. Hepatitis, cholestasis, and steatosis are some of the most frequent toxic side-effects of chemotherapy [ 38 ].
2.2.1. Alkylating Agents
Generally, alkylating agents are less toxic to liver compared to kidneys, likely due to low expression of transporters required for platinum uptake [ 39 , 70 , 72 ]. One of the most hepatotoxic alkylating agents is cyclophosphamide. It is activated and degraded by the liver via P450 microsomal oxidative mechanisms, generating the cytotoxic acrolein and phosphoramide mustard as by-products [ 43 ]. Combined with irradiation, cyclophosphamide toxicity is highly increased [ 38 ]. Platinum-based chemotherapeutics and nitrosoureas generate toxic effects in the liver due to uptake by the hepatocytes for metabolism and detoxification [ 28 , 43 ]. This causes accumulation of intra- and interstrand crosslinks and hepatocyte polyploidization, reducing their normal functioning [ 42 ]. Occasionally, cisplatin and carboplatin generate cholestasis, steatohepatitis, and veno-occlusive disease (VOD) [ 38 , 39 ]. Oxaliplatin is often used in combination therapy, causing steatosis, VOD, and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) [ 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Nitrosoureas exert their cytotoxicity via both alkylation and carbamoylation of DNA, leading to cell-cycle arrest and cell death [ 28 , 43 ]. Besides these DNA adducts, nitrosoureas also exert their cytotoxic effects via depletion of hepatic stores of glutathione, a strong antioxidant, thereby increasing oxidative injury [ 39 , 43 , 44 ].
2.2.2. Antimetabolites
Many antimetabolites, such as cytarabine, 5-fluorouracil, methotrexate, and anthracyclines, are metabolized by the liver. Consequently, hepatocytes are exposed to the toxic side-effects of these drugs or their by-products [ 39 ]. Cytarabine, or cytosine arabinoside (ara-C), is often used against leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphomas [ 39 ]. It is a pyrimidine nucleoside analogue mimicking cytidine and deoxycytidine, which are necessary for DNA synthesis [ 43 ]. Treatment with cytarabine can lead to cholestasis, biliary stricture, and fibrosis [ 38 , 39 ]. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is metabolized primarily in the liver and seems to accumulate in hepatocytes, where uracil analogues can interfere with RNA synthesis directly and DNA synthesis by inhibiting conversion of dUMP to dTMP [ 37 , 86 ]. Subsequent dNTP imbalance ultimately leads to DNA strand breaks and apoptosis [ 87 ]. However, most toxicity reports were made after intra-venous injections of 5-FU, not with oral administration [ 38 , 39 , 44 ]. 6-Mercatopurine (6-MP), often used in acute lymphoid leukemia, inhibits purine synthesis and can be incorporated into DNA leading to apoptosis [ 44 ]. Most common side-effects of this drug are cholestatic and hepatocellular liver disease [ 38 , 43 , 44 ]. Methotrexate therapy often leads to liver cirrhosis and fibrosis, and capecitabine, gemcitabine, and floxuridine frequently cause hepatitis and cholestasis [ 38 , 39 , 43 ].
2.2.3. Topoisomerase Inhibitors
Topoisomerase inhibitors damage DNA by blocking and disturbing the function of topoisomerase in the process of DNA replication. Topoisomerase I binds to DNA and allows it to uncoil by cutting one strand, passing the other one through the single-strand break, and then resealing the cleaved strand. Formation of transient DNA double-strand breaks is performed by topoisomerase II to release tension on the DNA helix [ 88 , 89 ]. Topoisomerase inhibitors block DNA replication by inhibiting re-ligation of the cleaved strand(s), leaving the generated DNA breaks unrepaired [ 90 ]. Additionally, increased tension on DNA prevents proper functioning of DNA and RNA polymerases, followed by DNA damage and transcriptional arrest and eventually cell death [ 91 ]. Irinotecan, a topoisomerase I inhibitor, is often used for colorectal, lung, and ovarian cancers [ 90 ]. It is a prodrug that is converted into the active metabolite SN-38 via carboxylesterases CES1 and CES2. SN-38 is mostly metabolized into an inactive form (SN-38G) by uridine glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1), which is primarily found in the liver [ 37 ]. The exact mechanism of irinotecan-induced hepatotoxicity remains to be elucidated, but it seems that both oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction play a large role. Mitochondria dysfunction likely arises by inhibition of replication of mitochondrial DNA by irinotecan. This can, in turn, lead to increased ROS production by a defective respiratory chain and increased lipid peroxidation [ 37 ]. Clinical manifestations of irinotecan hepatotoxicity are steatosis and hepatitis. Etoposide is a topoisomerase II inhibitor, which is mostly excreted by bile and relatively mild for the liver [ 39 , 44 ]. There are, however, a few observations of hepatocellular injury, hepatitis, and cholestasis [ 39 , 43 ].
2.2.4. Other Chemotherapeutics
Anti-cancer antibiotics can be hepatotoxic, especially dactinomycin and mitomycin are identified as hepatotoxic chemotherapeutics, although they differ in mechanism of action [ 39 ]. Dactinomycin intercalates with the DNA, blocking RNA and protein synthesis [ 39 ]. Mitomycin works as an alkylating and crosslinking agent, mostly inhibiting DNA synthesis, and often leading to cell-cycle arrest and/or apoptosis [ 43 , 44 ]. Both compounds often cause hepatitis and VOD [ 39 ]. Another drug class, mitotic inhibitors, such as taxanes and vinca alkaloids, target microtubules. Vinca alkaloids specifically bind tubulin, thereby primarily inhibiting microtubule formation, disrupting mitotic spindle formation, and finally leading to metaphase arrest [ 92 ]. Vincristine and vinblastine can cause hepatitis and VOD [ 39 , 43 ].
2.2.5. Radiotherapy
Radiotherapy mostly injures organs in the abdomen [ 93 , 94 ]. Radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) typically occurs within four months after radiotherapy [ 45 ]. Irradiation injures the sinusoidal endothelial cells and central vein endothelium, initiating fibrin and collagen proliferation and cloth formation. This results in trapped erythrocytes and vascular congestion, also known as sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (SOS) or VOD [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Hepatic stellate cells, which are activated after endothelial damage, are involved in this process. Namely, besides their engagement in regeneration of hepatocytes, they also secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and specifically TGF-β is suspected to be involved in subendothelial and hepatic fibrosis in RILD [ 45 ]. In addition, radiation damage can lead to increased levels of DNA breaks in hepatocytes driving steatosis [ 95 ].
2.3. Neurotoxicity
Neurotoxicity is mainly presented with sensory and occasionally sensorimotor characteristics, such as numbness, abnormal sensation, or paresthesia in distal extremities, reduced reflexes, and leg weakness [ 50 , 91 , 96 ]. This means that the peripheral nervous system (PNS) is most frequently affected, especially sensory neuronal cell bodies in dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of primary neurons [ 47 , 48 , 50 ], while the central nervous system (CNS) is mostly protected by the blood–brain barrier. Long-term neurotoxicity strongly decreases quality of life. There are, however, no methods to decrease this toxicity, besides lowering treatment dose or instantly terminating treatment upon onset of neurotoxicity [ 50 ].
2.3.1. Alkylating Agents
While many alkylating agents can result in some form of neurotoxicity, platinum agents are described as most damaging to the DRG [ 47 , 50 ]. CTR1 is highly expressed on neuronal cells in the DRG, leading to efficient uptake of platinum compounds, likely explaining the toxicity [ 73 ]. Cisplatin-induced neuropathy is dose-dependent and usually follows a cumulative dose of 400 mg/m 2 or higher [ 48 ]. Oxaliplatin can, in addition to peripheral sensory neuropathy, cause acute neurotoxicity. In contrast to chronic neuropathy, oxaliplatin-induced acute neurotoxicity does not require dose modification or treatment discontinuation. However, it might contribute to the onset and severity of chronic toxicity [ 47 , 50 ].
2.3.2. Antimetabolites
Treatment with antimetabolites can lead to both PNS and CNS neurotoxicity. Methotrexate, a compound that is able to cross the blood–brain barrier and one of the most neurotoxic chemotherapeutics, can cause acute, subacute, and delayed neurotoxicity [ 48 , 49 ]. Acute encephalopathy is reversible, subacute stroke-like syndrome is typically characterized by focal neurologic deficits, aphasia, and seizures, and the most common chronic toxic side-effect caused by methotrexate is leukoencephalopathy [ 48 , 49 ]. On MRI scans, leukoencephalopathy is recognized by diffuse white matter hyperintensities and parenchymal volume loss. It often leads to cognitive impairment, dementia, ataxia, seizures, and focal deficits [ 49 ]. The most concerning toxicity caused by cytarabine is cerebellar dysfunction, or pancerebellar syndrome, which causes nystagmus, dysarthria, and ataxia. This is usually reversible, but in some patients these side-effects become permanent due to cerebellar Purkinje neuron loss [ 48 , 49 ].
2.3.3. Mitotic Inhibitors
Vinca alkaloids, a subtype of mitotic inhibitors, are used in treatment of both non-solid and solid tumors, such as hematologic and lymphatic malignancies, and breast, ovarian, testicular, brain, and NSCLC [ 47 ]. Vincristine is the most neurotoxic of all vinca alkaloids, probably due to its high tubulin binding affinity and long half-life [ 50 ]. Vinca alkaloid treatment generates detrimental modifications to axonal cytoskeletons by disorientation of microtubules and neurofilament accumulation, which leads to alteration in length, arrangement, and orientation [ 47 , 50 ]. Both these events, as well as direct axonal toxicity, lead to loss of function, which might explain the strong side-effects of vincristine therapy [ 49 , 50 ]. Besides axonal damage, vinca alkaloids can also reduce myelin thickness, shortening of inter-nodal length, and segmental demyelination [ 47 ].
Taxanes are another subtype of mitotic inhibitors, and instead of scavenging tubulin resulting in blocked microtubule polymerization, taxanes bind microtubules. This causes aggregate formation, eventually leading to similar complications in large axons, as described with vinca alkaloids [ 46 , 50 ]. Both paclitaxel and docetaxel can cause severe neurotoxicities, such as distal sensory neuropathy, paresthesia, arthralgia-myalgia syndrome (AMS), myopathy, and motor impairment [ 46 , 50 ].
2.3.4. Proteasome Inhibitors
Proteasome inhibitors are a relatively new type of chemotherapeutic drug that decrease protein turnover, leading to protein accumulation, ultimately causing apoptosis. They are mostly used for treatment of multiple myeloma [ 97 ]. Bortezomib was the first FDA-approved proteasome inhibitor and is also most neurotoxic [ 47 , 50 , 97 ]. It is especially damaging to the DRG, where it interferes with transcription, nuclear processing and transport, and cytoplasmic translation of mRNAs. There is evidence of reduced activation of nuclear factor (NF)-κB due to bortezomib-mediated stabilization of the inhibitor IκB and reduced cyclin turnover, affecting cyclin-dependent kinase activity, leading to cell-cycle arrest [ 47 , 97 ]. Bortezomib toxicity is characterized by very painful sensory neuropathy, accompanied by distal sensory loss and hypo- or areflexia [ 47 , 50 ].
2.4. Cardiotoxicity
The heart, being the motor of the body, is one of the most essential organs for normal functioning. Decreased functioning of the heart can lead to severely reduced quality of life and in critical cases even death. Dilated cardiomyopathy, rhythm disturbances, and myocardial infarctions are some of the cardiotoxicities that can develop after chemotherapy treatment [ 98 ]. Cardiovascular disease is in the top three causes of long-term morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors [ 99 , 100 ], affirming the need for prevention and monitoring of cardiac changes during cancer treatment.
2.4.1. Anthracyclines/Cytostatic Antibiotics
Anthracyclines (e.g., doxorubicin, daunorubicin, epirubicin, and idarubicin) are used in the treatment of hematological and solid tumors and are frequently reported to be cardiotoxic [ 101 ]. Development of toxicity is thought to occur from the start of therapy onwards, building up over time in a dose-dependent manner. The main side-effect is (congestive) heart failure, which can be observed shortly after treatment, but also years after therapy is finalized [ 102 ]. Structurally each anthracycline drug consists of an anthraquinone group inside a tetracycline ring and a carbohydrate moiety attached to this ring via a glycosidic bond. Multiple mechanisms have been described for anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity.
Firstly, the quinone group present on anthracyclines is involved in electron transfer reactions, whereby cycling between the quinone and semiquinone form leads to excessive formation of ROS [ 103 , 104 , 105 ]. Additionally, reaction of the quinone group with O 2 or H 2 O 2 with or without the presence of iron can lead to free radical formation [ 103 , 106 ].
Secondly, toxicity of anthracyclines is thought to be higher in cardiomyocytes due to its lower antioxidant capacity compared to other tissues. Lack of natural expression of catalase [ 107 ] and superoxide dismutase [ 108 ] and anthracycline-induced suppression of glutathione peroxidase [ 108 ] result in accumulation of ROS in heart tissue specifically. Subsequent formation of single- and double-strand breaks leads to activation of DNA damage repair, or, in case of excessive damage, apoptosis or senescence.
Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity can also occur via anthracycline targeting of topoisomerase II [ 109 ]. Topoisomerase II has two isoforms, the α (Top2α) and β (Top2β) variants, which are expressed in proliferating and quiescent cells, respectively. Only Top2β is expressed in heart tissue and its presence is hypothesized to be of importance in anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity [ 110 ].
Thirdly, anthracyclines seem to target mitochondria, of which high levels are present in heart tissue, both structurally and functionally. Anthracyclines can change mitochondrial stability by binding to cardiolipin, a phospholipid present on the inner membrane of mitochondria [ 111 ], and reduce transcription of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma coactivator 1-α and -β (PGC-1α and PGC-1β) [ 112 ], which are required for proper functioning of the electron transport chain.
A more recently discovered effect of anthracyclines is histone eviction [ 113 , 114 ]. The exact mechanism is not yet identified, but subsequent effects include attenuation of the DNA damage response, epigenetic changes, and induction of apoptosis.
2.4.2. Other Chemotherapeutic Agents
Cardiotoxicity is observed after treatment with alkylating agents, but for most of these (cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, cisplatin) the mechanism behind the specific sensitivity of cardiomyocytes is unknown [ 51 ]. For mitomycin, which harbors a quinone moiety, it is thought it can undergo redox reactions, thereby creating ROS contributing to the toxic effects on the heart [ 115 ]. The antimetabolite 5-fluorouracil and antimicrotubular agents, paclitaxel and docetaxel, are associated with cardiotoxicity, but the underlying causal processes are not known. For paclitaxel, it is thought the effects on the heart might be induced by its solvent (Cremophor EL), which can lead to induction of IL-8 and activation of MAPK p38 signaling, and not paclitaxel itself [ 116 , 117 , 118 ].
2.5. Hematological Toxicities
Blood parameters, such as number of blood cells, are monitored before and after treatment cycles to reveal occurrence of cytopenia. The main reason to follow changes in blood cell populations is the risk of infection [ 119 , 120 ]. Certain chemotherapeutic agents are known to lead to anemia, neutropenia, and/or thrombocytopenia. When the loss of blood cells has reached a certain threshold, treatment dose is lowered to reduce infection risk [ 119 ].
Information on specific chemotherapies causing hematological toxicity is very limited. One study used public data on antineoplastic drugs that were reported to cause neutropenia obtained from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System [ 121 ]. Associations were found between alkylating, platinum, and antimetabolic agents, antineoplastic antibiotics, plant-derived alkaloids, and the occurrence of neutropenia. The increased risk of severe or febrile neutropenia after anthracycline- or platinum-based regimens was replicated in another study specifically performed in older patients [ 122 ]. Both regimens were also associated with a relative dose intensity <85%, meaning patients received lower doses than prescribed in their treatment protocol. Risk of developing neutropenia was lower when patients were treated with prophylactic colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and is also advised to be given alongside chemotherapy for regimens with an incidence of febrile neutropenia of 20% or higher [ 123 ]. Besides anthracyclines and platinum drug-containing regimens, treatment schedules containing alkylators and topoisomerase inhibitors can lead to myelosuppression [ 124 ].
Incidence of hematological toxicity in pediatric patients is scarcely reported. However, occurrence of this side-effect is reported for many patients with leukemia or lymphoma [ 125 ]. Due to the nature of these cancer types, e.g., infiltration of bone marrow by cancer cells, blood cell counts can be (very) low. As with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, dose reduction might be required to prevent infection and further deterioration of the blood cell population.
2.6. Other Toxicities
2.6.1. Ototoxicity
Chemotherapy associated with ototoxicity includes the platinum agents. Post-treatment hearing loss and/or tinnitus is mostly associated with cisplatin treatment and to a lesser extent with carboplatin or oxaliplatin [ 126 ]. Cisplatin-induced ototoxicity occurs in 23–50% of adults and more than 60% of children [ 127 , 128 , 129 ] and differs depending on genetic susceptibility [ 130 ]. Damage to the inner ear results mostly from ROS produced after cisplatin treatment [ 131 ]. Cisplatin is taken up via OCT2 and accumulates in hair cells, the stria vascularis, and spiral ganglion cells after which these structures are (irreversibly) destroyed leading to hearing loss mostly in the high frequency range [ 132 ]. Although aminoglycosides and furosemide do not belong to the group of drugs classified as chemotherapy, these medications do lead to ototoxicity and can aggravate the effects of platinum agents on the cochlea [ 133 , 134 ].
2.6.2. Gastro-Intestinal Toxicity
Up to 80% of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy experience chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity (CIGT), entailing pain sensation throughout the whole gastrointestinal tract, nausea, infection, and diarrhea [ 135 ]. CIGT likely arises as soon as the mucosal barrier covering the entire gastrointestinal tract is disrupted, leading to pro-inflammatory cytokine release, ulcerations, and inflammation, also known as mucositis [ 136 ]. This does not only cause cell death and dysfunction (malabsorption) of the gastrointestinal epithelium, but it also leads to a disbalance in the gut microbiome, which plays a large role in functioning of the immune system [ 135 ]. The pain, nausea, and dysphagia does not only severely decrease the quality of life of the patients, but the resulting malnutrition can also cause serious health issues or even death in fragile patients [ 137 , 138 ]. Chemotherapeutics that often generate severe CIGT and mucositis are methotrexate, 5-FU, cisplatin, and vinca alkaloids [ 137 , 139 , 140 ]. Toxicities such as mucositis, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, diarrhea, and abdominal pain occur in a large part of patients treated with radiotherapy [ 141 , 142 ].
2.6.3. Gonadal Toxicity
Chemotherapy treatment can also lead to gonadal toxicity. In men, testicular damage can manifest in an acute but mild manner, mostly damaging developing spermatocytes. However, it can also cause a more severe toxicity, where also spermatogonial stem cells are damaged leading to an inability to repopulate the seminiferous tubules with sperm cells [ 143 , 144 ]. In women, the level of chemotherapy-induced ovarian toxicity is dependent on chemotherapy type, treatment protocol, and total cumulative dose [ 145 ]. There are several mechanisms via which chemotherapy can induce premature ovarian failure (POF) or insufficiency (POI). Direct ovarian toxicity, which is mostly caused by alkylating agents, is characterized by apoptosis of glomerular and stromal cells and direct damage to oocytes, and a decrease in primordial follicle pool by increased dormant follicle activation [ 145 , 146 ]. In addition, stromal and vascular damage is generated in the ovaries, mostly induced by anthracyclines, including fibrosis and vessel narrowing leading to decreased blood flow [ 145 , 146 ].
3. Conceptualization of Chemotherapeutics Driving Segmental Aging
As described above, toxicities to different organ systems are each inflicted via specific classes of chemotherapeutics. What is the reason for this and what determines the specificity for certain tissue types and subsequent severity of the side-effects? Drug-intrinsic properties such as biodistribution and reaction kinetics (partially) determine the target organs, whereas factors such as internalization and excretion of drugs by active pumps, (de)toxification mechanisms, and, e.g., the moment during the day the treatment is applied, influence outcome. Most anti-cancer therapies target the DNA at subcellular level, damaging the DNA by inducing different types of DNA lesions depending on the chemotherapy class ( Figure 1 ). This does not only happen in cancer cells but also in the surrounding healthy tissue and more systemically throughout the body. Subsequently, DNA damage can result in (1) mutations and drive carcinogenesis or (2) impaired DNA replication, DNA and/or RNA synthesis, cell-cycle arrest, cellular senescence or cell death, and contribute to cellular or organ functional decline and accelerate aging. The different types of DNA damage can have different outcomes depending on, e.g., the affected organ or cell type ( Table 1 ). Moreover, dosage will be an important determinant, as for example highlighted by animal experiments, showing acute lethality by high dose ionizing radiation. These mice initially die within a few days of gastrointestinal failure, as the stem cells in the crypts are the most rapidly dividing cells of our body, while with a lower dosage, bone marrow failure is observed after a couple of weeks [ 147 , 148 , 149 ]. As our organs comprise various cell types, differing in proliferation rate, differentiation status, and systemic hormonal and immunological parameters, one could imagine that this results in a variable susceptibility of cells to different types of DNA damage [ 150 ].
Under normal non-chemotherapy conditions, DNA damage already occurs continuously at a massive scale: namely about 10 5 DNA lesions arise on a daily basis in every human cell [ 32 , 151 , 152 ]. Part of these lesions originate from exogenous sources, such as UV-light, oxidative damage, genotoxins from cigarette smoke, or even mechanical stress. However, most lesions likely arise from endogenous sources, such as reactive by-products of normal metabolism [ 151 , 153 , 154 ]. Together, this results in a broad variety of chemical modifications to our DNA, ranging from spontaneous deamination and hydrolysis or subtle base modifications to bulky helix distorting lesions, inter- and intrastrand DNA crosslinks, or single- and double-stranded DNA breaks [ 155 , 156 ]. Indirectly, also R-loop formation (hybridization of mature mRNA with double-stranded DNA), as a consequence of transcription stalling, can be considered as DNA damage. These and other aberrant DNA structures trigger a multifaceted network of DNA damage response signaling and lead to the subsequent removal of DNA lesions by various dedicated and complementary DNA repair processes [ 18 , 157 ]. These include amongst others homologous recombination (HR) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) for the repair of double-stranded DNA breaks [ 158 ], base excision repair (BER) for the removal of subtle base modifications [ 159 ], global genome-nucleotide excision repair (GG-NER) and transcription-coupled repair (TCR) for bulky helix distorting lesions [ 160 ], and interstrand crosslink (ICL) repair to resolve DNA crosslinks during replication [ 161 ] ( Figure 2 ). Translesion synthesis polymerases can still bypass damaged DNA bases during replication giving rise to increased mutations over time [ 162 ].
If, however, the number of DNA lesions becomes too high for the repair machineries to tackle, patients treated with various DNA damaging treatments such as radio- and chemotherapy would be left with elevated levels of persisting DNA lesions. The chemotherapy side-effects observations made in Table 1 strengthen the hypothesis that elevated exposure would lead to accelerated aging later in life [ 12 , 15 , 156 ] and is in line with the DNA damage theory of aging [ 155 , 163 ]. Likewise, children with inborn mutations in DNA repair processes or nuclear integrity show segmental progeroid aging, affecting only a subset of tissues and organs [ 157 , 164 , 165 , 166 ]. Both the type of mutation and type of repair process affected in children with progeria syndromes and the classes of chemotherapeutics used for the treatment of (pediatric) cancers result in a specific accumulation of persisting DNA lesions and as such drive accelerated aging across various organs and tissues ( Figure 3 ).
4. Conclusions
This review focused on the toxic side-effects of most classical chemotherapeutics (including radiotherapy) and the occurrence in different organs. It is also clearly displayed that most of the chemotherapeutics target and damage the DNA, resulting in impaired DNA replication, and DNA and RNA synthesis. These factors, together with the level of drug exposure and type of DNA or structural damage induced by the chemotherapeutic, all affect the degree of cancer therapy-induced toxicity. To improve quality of life of cancer patients and survivors, (further) reduction of treatment-induced side-effects is required. To achieve this, monitoring of patients is of great importance, especially during and between treatment cycles, but also regularly after, to timely observe development of toxicities. Health care personnel should be aware of the side-effects of the different components of cancer therapy received by each specific patient to be able to perhaps adjust therapy before (long-term) damage occurs. Additionally, screening patients for risk factors associated with certain therapies might prevent occurrence of certain toxicities, as the treatment protocol can possibly be adjusted beforehand, by, e.g., substituting for a less toxic drug. Lastly, identification of toxicity-related biomarkers could aid in better monitoring and early detection of overtreatment and side-effects, while these are potentially still reversible. Better insight into development of side-effects facilitates the implementation of nutritional or chemical interventions to reduce toxicity [ 9 , 156 , 167 , 168 , 169 ]. Patients can benefit from the aforementioned strategies, resulting in increased wellbeing, in both the short and long term.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Sara Schneemann for help with the literature review and Jan H.J. Hoeijmakers, Marry M. van den Heuvel-Eibrink, and members from the Society Childhood Cancer Netherlands (Vereniging Kinderkanker Nederland) for valuable discussions. Figures were created using BioRender.com.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author Contributions
W.M.C.v.d.B., D.S.J.K. and W.P.V. designed and wrote the manuscript. W.P.V. performed conceptualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Research and writing of this manuscript were indirectly supported by ONCODE (Dutch Cancer Society). WPV by the ADPS Longevity Research Award, Regiodeal Foodvalley (162135), BBoL (NWO-ENW 737.016.015), ZonMW Memorabel (733050810), and EJP-RD TC-NER (RD20-113).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Kaatsch P. Epidemiology of childhood cancer Cancer Treat. Rev. 2010 36 277 285 10.1016/j.ctrv.2010.02.003 20231056
2. Schulpen M. Visser O. Reedijk A.M. Kremer L.C. Zwaan C.M. Eggermont A.M. Coebergh J.W. Pieters R. Karim-Kos H.E. Significant improvement in survival of advanced stage childhood and young adolescent cancer in the Netherlands since the 1990s Eur. J. Cancer 2021 157 81 93 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.08.001 34492587
3. Ward E. De Santis C. Robbins A. Kohler B. Jemal A. Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014 CA Cancer J. Clin. 2014 64 83 103 10.3322/caac.21219 24488779
4. Siegel R.L. Miller K.D. Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020 CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020 70 7 30 10.3322/caac.21590 31912902
5. Goodman L.S. Wintrobe M.M. Dameshek W. Goodman M.J. Gilman A. McLennan M.T. Nitrogen mustard therapy; use of methyl-bis (beta-chloroethyl) amine hydrochloride and tris (beta-chloroethyl) amine hydrochloride for Hodgkin’s disease, lymphosarcoma, leukemia and certain allied and miscellaneous disorders J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1946 132 126 132 10.1001/jama.1946.02870380008004 20997191
6. Farber S. Diamond L.K. Temporary remissions in acute leukemia in children produced by folic acid antagonist, 4-aminopteroyl-glutamic acid N. Engl. J. Med. 1948 238 787 793 10.1056/NEJM194806032382301 18860765
7. Frei E. Holland J.F. Schneiderman M.A. Pinkel D. Selkirk G. Freireich E.J. Silver R.T. Gold G.L. Regelson W. A comparative study of two regimens of combination chemotherapy in acute leukemia Blood 1958 13 1126 1148 10.1182/blood.V13.12.1126.1126 13596417
8. Yang W. Soares J. Greninger P. Edelman E.J. Lightfoot H. Forbes S. Bindal N. Beare D. Smith J.A. Thompson I.R. Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC): A resource for therapeutic biomarker discovery in cancer cells Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 41 D955 D961 10.1093/nar/gks1111 23180760 PMC3531057
9. Armenian S.H. Gibson C.J. Rockne R.C. Ness K.K. Premature Aging in Young Cancer Survivors J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019 111 226 232 10.1093/jnci/djy229 30715446
10. Cupit-Link M.C. Kirkland J.L. Ness K.K. Armstrong G.T. Tchkonia T. LeBrasseur N.K. Armenian S.H. Ruddy K.J. Hashmi S.K. Biology of premature ageing in survivors of cancer ESMO Open 2017 2 e000250 10.1136/esmoopen-2017-000250 29326844 PMC5757468
11. Guida J.L. Ahles T.A. Belsky D. Campisi J. Cohen H.J. DeGregori J. Fuldner R. Ferrucci L. Gallicchio L. Gavrilov L. Measuring Aging and Identifying Aging Phenotypes in Cancer Survivors J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019 111 1245 1254 10.1093/jnci/djz136 31321426 PMC7962788
12. Maccormick R.E. Possible acceleration of aging by adjuvant chemotherapy: A cause of early onset frailty? Med. Hypotheses 2006 67 212 215 10.1016/j.mehy.2006.01.045 16546325
13. Schirrmacher V. From chemotherapy to biological therapy: A review of novel concepts to reduce the side effects of systemic cancer treatment (Review) Int. J. Oncol. 2019 54 407 419 10.3892/ijo.2018.4661 30570109 PMC6317661
14. Wang S. Prizment A. Thyagarajan B. Blaes A. Cancer Treatment-Induced Accelerated Aging in Cancer Survivors: Biology and Assessment Cancers 2021 13 427 10.3390/cancers13030427 33498754 PMC7865902
15. Nonnekens J. Hoeijmakers J.H. After surviving cancer, what about late life effects of the cure? EMBO Mol. Med. 2017 9 4 6 10.15252/emmm.201607062 27852619 PMC5210081
16. Crom W.R. Pharmacokinetics in the child Environ. Health Perspect. 1994 102 (Suppl. 11) 111 117 10.1289/ehp.94102s11111 PMC1566750 7737035
17. Adamson P.C. Improving the outcome for children with cancer: Development of targeted new agents CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015 65 212 220 10.3322/caac.21273 25754421 PMC4629487
18. Hoeijmakers J.H. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer Nature 2001 411 366 374 10.1038/35077232 11357144
19. Kitao H. Iimori M. Kataoka Y. Wakasa T. Tokunaga E. Saeki H. Oki E. Maehara Y. DNA replication stress and cancer chemotherapy Cancer Sci. 2018 109 264 271 10.1111/cas.13455 29168596 PMC5797825
20. Caglar K. Kinalp C. Arpaci F. Turan M. Saglam K. Ozturk B. Komurcu Ş. Yavuz İ. Yenicesu M. Ozet A. Cumulative prior dose of cisplatin as a cause of the nephrotoxicity of high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem-cell transplantation Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2002 17 1931 1935 10.1093/ndt/17.11.1931 12401849
21. Fukasawa H. Furuya R. Yasuda H. Yamamoto T. Hishida A. Kitagawa M. Anti-cancer agent-induced nephrotoxicity Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 2014 14 921 927 10.2174/1871520614666140127105809 24476314
22. Geenen M.M. Cardous-Ubbink M.C. Kremer L.C. van den Bos C. van der Pal H.J. Heinen R.C. Jaspers M.W. Koning C.C. Oldenburger F. Langeveld N.E. Medical assessment of adverse health outcomes in long-term survivors of childhood cancer Jama 2007 297 2705 2715 10.1001/jama.297.24.2705 17595271
23. Kidera Y. Kawakami H. Sakiyama T. Okamoto K. Tanaka K. Takeda M. Kaneda H. Nishina S.-I. Tsurutani J. Fujiwara K. Risk factors for cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and potential of magnesium supplementation for renal protection PLoS ONE 2014 9 e101902 25020203 10.1371/journal.pone.0101902 PMC4096506
24. Małyszko J. Kozłowska K. Kozłowski L. Małyszko J. Nephrotoxicity of anticancer treatment Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2016 32 924 936 10.1093/ndt/gfw338 28339935
25. Manohar S. Leung N. Cisplatin nephrotoxicity: A review of the literature J. Nephrol. 2018 31 15 25 10.1007/s40620-017-0392-z 28382507
26. Miller R.P. Tadagavadi R.K. Ramesh G. Reeves W.B. Mechanisms of Cisplatin Nephrotoxicity Toxins 2010 2 2490 2518 10.3390/toxins2112490 22069563 PMC3153174
27. Nicolaysen A. Nephrotoxic Chemotherapy Agents: Old and New Adv. Chronic Kidney Dis. 2020 27 38 49 10.1053/j.ackd.2019.08.005 32147000
28. Oun R. Moussa Y.E. Wheate N.J. The side effects of platinum-based chemotherapy drugs: A review for chemists Dalton Trans. 2018 47 6645 6653 10.1039/C8DT00838H 29632935
29. Perazella M.A. Moeckel G.W. Nephrotoxicity from chemotherapeutic agents: Clinical manifestations, pathobiology, and prevention/therapy Semin. Nephrol. 2010 30 570 581 10.1016/j.semnephrol.2010.09.005 21146122
30. Sharbaf F.G. Farhangi H. Assadi F. Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nephrotoxicity in children with cancer Int. J. Prev. Med. 2017 8 76 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_40_17 29114374 PMC5651649
31. Hoekman K. van der Vijgh W.J. Vermorken J.B. Clinical and preclinical modulation of chemotherapy-induced toxicity in patients with cancer Drugs 1999 57 133 155 10.2165/00003495-199957020-00002 10188757
32. Gates K.S. An overview of chemical processes that damage cellular DNA: Spontaneous hydrolysis, alkylation, and reactions with radicals Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2009 22 1747 1760 10.1021/tx900242k 19757819 PMC2806061
33. Santos M.L.C. de Brito B.B. da Silva F.A.F. dos Santos Botelho A.C. de Melo F.F. Nephrotoxicity in cancer treatment: An overview World J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 11 190 10.5306/wjco.v11.i4.190 32355641 PMC7186234
34. Emadi A. Jones R.J. Brodsky R.A. Cyclophosphamide and cancer: Golden anniversary Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2009 6 638 647 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.146 19786984
35. Lameire N. Nephrotoxicity of recent anti-cancer agents Clin. Kidney J. 2013 7 11 22 10.1093/ckj/sft135 25859345 PMC4389154
36. Chen Y. Jungsuwadee P. Vore M. Butterfield D.A. St Clair D.K. Collateral damage in cancer chemotherapy: Oxidative stress in nontargeted tissues Mol. Interv. 2007 7 147 156 10.1124/mi.7.3.6 17609521
37. Cai Z. Yang J. Shu X. Xiong X. Chemotherapy-associated hepatotoxicity in colorectal cancer Vascular 2014 14 15 24965391
38. Grigorian A. O’Brien C.B. Hepatotoxicity secondary to chemotherapy J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 2014 2 95 26357620 10.14218/JCTH.2014.00011 PMC4521265
39. Thatishetty A.V. Agresti N. O’Brien C.B. Chemotherapy-Induced Hepatotoxicity Clin. Liver Dis. 2013 17 671 686 10.1016/j.cld.2013.07.010 24099024
40. Torrisi J.M. Schwartz L.H. Gollub M.J. Ginsberg M.S. Bosl G.J. Hricak H. CT findings of chemotherapy-induced toxicity: What radiologists need to know about the clinical and radiologic manifestations of chemotherapy toxicity Radiology 2011 258 41 56 10.1148/radiol.10092129 21183492
41. Zorzi D. Laurent A. Pawlik T. Lauwers G. Vauthey J. Abdalla E. Chemotherapy-associated hepatotoxicity and surgery for colorectal liver metastases J. Br. Surg. 2007 94 274 286 10.1002/bjs.5719 17315288
42. Dasari S. Bernard Tchounwou P. Cisplatin in cancer therapy: Molecular mechanisms of action Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2014 740 364 378 10.1016/j.ejphar.2014.07.025 25058905 PMC4146684
43. Floyd J. Mirza I. Sachs B. Perry M.C. Hepatotoxicity of Chemotherapy Semin. Oncol. 2006 33 50 67 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2005.11.002 16473644
44. King P.D. Perry M.C. Hepatotoxicity of chemotherapy Oncologist 2001 6 162 176 10.1634/theoncologist.6-2-162 11306728
45. Guha C. Kavanagh B.D. Hepatic radiation toxicity: Avoidance and amelioration Seminars in Radiation Oncology WB Saunders Philadelphia, PA, USA 2011 256 263 10.1016/j.semradonc.2011.05.003 PMC3434677 21939854
46. Cavaletti G. Marmiroli P. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity Curr. Opin. Neurol. 2015 28 500 507 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000234 26197027
47. Argyriou A.A. Bruna J. Marmiroli P. Cavaletti G. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN): An update Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 2012 82 51 77 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.04.012 21908200
48. Magge R.S. DeAngelis L.M. The double-edged sword: Neurotoxicity of chemotherapy Blood Rev. 2015 29 93 100 10.1016/j.blre.2014.09.012 25445718 PMC5944623
49. Taillibert S. Le Rhun E. Chamberlain M.C. Chemotherapy-related neurotoxicity Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2016 16 1 14 10.1007/s11910-016-0686-x 27443648
50. Park S.B. Goldstein D. Krishnan A.V. Lin C.S.-Y. Friedlander M.L. Cassidy J. Koltzenburg M. Kiernan M.C. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity: A critical analysis CA Cancer J. Clin. 2013 63 419 437 10.3322/caac.21204 24590861
51. Pai V.B. Nahata M.C. Cardiotoxicity of Chemotherapeutic Agents Drug Saf. 2000 22 263 302 10.2165/00002018-200022040-00002 10789823
52. Yeh E.T. Cardiotoxicity induced by chemotherapy and antibody therapy Annu. Rev. Med. 2006 57 485 498 10.1146/annurev.med.57.121304.131240 16409162
53. Simbre V.C. Duffy S.A. Dadlani G.H. Miller T.L. Lipshultz S.E. Cardiotoxicity of Cancer Chemotherapy Pediatr. Drugs 2005 7 187 202 10.2165/00148581-200507030-00005 15977964
54. Madeddu C. Deidda M. Piras A. Cadeddu C. Demurtas L. Puzzoni M. Piscopo G. Scartozzi M. Mercuro G. Pathophysiology of cardiotoxicity induced by nonanthracycline chemotherapy J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2016 17 S12 S18 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000376 27183520
55. Yeh E.T. Bickford C.L. Cardiovascular complications of cancer therapy: Incidence, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 53 2231 2247 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.02.050 19520246
56. Albini A. Pennesi G. Donatelli F. Cammarota R. De Flora S. Noonan D.M. Cardiotoxicity of anticancer drugs: The need for cardio-oncology and cardio-oncological prevention J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2010 102 14 25 10.1093/jnci/djp440 20007921 PMC2802286
57. Florescu M. Cinteza M. Vinereanu D. Chemotherapy-induced Cardiotoxicity Maedica 2013 8 59 67 24023601 PMC3749765
58. Elliott P. Pathogenesis of cardiotoxicity induced by anthracyclines Semin. Oncol. 2006 33 2 7 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2006.04.020 16781283
59. Tamamyan G. Danielyan S. Lambert M.P. Chemotherapy induced thrombocytopenia in pediatric oncology Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2016 99 299 307 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.01.005 26811139
60. Ten Berg M.J. van den Bemt P.M. Shantakumar S. Bennett D. Voest E.E. Huisman A. van Solinge W.W. Egberts T.C. Thrombocytopenia in adult cancer patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy: Results from a retrospective hospital-based cohort study Drug Saf. 2011 34 1151 1160 10.2165/11594310-000000000-00000 22077503
61. Lokich J.J. Managing chemotherapy-induced bone marrow suppression in cancer Hosp. Pract. 1976 11 61 67 10.1080/21548331.1976.11706980 1027711
62. Hoagland H.C. Hematologic complications of cancer chemotherapy Semin. Oncol. 1982 91 95 102 7071611
63. Germanas J. Pandya A.G. Alkylating agents Dermatol. Ther. 2002 15 317 324 10.1046/j.1529-8019.2002.01540.x
64. Fernandes R. Mazzarello S. Stober C. Vandermeer L. Dudani S. Ibrahim M.F.K. Majeed H. Perdrizet K. Shorr R. Hutton B. Optimal primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis for patients receiving docetaxel–cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer: A systematic review Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2017 161 1 10 10.1007/s10549-016-4028-0 27783280
65. Othieno-Abinya N. Waweru A. Nyabola L. Chemotherapy induced myelosuppression East Afr. Med. J. 2007 84 8 15 10.4314/eamj.v84i1.9485 17633579
66. Chrischilles E.A. Link B.K. Scott S.D. Delgado D.J. Fridman M. Factors associated with early termination of CHOP therapy and the impact on survival among patients with chemosensitive intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma Cancer Control 2003 10 396 403 10.1177/107327480301000507 14581895
67. Crivellari D. Bonetti M. Castiglione-Gertsch M. Gelber R.D. Rudenstam C.M. Thürlimann B. Price K.N. Coates A.S. Hürny C. Bernhard J. Burdens and benefits of adjuvant cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil and tamoxifen for elderly patients with breast cancer: The International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial VII J. Clin. Oncol. 2000 18 1412 1422 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.7.1412 10735888
68. de la Maza Cantero S.S. Martín A.J. de Felipe Mimbrera A. Corral Í.C. Cerebellar toxicity due to cytarabine: A series of 4 cases Neurol. A 2016 7 491 492 10.1016/j.nrleng.2014.12.006 25728956
69. dos Santos N.A. Carvalho Rodrigues M.A. Martins N.M. dos Santos A.C. Cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and targets of nephroprotection: An update Arch. Toxicol. 2012 86 1233 1250 10.1007/s00204-012-0821-7 22382776
70. Ciarimboli G. Membrane transporters as mediators of cisplatin side-effects Anticancer Res. 2014 34 547 550 10.6064/2012/473829 24403515
71. Rabik C.A. Dolan M.E. Molecular mechanisms of resistance and toxicity associated with platinating agents Cancer Treat. Rev. 2007 33 9 23 10.1016/j.ctrv.2006.09.006 17084534 PMC1855222
72. Ciarimboli G. Membrane transporters as mediators of Cisplatin effects and side effects Scientifica 2012 2012 473829 10.6064/2012/473829 24278698 PMC3820462
73. Harrach S. Ciarimboli G. Role of transporters in the distribution of platinum-based drugs Front. Pharmacol. 2015 6 85 10.3389/fphar.2015.00085 25964760 PMC4408848
74. Kelland L. The resurgence of platinum-based cancer chemotherapy Nat. Rev. Cancer 2007 7 573 584 10.1038/nrc2167 17625587
75. Noll D.M. Mason T.M. Miller P.S. Formation and repair of interstrand cross-links in DNA Chem. Rev. 2006 106 277 301 10.1021/cr040478b 16464006 PMC2505341
76. Hayati F. Hossainzadeh M. Shayanpour S. Abedi-Gheshlaghi Z. Beladi Mousavi S.S. Prevention of cisplatin nephrotoxicity J. Nephropharmacol. 2016 5 57 60 28197500 PMC5297508
77. Martins I. Kepp O. Schlemmer F. Adjemian S. Tailler M. Shen S. Michaud M. Menger L. Gdoura A. Tajeddine N. Restoration of the immunogenicity of cisplatin-induced cancer cell death by endoplasmic reticulum stress Oncogene 2011 30 1147 1158 10.1038/onc.2010.500 21151176
78. Kooijmans E.C. Bökenkamp A. Tjahjadi N.S. Tettero J.M. van Dulmen-den Broeder E. van der Pal H.J. Veening M.A. Early and late adverse renal effects after potentially nephrotoxic treatment for childhood cancer Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019 3 Cd008944 10.1002/14651858.CD008944.pub3 30855726 PMC6410614
79. Garofeanu C.G. Weir M. Rosas-Arellano M.P. Henson G. Garg A.X. Clark W.F. Causes of reversible nephrogenic diabetes insipidus: A systematic review Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2005 45 626 637 10.1053/j.ajkd.2005.01.008 15806465
80. Yarlagadda S.G. Perazella M.A. Drug-induced crystal nephropathy: An update Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2008 7 147 158 10.1517/14740338.7.2.147 18324877
81. Mini E. Nobili S. Caciagli B. Landini I. Mazzei T. Cellular pharmacology of gemcitabine Ann. Oncol. 2006 17 v7 v12 10.1093/annonc/mdj941 16807468
82. Johnson-Arbor K. Dubey R. Doxorubicin StatPearls StatPearls Publishing LLC. Treasure Island, FL, USA 2021 29083582
83. Ferrazzi E. Woynarowski J.M. Arakali A. Brenner D.E. Beerman T.A. DNA damage and cytotoxicity induced by metabolites of anthracycline antibiotics, doxorubicin and idarubicin Cancer Commun. 1991 3 173 180 10.3727/095535491820873308 2049226
84. L’Ecuyer T. Sanjeev S. Thomas R. Novak R. Das L. Campbell W. Heide R.V. DNA damage is an early event in doxorubicin-induced cardiac myocyte death Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2006 291 H1273 H1280 10.1152/ajpheart.00738.2005 16565313
85. Hudson M.M. Ness K.K. Gurney J.G. Mulrooney D.A. Chemaitilly W. Krull K.R. Green D.M. Armstrong G.T. Nottage K.A. Jones K.E. Clinical ascertainment of health outcomes among adults treated for childhood cancer Jama 2013 309 2371 2381 10.1001/jama.2013.6296 23757085 PMC3771083
86. Longley D.B. Harkin D.P. Johnston P.G. 5-fluorouracil: Mechanisms of action and clinical strategies Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003 3 330 338 10.1038/nrc1074 12724731
87. Yoshioka A. Tanaka S. Hiraoka O. Koyama Y. Hirota Y. Ayusawa D. Seno T. Garrett C. Wataya Y. Deoxyribonucleoside triphosphate imbalance. 5-Fluorodeoxyuridine-induced DNA double strand breaks in mouse FM3A cells and the mechanism of cell death J. Biol. Chem. 1987 262 8235 8241 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)47554-0 2954951
88. Nitiss J.L. Targeting DNA topoisomerase II in cancer chemotherapy Nat. Rev. Cancer 2009 9 338 350 10.1038/nrc2607 19377506 PMC2748742
89. Pommier Y. Topoisomerase I inhibitors: Camptothecins and beyond Nat. Rev. Cancer 2006 6 789 802 10.1038/nrc1977 16990856
90. Xu Y. Her C. Inhibition of Topoisomerase (DNA) I (TOP1): DNA Damage Repair and Anticancer Therapy Biomolecules 2015 5 1652 1670 10.3390/biom5031652 26287259 PMC4598769
91. Hartmann J.T. Lipp H.-P. Toxicity of platinum compounds Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2003 4 889 901 10.1517/14656566.4.6.889 12783586
92. Moudi M. Go R. Yien C.Y. Nazre M. Vinca alkaloids Int. J. Prev. Med. 2013 4 1231 1235 24404355 PMC3883245
93. Andreyev J. Gastrointestinal complications of pelvic radiotherapy: Are they of any importance? Gut 2005 54 1051 1054 10.1136/gut.2004.062596 16009675 PMC1774900
94. Hauer-Jensen M. Wang J. Denham J.W. Bowel injury: Current and evolving management strategies Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2003 13 357 371 10.1016/s1053-4296(03)00032-8 12903023
95. Ogrodnik M. Miwa S. Tchkonia T. Tiniakos D. Wilson C.L. Lahat A. Day C.P. Burt A. Palmer A. Anstee Q.M. Cellular senescence drives age-dependent hepatic steatosis Nat. Commun. 2017 8 15691 10.1038/ncomms15691 28608850 PMC5474745
96. Mollman J.E. Glover D.J. Hogan W.M. Furman R.E. Cisplatin neuropathy. Risk factors, prognosis, and protection by WR-2721 Cancer 1988 61 2192 2195 10.1002/1097-0142(19880601)61:11<2192::AID-CNCR2820611110>3.0.CO;2-A 2835140
97. Fricker L.D. Proteasome Inhibitor Drugs Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2020 60 457 476 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010919-023603 31479618
98. Brana I. Zamora E. Oristrell G. Tabernero J. Cardiotoxicity Side Effects of Medical Cancer Therapy Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2018 367 406
99. Armstrong G.T. Liu Q. Yasui Y. Neglia J.P. Leisenring W. Robison L.L. Mertens A.C. Late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: A summary from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study J. Clin. Oncol. 2009 27 2328 2338 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1425 19332714 PMC2677921
100. Okwuosa T.M. Anzevino S. Rao R. Cardiovascular disease in cancer survivors Postgrad. Med. J. 2017 93 82 90 10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134417 28123076
101. Qiao X. van der Zanden S.Y. Wander D.P.A. Borràs D.M. Song J.Y. Li X. van Duikeren S. van Gils N. Rutten A. van Herwaarden T. Uncoupling DNA damage from chromatin damage to detoxify doxorubicin Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020 117 15182 15192 10.1073/pnas.1922072117 32554494 PMC7334570
102. Sawyer D.B. Anthracyclines and Heart Failure N. Engl. J. Med. 2013 368 1154 1156 10.1056/NEJMcibr1214975 23514294
103. Doroshow J.H. Effect of anthracycline antibiotics on oxygen radical formation in rat heart Cancer Res. 1983 43 460 472 6293697
104. Muindi J.R. Sinha B.K. Gianni L. Myers C.E. Hydroxyl radical production and DNA damage induced by anthracycline-iron complex FEBS Lett. 1984 172 226 230 10.1016/0014-5793(84)81130-8 6086388
105. Myers C.E. Gianni L. Simone C.B. Klecker R. Greene R. Oxidative destruction of erythrocyte ghost membranes catalyzed by the doxorubicin-iron complex Biochemistry 1982 21 1707 1712 10.1021/bi00537a001 6805506
106. Bachur N.R. Gee M.V. Friedman R.D. Nuclear catalyzed antibiotic free radical formation Cancer Res. 1982 42 1078 1081 6277472
107. Zhi L. Yuzhang Z. Tianliang H. Hisatome I. Yamamoto T. Jidong C. High uric acid induces insulin resistance in cardiomyocytes in vitro and in vivo PLoS ONE 2016 11 e0147737 10.1371/journal.pone.0147737 26836389 PMC4737875
108. Vander Heide R.S. L’Ecuyer T.J. Molecular basis of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity Heart Metab. 2007 35 1 4 10.1006/mgme.2000.3043 11001837
109. Tewey K.M. Rowe T.C. Yang L. Halligan B.D. Liu L.F. Adriamycin-induced DNA damage mediated by mammalian DNA topoisomerase II Science 1984 226 466 468 10.1126/science.6093249 6093249
110. Capranico G. Tinelli S. Austin C.A. Fisher M.L. Zunino F. Different patterns of gene expression of topoisomerase II isoforms in differentiated tissues during murine development Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1992 1132 43 48 10.1016/0167-4781(92)90050-A 1380833
111. Lowe M.C. Smallwood J.I. Adriamycin and daunomycin dose-dependent effects upon contractions of isolated rat myocytes Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 1980 5 61 65 10.1007/BF00578564 7460195
112. Zhang S. Liu X. Bawa-Khalfe T. Lu L.S. Lyu Y.L. Liu L.F. Yeh E.T. Identification of the molecular basis of doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity Nat. Med. 2012 18 1639 1642 10.1038/nm.2919 23104132
113. Pang B. Qiao X. Janssen L. Velds A. Groothuis T. Kerkhoven R. Nieuwland M. Ovaa H. Rottenberg S. van Tellingen O. Drug-induced histone eviction from open chromatin contributes to the chemotherapeutic effects of doxorubicin Nat. Commun. 2013 4 1908 10.1038/ncomms2921 23715267 PMC3674280
114. van der Zanden S.Y. Qiao X. Neefjes J. New insights into the activities and toxicities of the old anticancer drug doxorubicin FEBS J. 2021 288 6095 6111 10.1111/febs.15583 33022843 PMC8597086
115. Doroshow J.H. Mitomycin C-enhanced superoxide and hydrogen peroxide formation in rat heart J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 1981 218 206 211 6264069
116. Ilinskaya A.N. Clogston J.D. McNeil S.E. Dobrovolskaia M.A. Induction of oxidative stress by Taxol® vehicle Cremophor-EL triggers production of interleukin-8 by peripheral blood mononuclear cells through the mechanism not requiring de novo synthesis of mRNA Nanomedicine 2015 11 1925 1938 10.1016/j.nano.2015.07.012 26282378 PMC4652134
117. Sparreboom A. van Tellingen O. Nooijen W.J. Beijnen J.H. Nonlinear pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in mice results from the pharmaceutical vehicle Cremophor EL Cancer Res. 1996 56 2112 2115 8616858
118. Szebeni J. Muggia F.M. Alving C.R. Complement activation by Cremophor EL as a possible contributor to hypersensitivity to paclitaxel: An in vitro study J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1998 90 300 306 10.1093/jnci/90.4.300 9486816
119. Bow E.J. Infection risk and cancer chemotherapy: The impact of the chemotherapeutic regimen in patients with lymphoma and solid tissue malignancies J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 1998 41 (Suppl. D) 1 5 10.1093/jac/41.suppl_4.1 9688446
120. Talcott J.A. Finberg R. Mayer R.J. Goldman L. The medical course of cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. Clinical identification of a low-risk subgroup at presentation Arch. Intern. Med. 1988 148 2561 2568 10.1001/archinte.1988.00380120031007 3196123
121. Okunaka M. Kano D. Matsui R. Kawasaki T. Uesawa Y. Comprehensive Analysis of Chemotherapeutic Agents That Induce Infectious Neutropenia Pharmaceuticals 2021 14 681 10.3390/ph14070681 34358105 PMC8308812
122. Shayne M. Culakova E. Poniewierski M.S. Wolff D. Dale D.C. Crawford J. Lyman G.H. Dose intensity and hematologic toxicity in older cancer patients receiving systemic chemotherapy Cancer 2007 110 1611 1620 10.1002/cncr.22939 17705197
123. Smith T.J. Khatcheressian J. Lyman G.H. Ozer H. Armitage J.O. Balducci L. Bennett C.L. Cantor S.B. Crawford J. Cross S.J. 2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline J. Clin. Oncol. 2006 24 3187 3205 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.4451 16682719
124. Lyman G.H. Abella E. Pettengell R. Risk factors for febrile neutropenia among patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy: A systematic review Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2014 90 190 199 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2013.12.006 24434034
125. Bhatnagar S.K. Chandra J. Narayan S. Sharma S. Singh V. Dutta A.K. Pancytopenia in children: Etiological profile J. Trop. Pediatr. 2005 51 236 239 10.1093/tropej/fmi010 16014764
126. Landier W. Ototoxicity and cancer therapy Cancer 2016 122 1647 1658 10.1002/cncr.29779 26859792
127. Bokemeyer C. Berger C.C. Hartmann J.T. Kollmannsberger C. Schmoll H.J. Kuczyk M.A. Kanz L. Analysis of risk factors for cisplatin-induced ototoxicity in patients with testicular cancer Br. J. Cancer 1998 77 1355 1362 10.1038/bjc.1998.226 9579846 PMC2150148
128. Coradini P.P. Cigana L. Selistre S.G. Rosito L.S. Brunetto A.L. Ototoxicity from cisplatin therapy in childhood cancer J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2007 29 355 360 10.1097/MPH.0b013e318059c220 17551394
129. Knight K.R. Kraemer D.F. Neuwelt E.A. Ototoxicity in children receiving platinum chemotherapy: Underestimating a commonly occurring toxicity that may influence academic and social development J. Clin. Oncol. 2005 23 8588 8596 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.5355 16314621
130. Meijer A.J.M. Diepstraten F.A. Langer T. Broer L. Domingo I.K. Clemens E. Uitterlinden A.G. de Vries A.C.H. van Grotel M. Vermeij W.P. TCERG1L allelic variation is associated with cisplatin-induced hearing loss in childhood cancer, a PanCareLIFE study NPJ Precis. Oncol. 2021 5 64 10.1038/s41698-021-00178-z 34262104 PMC8280110
131. Dehne N. Lautermann J. Petrat F. Rauen U. de Groot H. Cisplatin ototoxicity: Involvement of iron and enhanced formation of superoxide anion radicals Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2001 174 27 34 10.1006/taap.2001.9171 11437646
132. Cappaert N.L.M. Klis S.F.L. Wijbenga J. Smoorenburg G.F. Acceleration of cisplatin ototoxicity by perilymphatic application of 4-methylthiobenzoic acid Hear. Res. 2005 203 80 87 10.1016/j.heares.2004.10.012 15855032
133. Clemens E. de Vries A.C. Pluijm S.F. Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A. Tissing W.J. Loonen J.J. van Dulmen-den Broeder E. Bresters D. Versluys B. Kremer L.C. Determinants of ototoxicity in 451 platinum-treated Dutch survivors of childhood cancer: A DCOG late-effects study Eur. J. Cancer 2016 69 77 85 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.09.023 27821322
134. Olgun Y. Aktaş S. Altun Z. Kırkım G. Kızmazoğlu D. Erçetin A.P. Demir B. İnce D. Mutafoğlu K. Demirağ B. Analysis of genetic and non genetic risk factors for cisplatin ototoxicity in pediatric patients Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 90 64 69 10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.09.001 27729156
135. Secombe K.R. Coller J.K. Gibson R.J. Wardill H.R. Bowen J.M. The bidirectional interaction of the gut microbiome and the innate immune system: Implications for chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal toxicity Int. J. Cancer 2019 144 2365 2376 10.1002/ijc.31836 30155890
136. Lee C.S. Ryan E.J. Doherty G.A. Gastro-intestinal toxicity of chemotherapeutics in colorectal cancer: The role of inflammation World J. Gastroenterol. WJG 2014 20 3751 10.3748/wjg.v20.i14.3751 24744571 PMC3983434
137. Mitchell E.P. Gastrointestinal toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents Semin. Oncol. 2006 33 106 120 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2005.12.001 16473649
138. Shahid F. Farooqui Z. Khan F. Cisplatin-induced gastrointestinal toxicity: An update on possible mechanisms and on available gastroprotective strategies Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2018 827 49 57 10.1016/j.ejphar.2018.03.009 29530589
139. Oosterom N. Griffioen P.H. den Hoed M.A.H. Pieters R. de Jonge R. Tissing W.J.E. van den Heuvel-Eibrink M.M. Heil S.G. Global methylation in relation to methotrexate-induced oral mucositis in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia PLoS ONE 2018 13 e0199574 10.1371/journal.pone.0199574 29985926 PMC6037363
140. Wardill H.R. da Silva Ferreira A.R. Lichtenberg Cloo S. Havinga R. Harmsen H.J.M. Vermeij W.P. Tissing W.J.E. Pre-therapy fasting slows epithelial turnover and modulates the microbiota but fails to mitigate methotrexate-induced gastrointestinal mucositis Gut Microbes 2020 12 1 9 10.1080/19490976.2020.1809332 PMC7524354 32844722
141. De Ruysscher D. Niedermann G. Burnet N.G. Siva S. Lee A.W.M. Hegi-Johnson F. Radiotherapy toxicity Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2019 5 13 10.1038/s41572-019-0064-5 30792503
142. Henriksson R. Bergström P. Franzén L. Lewin F. Wagenius G. Aspects on reducing gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with radiotherapy Acta Oncol. 1999 38 159 164 10.1080/028418699431564 10227436
143. Boekelheide K. Mechanisms of Toxic Damage to Spermatogenesis JNCI Monogr. 2005 2005 6 8 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi006 15784812
144. Levi M. Hasky N. Stemmer S.M. Shalgi R. Ben-Aharon I. Anti-Müllerian Hormone Is a Marker for Chemotherapy-Induced Testicular Toxicity Endocrinology 2015 156 3818 3827 10.1210/en.2015-1310 26252060
145. Ben-Aharon I. Shalgi R. What lies behind chemotherapy-induced ovarian toxicity? Reproduction 2012 144 153 163 10.1530/REP-12-0121 22653316
146. Roness H. Kashi O. Meirow D. Prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage Fertil. Steril. 2016 105 20 29 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.11.043 26677788
147. Takemura N. Kawasaki T. Kunisawa J. Sato S. Lamichhane A. Kobiyama K. Aoshi T. Ito J. Mizuguchi K. Karuppuchamy T. Blockade of TLR3 protects mice from lethal radiation-induced gastrointestinal syndrome Nat. Commun. 2014 5 3492 10.1038/ncomms4492 24637670 PMC3959210
148. Merritt A.J. Potten C.S. Kemp C.J. Hickman J.A. Balmain A. Lane D.P. Hall P.A. The role of p53 in spontaneous and radiation-induced apoptosis in the gastrointestinal tract of normal and p53-deficient mice Cancer Res. 1994 54 614 617 8306319
149. Wang Y. Schulte B.A. LaRue A.C. Ogawa M. Zhou D. Total body irradiation selectively induces murine hematopoietic stem cell senescence Blood 2006 107 358 366 10.1182/blood-2005-04-1418 16150936 PMC1895367
150. Vermeij W.P. Hoeijmakers J.H. Pothof J. Aging: Not all DNA damage is equal Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2014 26 124 130 10.1016/j.gde.2014.06.006 25222498
151. Lindahl T. Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA Nature 1993 362 709 715 10.1038/362709a0 8469282
152. Lindahl T. Barnes D.E. Repair of endogenous DNA damage Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 2000 65 127 133 10.1101/sqb.2000.65.127 12760027
153. Swenberg J.A. Lu K. Moeller B.C. Gao L. Upton P.B. Nakamura J. Starr T.B. Endogenous versus exogenous DNA adducts: Their role in carcinogenesis, epidemiology, and risk assessment Toxicol Sci. 2011 120 (Suppl. 1) S130 S145 10.1093/toxsci/kfq371 21163908 PMC3043087
154. Vijg J. From DNA damage to mutations: All roads lead to aging Ageing Res. Rev. 2021 68 101316 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101316 33711511 PMC10018438
155. Schumacher B. Pothof J. Vijg J. Hoeijmakers J.H.J. The central role of DNA damage in the ageing process Nature 2021 592 695 703 10.1038/s41586-021-03307-7 33911272 PMC9844150
156. van den Boogaard W.M. van den Heuvel-Eibrink M.M. Hoeijmakers J.H. Vermeij W.P. Nutritional Preconditioning in Cancer Treatment in Relation to DNA Damage and Aging Annu. Rev. Cancer Biol. 2021 5 161 179 10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-060820-090737 PMC9037985 35474917
157. Petr M.A. Tulika T. Carmona-Marin L.M. Scheibye-Knudsen M. Protecting the Aging Genome Trends Cell Biol. 2020 30 117 132 10.1016/j.tcb.2019.12.001 31917080
158. van de Kamp G. Heemskerk T. Kanaar R. Essers J. DNA Double Strand Break Repair Pathways in Response to Different Types of Ionizing Radiation Front. Genet. 2021 12 738230 10.3389/fgene.2021.738230 34659358 PMC8514742
159. Caldecott K.W. Mammalian DNA base excision repair: Dancing in the moonlight DNA Repair 2020 93 102921 10.1016/j.dnarep.2020.102921 33087262
160. Marteijn J.A. Lans H. Vermeulen W. Hoeijmakers J.H. Understanding nucleotide excision repair and its roles in cancer and ageing Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2014 15 465 481 10.1038/nrm3822 24954209
161. Deans A.J. West S.C. DNA interstrand crosslink repair and cancer Nat. Rev. Cancer 2011 11 467 480 10.1038/nrc3088 21701511 PMC3560328
162. Waters L.S. Minesinger B.K. Wiltrout M.E. D’Souza S. Woodruff R.V. Walker G.C. Eukaryotic translesion polymerases and their roles and regulation in DNA damage tolerance Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2009 73 134 154 10.1128/MMBR.00034-08 19258535 PMC2650891
163. Kirkwood T.B. Understanding the odd science of aging Cell 2005 120 437 447 10.1016/j.cell.2005.01.027 15734677
164. Hoeijmakers J.H. DNA damage, aging, and cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2009 361 1475 1485 10.1056/NEJMra0804615 19812404
165. Martin G.M. Oshima J. Lessons from human progeroid syndromes Nature 2000 408 263 266 10.1038/35041705 11089984
166. Vermeij W.P. Hoeijmakers J.H. Pothof J. Genome Integrity in Aging: Human Syndromes, Mouse Models, and Therapeutic Options Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2016 56 427 445 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010814-124316 26514200
167. de Cabo R. Mattson M.P. Effects of Intermittent Fasting on Health, Aging, and Disease N. Engl. J. Med. 2019 381 2541 2551 10.1056/NEJMra1905136 31881139
168. Hurria A. Jones L. Muss H.B. Cancer Treatment as an Accelerated Aging Process: Assessment, Biomarkers, and Interventions Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2016 35 e516 e522 10.1200/EDBK_156160 27249761
169. Meijer A.J.M. van den Heuvel-Eibrink M.M. Brooks B. Am Zehnhoff-Dinnesen A.G. Knight K.R. Freyer D.R. Chang K.W. Hero B. Papadakis V. Frazier A.L. Recommendations for Age-Appropriate Testing, Timing, and Frequency of Audiologic Monitoring During Childhood Cancer Treatment: An International Society of Paediatric Oncology Supportive Care Consensus Report JAMA Oncol. 2021 7 1550 1558 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2697 34383016