The Achilles’ heel of cancer survivors: fundamentals of accelerated cellular senescence

Abstract

Recent improvements in cancer treatment have increased the lifespan of pediatric and adult cancer survivors. However, cancer treatments accelerate aging in survivors, which manifests clinically as the premature onset of chronic diseases, such as endocrinopathies, osteoporosis, cardiac dysfunction, subsequent cancers, and geriatric syndromes of frailty, among others. Therefore, cancer treatment–induced early aging accounts for significant morbidity, mortality, and health expenditures among cancer survivors. One major mechanism driving this accelerated aging is cellular senescence; cancer treatments induce cellular senescence in tumor cells and in normal, nontumor tissue, thereby helping mediate the onset of several chronic diseases. Studies on clinical monitoring and therapeutic targeting of cellular senescence have made considerable progress in recent years. Large-scale clinical trials are currently evaluating senotherapeutic drugs, which inhibit or eliminate senescent cells to ameliorate cancer treatment–related aging. In this article, we survey the recent literature on phenotypes and mechanisms of aging in cancer survivors and provide an up-to-date review of the major preclinical and translational evidence on cellular senescence as a mechanism of accelerated aging in cancer survivors, as well as insight into the potential of senotherapeutic drugs. However, only with time will the clinical effect of senotherapies on cancer survivors be visible.

Cancer survival times have increased annually owing to advances in early detection and treatment that prolong patient survival. However, increasing survivorship has underscored the observation that cancer survivors develop age-related diseases prematurely, which cause significant morbidity, health expenditures, and mortality. Many cancer survivors have been exposed to chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both; despite eradicating cancer cells, these therapies also damage normal cells to accelerate biologic aging, such that a discrepancy exists between their biologic and chronologic age (1). Considerable data exist regarding the phenotypes of accelerated aging. However, mechanical and molecular uncertainties have limited the study of these manifestations in a clinical context. Our Review discusses accelerated aging phenotypes in cancer survivors and the cellular mechanisms underpinning these phenomena. We then discuss the translational evidence on how accelerated aging phenotypes, mainly related to senescence, are being targeted while highlighting areas of uncertainty for future research to address.

Accelerated phenotypic aging in cancer survivors

Aging is a normal process of life characterized by progressive loss of fitness that renders individuals more vulnerable to diseases and treatment complications, medical or surgical. Aging results from incremental accumulations in cellular and molecular damage manifested phenotypically as functional decline and a reduced ability to maintain tissue homeostasis in response to stressors, i.e., frailty. Such stressors certainly include cancer and cancer treatment; accelerated aging phenotypes are detected in childhood and adult cancer survivors (Table 1).

Table 1

Clinical studies showing premature phenotypic aging in cancer survivors

Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) develop age-related diseases faster than their healthy counterparts (2, 3). For instance, CCS are significantly more likely than siblings to develop a chronic condition (relative risk [RR], 3.3) or a life-threatening condition (RR, 8.2) (4). The cumulative incidence of a chronic health condition among survivors is 73.4% (4), and the prevalence of second malignant neoplasms is nearly 8% (5). Lastly, survivors’ estimated life expectancy is 30% less than that of the general population (6). The St. Jude Lifetime Cohort study (SJLIFE) used the Fried criteria for frailty (7) and showed frailty in 31% of female and 12.9% of male CCS, whereas no age-matched controls without a cancer history were frail. Moreover, in comparison with non-frail individuals, frailty increased mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR], 2.26) and chronic disease onset (RR, 2.26) (8). The characteristically high frailty rate in CCS may be due to the rigorous treatment regimens they are exposed to (9, 10). Indeed, dose intensification is expected for childhood cancers, partly because of their genetic complexity and the ability of a child’s bone marrow (BM) to recover (9).

In contrast, clinical research on accelerated aging in elderly cancer survivors is limited; only 5% of NIH-funded survivorship studies investigate these phenomena in older adults (11). Therefore, older cancer survivors are severely underrepresented in cancer research, and more investigations into the effects of cancer treatment in this population are warranted. A step forward in this regard was a study conducted by Siddique et al., which showed increased frailty in adult cancer survivors compared with those without a cancer history (12). Lintermans et al. assessed grip strength in women receiving aromatase inhibitors 6 months and 12 months after initiation of therapy and showed a significant reduction in grip strength at both follow-ups (13, 14). Randomized controlled trials by Courneya et al. (15) and Hornsby et al. (16) demonstrated that breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed significant declines in exercise capacity measured by 5) oxygen uptake during peak exercise (VO_2peak). In healthy women, VO_2peak decreases by 10% every decade, and these studies reported a reduction of a similar magnitude induced by short-term chemotherapy, suggesting that chemotherapy causes a decade’s equivalent of physiologic aging, at least for the effect studied.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline for Geriatric Oncology recommends a geriatric assessment (GA) for the early identification and treatment of areas of vulnerability for patients at least 65 years old receiving chemotherapy (17). The GA evaluates seven domains: functional and physical status, objective physical performance, comorbid medical conditions, cognition, nutritional status, psychological status, and social support. Each domain is an independent predictor — other than chronologic age — of morbidity and mortality in older cancer patients (17, 18). Moreover, compared with usual care, inclusion of GA in oncology clinic visits for older adults with cancer significantly improves patient-centered and caregiver-centered communication about aging-related concerns (19).

Use of GA has shown positive outcomes in several studies. Li et al. revealed that completing the GA with cancer patients ≥65 years old diagnosed with solid tumors significantly decreased chemotherapy toxicity compared with usual care (50% vs. 60%) (20). Mohile et al. showed significantly reduced chemotherapy toxicity (measured by the number of patients over 3 months with a grade 3 to 5 toxic effect) based on the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Version 4) when GA was used for cancer patients >70 years old with incurable solid tumors or lymphoma (50% vs. 71%) to evaluate age-related domains in these patients and guide management accordingly (21). Soo et al. showed that cancer patients ≥70 years old diagnosed with solid tumors and lymphoma had improved quality of life, 41% fewer hospitalizations, and 39% fewer visits to the emergency department when GA was administered compared with usual care (22). Nipp et al. showed significantly decreased length of hospital stays (8.2 vs. 7.3 days) and decreased intensive care unit admissions (32% vs. 13%) in cancer patients ≥65 years old undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer when the GA was administered versus usual care (23).

These compelling GA findings on reduction of symptomatic toxicities also apply to older cancer survivors who complete curative-intent chemotherapy and support the hypothesis that cancer treatment impacts aging. Indeed, older breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy were at an elevated risk for post-treatment cognitive decline and factors associated with cognitive aging, such as low cognitive capacity and apolipoprotein status (24). The GA is vital to assess function in patients before cancer treatment to tailor the cancer treatment to their functional status. A recently funded NCI R01 study (CA249457) will examine whether a GA model of care can improve functional and cognitive outcome trajectories in older cancer survivors completing chemotherapy in a large, nationwide cluster-randomized study.

Mechanisms of accelerated aging in cancer survivors

Multiple cellular mechanisms, including genomic instability, telomere attrition, stem cell exhaustion, epigenetic alterations, and cellular senescence, drive biologic aging (25). Importantly, biologic aging is malleable and is accelerated by stressors such as cancer therapy, which may account for early aging in cancer survivors (26). Indeed, many studies have shown that cancer treatment modalities can induce these aging hallmarks (Table 2), and the contributions of these cellular mechanisms to survivor aging have also been described (Table 3).

Table 2

Specific cancer therapies that induce or mitigate the development of an accelerated aging–like state

Table 3

Clinical studies show accelerating biologic aging in cancer survivors

Genomic instability. Genomic instability, featuring somatic mutations, chromosomal aneuploidies, and copy number variations, increases with physiologic aging as DNA damage accumulates and the capacity of DNA repair mechanisms declines (27). The age-related outcomes associated with genomic instability include cancer, neurologic disease, and osteoarthritis. DNA damage can be measured by immunostaining for γH2AX, which accumulates at the damage site (28).

Cancer treatments introduce genomic instability. DNA damage caused by free radicals generated during chemotherapy increases the risk of leukemogenesis and secondary cancers (29). Alkylating agents are notorious in this regard; they significantly increase the risk of developing leukemia, either alone or in combination with other agents such as epipodophyllotoxins (30, 31). Therapeutic agents such as etoposide and teniposide inhibit DNA repair enzymes (e.g., topoisomerase II), leading to genomic instability. Topoisomerase II inhibitors are also associated with an increased risk of developing second cancers, such as secondary leukemia (32) and second primary leukemia (33). Radiotherapy-induced DNA damage is strongly associated with an increased incidence of cancers. Although advancements in technique and machinery have helped, the likelihood of developing post-irradiation secondary cancer is still much higher than after chemotherapy (34, 35).

Telomere attrition. Telomeres are located at the ends of chromosomes and shorten with each replicative cycle until the cell reaches its “Hayflick limit,” after which it undergoes senescence or apoptosis (36). Telomere length decreases with age, making it a marker of aging (37). Excessive telomere attrition is associated with numerous adverse clinical outcomes, including coronary heart disease, hypertension, obesity, metabolic syndrome, cancer, all-cause mortality, and osteoporosis and osteoarthritis (38).

Cancer therapies induce telomere attrition, setting up cancer survivors for accelerated aging. The kinetics of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) causes replicative stress on the stem cell lines of recipients, with consequent stem cell exhaustion and shorter telomeres than those of donors (39). However, telomere shortening after HCT may be temporary, with a return to normal length afterward (40). Chemotherapy also causes telomere shortening by directly affecting telomere length or inhibiting telomerase, the enzyme that maintains telomeres. For example, cisplatin directly inhibited telomerase activity in treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma, resulting in a mean decrease in telomere length (41). Drugs such as imetelstat inhibit telomerase in murine studies and various cancer cell lines (42).

Epigenetic alterations. Epigenetic modifications, particularly DNA methylation (DNAm) variations of specific CpG dinucleotides, occur with aging and can be measured from blood samples by epigenetic clocks. The first clocks discovered, the Horvath (43) and Hannum (44) epigenetic clocks, predict chronologic age as an outcome measure by generating a weighted average of DNAm age (i.e., an aggregate of CpG DNAm patterns in a given sample) using a linear regression model. Levine’s PhenoAge predicts phenotypic age by replacing chronologic age as an outcome measure with a surrogate marker of biologic age. Therefore, PhenoAge is better predictive of the development of age-related phenotypes such as frailty, cognitive impairment, and chronic diseases, including cancers (45). Lu et al. developed GrimAge, which is highly predictive of phenotypic age and mortality risk (46). Epigenetic age acceleration (EAA) — individuals epigenetically older than their chronologic age — predicts the onset of age-related conditions such as frailty, age-related dementia, impaired cognitive performance, cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases as well as all-cause mortality (47–49).

Cancer therapies disrupt the epigenome. Topoisomerase II inhibitors, microtubule inhibitors, doxorubicin, cross-linking agents, and methotrexate induce DNA hypermethylation, accelerating aging (50). Furthermore, epigenetic modifiers such as DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine [5-aza]), histone deacetylase inhibitors (panobinostat, vorinostat), histone acetyltransferases (curcumin), and histone methyltransferases (BRD4770) induce senescence in preclinical models (51, 52). For instance, 5-aza induces senescence in osteosarcoma, liver cancer, and lung mesothelioma cells, shown by p16^INK4, senescence-associated β-galactosidase, and DNA damage response (DDR) signaling (53, 54). Another drug, vorinostat, is FDA-approved for treating cutaneous T cell lymphoma but induces senescence in leukemia, colon, and urothelial cancer cell lines (55–57). While drugs such as azacytidine and vorinostat are FDA-approved as anticancer drugs, clinical evidence regarding their role in senescence and aging is lacking. Ongoing clinical trials evaluate the use of azacytidine in various malignancies (58), and only their completion will reveal its longitudinal effect on the human aging phenotype.

Only a few studies have evaluated EAA in cancer survivors. Significant EAA occurs on Hannum, PhenoAge, and GrimAge clocks in breast cancer patients after radiotherapy or chemoradiation (59). However, evidence on EAA and adverse health outcomes in survivors is currently limited. A recent study reported no EAA — measured by the skin-blood clock — in CCS at the end of chemotherapy; in fact, there was a statistically significant reduction in epigenetic age of 1.1 years (60). However, in adult CCS (average time after cancer diagnosis, 22 years), statistically significant EAA of +5.5 years was detected, but this was independent of DNAm alterations. The GrimAge methylation clock did not show EAA in adult CCS, except in adult CCS who died, in whom GrimAge showed statistically significant EAA of +8.8 years in comparison with non-deceased CCS (60).

Understanding the role of epigenetic alterations in aging-related clinical outcomes has encouraged interventions to help minimize these modifications (61). However, certain lifestyle factors, such as obesity and smoking, can also influence cellular aging (62, 63). In addition, dietary habits also affect cancer and aging through epigenetic alterations linked to the formation and progression of various neoplasms (64, 65). Therefore, it is challenging to do a controlled study on an epigenetic modifier, since lifestyle factors are difficult to control and can become potential confounders.

Stem cell exhaustion. Stem cells are depleted with aging (66). Furthermore, stem cell exhaustion results in clonal hematopoiesis, increasing the risk of hematogenous malignancies and all-cause mortality. Cancer therapies such as doxorubicin and daunorubicin can induce stem cell exhaustion. HCT can also cause stem cell exhaustion, likely due to replicative stress during hematopoietic reconstitution, which shortens telomeres, causing stem cell exhaustion (67). A study on primates found that replicative stress after HCT skews hematopoiesis and delays recovery of cell lines, with chronic changes in the BM, increasing future cancer risk (68). In the elderly, this risk is amplified by the replicative stress of HCT compounded by a decline related to physiologic aging (69). In line with these results, the use of younger HCT donors was associated with a significantly increased 5-year survival rate and lower incidence of diseases such as graft-versus-host disease (70). Additionally, a single serial HCT almost doubles cellular age in recipients (71), so younger donors are always preferred to their older siblings.

Cellular senescence. Cellular senescence is a cell fate of growth arrest described initially by Hayflick and Moorhead in fibroblasts (72, 73). Senescent cells (SCs) feature many alterations at the cellular level, including proliferative arrest, resistance to apoptosis via upregulation of senescence-associated antiapoptotic pathways (SCAPs), chromatin alterations, and metabolic and synthetic changes (Figure 1) (74). The senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), a characteristic transcriptomic signature expressed by many SCs of proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines, growth factors, and proteases, allows SCs to influence the tissue microenvironment in autocrine (cell-autonomous effects) and paracrine (non-cell-autonomous) manners (75, 76).

Figure 1

Cancer therapies can induce senescence via two pathways. The replicative senescence pathway is initiated by a DDR that triggers the p53/p21^CIP1 axis and inhibits CDK2. Alternatively, oncogene-induced senescence is triggered by activation of the CDNK2A gene locus encoding p16^INK4, which inhibits CDK4/6. Both senescence-mediating pathways converge by inhibiting phosphorylation of the Rb protein, which, in turn, causes senescence. Senescent cells release a characteristic secretome termed the SASP, components of which reinforce senescence in an autocrine fashion, termed cell-autonomous effects. Moreover, SASP factors exert non-cell-autonomous effects on neighboring and distant cells. In this regard, they can also mediate ECM degradation, chronic sterile inflammation, and immunosenescence. The resulting tissue dysfunction manifests clinically as accelerated aging phenotypes and a higher burden of chronic diseases, including cancer. Indeed, a higher senescent cell burden may be responsible for these aging phenotypes being observed in higher frequencies in cancer survivors, as compared with healthy controls without a history of cancer.

Senescence has no specific marker. Senescence-associated β-galactosidase (SA-β-gal), a lysosomal enzyme that accumulates in SCs, is commonly used to define a senescent state (77). Mediators of senescence — p16^INK4, p21^CIP1, p53, and p14^ARF — can indicate growth arrest. Downregulation of the nuclear lamina protein lamin B1 is also a common feature of SCs (78). The DDR markers γH2AX and 53BP1 can be immunostained to identify SCs (79), but γH2AX foci within telomeric DNA, termed telomere-associated foci (TAFs), are more specific for SCs. Studies also monitor SASP components such as IL-6 and IL-8. Since we still lack a single sensitive and specific biomarker, studies use combinations of the above biomarkers to monitor SC burden.

Several anticancer therapies induce senescence. Therapy-induced senescence (TIS) is a well-established response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Chemotherapeutic agents damage DNA to cause cell death by apoptosis, but sub-cytotoxic doses activate a DDR that drives cells into senescence. Chemotherapeutic agents also shorten telomeres, which may induce replicative senescence. In this instance, doxorubicin induces senescence in fibroblasts, vascular smooth muscle cells, and numerous cancer cell lines, demonstrated by elevated SA-β-gal and p16^INK4 upregulation or p21/p53 signaling (80). Furthermore, treatment with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, and 5-fluorouracil increases SA-β-gal expression in 41% of human breast cancer tissues (81).

Radiotherapy causes cell death via ROS-mediated DNA damage, which may drive the cell into apoptosis or senescence if irreparable. Ionizing radiation (IR) is commonly used to induce senescence in murine models. IR-treated cells, including breast cancer, colon cancer, neuroblastoma, and fibrosarcoma cell lines, exhibit numerous senescence markers, including SA-β-gal, p16^INK4, p21, p53, and SASP expression (80). In CCS who received cranial radiation, biopsies from the scalp show significantly higher expression of senescence markers than biopsies taken from other body areas not irradiated, such as the buttocks (82). Exposure to cancer therapy elevates senescence biomarkers in cancer survivors by magnitudes comparable to several years of chronologic aging (Table 3).

Cellular senescence: the Achilles’ heel of cancer survivors

Cancer survivors are at a significantly higher risk of age-related diseases than non-cancer controls, comparable to incident rates in the elderly population. Cellular senescence is a biologic aging hallmark and plays a causative role in numerous age-related diseases, many of which affect cancer survivors. Furthermore, many cancer therapies induce senescence, suggesting that TIS may be responsible for cancer survivors’ various side effects.

The seminal study of Demaria et al. showed that treating fibroblasts with doxorubicin induces senescence, as indicated by higher SA-β-gal, p16^INK4, p21^CIP1, and DDR expression, elevated IL-1α, IL-6, MMP-3/9, CXCL1, CXCL10, and CCL20, and reduced lamin B1 (83). Notably, doxorubicin induces senescence systemically and not only in tumor cells, as indicated by an increase in whole-body bioluminescence after doxorubicin treatment. In addition, doxorubicin significantly impairs hematopoietic stem cell function by reducing the number of colony-forming units, an effect rescued by ganciclovir-mediated (GCV-mediated) clearance of SCs (83). Furthermore, cardiomyopathy, a well-known side effect of doxorubicin, was almost entirely prevented by GCV treatment. Treating mouse breast cancer models with doxorubicin arrests tumor growth, with later cancer relapse, but combining doxorubicin with GCV significantly improves the survival of mice, reduces the incidence of metastasis, and reduces the number of metastatic foci in mice that developed metastasis. Lastly, the nocturnal running time of mice was significantly impaired after doxorubicin treatment, and GCV treatment almost entirely rescued this effect (83).

Eliminating SCs alleviates many acute effects (elevated inflammatory markers and cardiotoxicity) and chronic effects (fatigue, cancer relapse, metastasis) of doxorubicin, suggesting TIS-dependent pathogenesis of cancer therapy–related adverse effects in survivors, at least those treated with doxorubicin. Mechanistic insights into how SCs may contribute to these pathologies are discussed below.

Senescence and aging. SCs accumulate in aging tissues, and senescence biomarkers increase with age at sites of age-related pathologies, including atherosclerosis, osteoarthritis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and age-related metabolic dysfunction. Transplantation of a relatively low dose of SCs such that the ratio of SCs to non-SCs is 1:10,000 is sufficient to induce frailty, accelerated aging, and early death. The association between SC accumulation and decreased lifespan began in 2004, when a study in mice reported that caloric restriction increased lifespan by delaying accumulation of p16^INK4 and SA-β-gal (84). In transgenic INK-ATTAC mice, in which SCs can be selectively ablated, SC depletion alleviated numerous age-related disorders, including sarcopenia, cataracts, and cachexia, and increased lifespan (85, 86).

Mechanistically, a two-part model explains the association between senescence and aging. Firstly, senescence in stem cells with aging arrests proliferation, decreasing tissue regeneration. In INK-ATTAC mice, the loss of self-renewal capacity of muscle satellite cells and fat progenitor cells due to cellular senescence drives loss of sarcopenia and loss of adipose tissue mass, respectively, and clearance of SCs alleviates these phenotypes (86). Secondly, SCs influence their tissue microenvironment in a paracrine fashion via the SASP. For instance, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) drive ECM damage and tissue degeneration, such as loss of elasticity in skin and lung. Furthermore, IL-1α, IL-6, IL-8, CCL2, and CXCL12 contribute to fatigue, cardiovascular morbidity, and appetite loss. In addition, IL-1β, TNF-α, and IL-6 mediate peripheral IGF-1 resistance, resulting in sarcopenia and reduced cardiac function. Lastly, SASP factors cause sterile inflammation, resulting in tissue fibrosis and degeneration (87).

SCs are also present at sites of age-related pathologies, including atherosclerosis, diabetes, glaucoma, osteoarthritis, and IPF, among others. But whether SCs causally underlie these pathologies or are simply the consequence of them remains an area of active investigation. SCs are intrinsically resistant to apoptosis, making their elimination challenging. A seminal study hypothesized that SCs evade cell death by upregulating SCAP networks, meaning that inhibition of SCAPs would selectively eliminate SCs (88). Transcriptomic analysis has revealed upregulation of SCAPs in senescent preadipocytes compared with non-senescent cells, and using siRNAs to inhibit SCAPs has selectively eliminated SCs (88). In vitro, a combination of dasatinib and quercetin (D+Q) eliminated SCs. Dasatinib is a pan–tyrosine kinase inhibitor used in cancer treatment, whereas quercetin inhibits PI3K. The use of D+Q in a murine model selectively eliminated SCs, as indicated by reduced p16^INK4 mRNA expression and SA-β-gal–positive cells (88). Inducing senescence in one leg of wild-type mice by radiation and then treating with D+Q reduced p16^INK4 mRNA expression in muscle and SA-β-gal–positive fat cells in the leg, with resultant improved exercise capacity (88). Additionally, treating mice with a D+Q regimen significantly improved cardiac function and carotid vascular reactivity and delayed age-related pathologies such as osteoporosis and intervertebral disc degeneration (88). Recent preclinical studies affirm that eliminating TIS cells alleviates the pathology of diabetes, obesity, cardiac dysfunction, frailty, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and IPF, among others (89–98). The mechanisms, at least those elucidated in murine models, by which cellular senescence contributes to these pathologies are reviewed elsewhere (87). Nevertheless, observing that SC elimination alleviates numerous age-related pathologies implicates a senescence-dependent pathogenesis to these phenotypes, and similar mechanisms could underlie early aging phenotypes in cancer survivors.

Protumorigenic cell-autonomous effects of senescence. Since SCs are intrinsically resistant to apoptosis, TIS cancer cells may persist, leading to tumor dormancy and higher chances of cancer relapse in the future (99, 100). Studies have shown that prolonged culture of TIS cells eventually results in senescence escape and cell cycle reentry with higher expression of stemness markers (101). In this regard, doxorubicin-induced senescence in mouse lymphoma models temporarily arrested tumor growth but upregulated stemness markers, including WNT signaling, as manifested by some cells resuming proliferating and showing increased aggressiveness (102).

CDK1 (encoded by CDC2) mediates cell cycle reentry. In non–small cell lung cancer cells, chemotherapy-induced senescence temporarily arrested growth, but cells soon resumed proliferation by activating CDC2, while CDK1 inhibitors or knockout of CDC2 prevented escape from TIS (103). Genomic instability is another important mediator of cell cycle reentry: doxorubicin-treated colon cancer cells that escaped senescence exhibit aneuploidy, whereas euploid TIS cancer cells do not escape senescence (104). Lastly, p53-dependent senescence and apoptosis resistance significantly contribute to treatment refractoriness and recurrence after completion of therapy. Wild-type p53 mammary tumors display a poorer response to doxorubicin than those harboring mutated p53 (105). Whereas the latter continue proliferation, leading to abnormal mitosis and cell death, wild-type p53–bearing tumors undergo senescence in response to chemotherapy, resulting in the production of the SASP factors eotaxin and CCL5, which promote tumor relapse (105).

Protumorigenic non-cell-autonomous effects of senescence. SCs possess the ability to influence their microenvironments via their SASP to drive various aspects of tumorigenesis. These processes derive from observations in preclinical mouse models, in which coculturing preneoplastic or overtly cancerous cells with senescent fibroblasts enhances proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT).

Culturing mouse premalignant and malignant epithelial cells with senescent human fibroblasts accelerates tumor growth (106). SASP components IL-6 and IL-8 activate STAT3, a critical oncogene, mediating numerous tumorigenic effects of the SASP. STAT3 induces the expression of c-myc, c-fos, cyclin D1, and mTORC1 to drive proliferation (107). VEGF, another SASP component, causes angiogenesis, and coinjection of senescent fibroblasts with cancerous epithelial cells promotes angiogenesis (108). Another crucial aspect of carcinogenesis is local invasion, predominantly driven by MMPs (108). STAT3 also drives the transcription of MMPs. Indeed, breast cancer cells are more invasive when cocultured with senescent fibroblasts (109). EMT is an essential hallmark of carcinogenesis characterized by tumor cells acquiring migratory capabilities. SASP components IL-6 and IL-8 promote EMT via STAT3, which decreases the expression of the surface adhesion molecules E-cadherin and β-catenin (109–111). IL-6 has also been shown to promote osteolytic metastasis of breast cancer by stimulating osteoclastogenesis, and neutralization of IL-6 was sufficient to prevent this occurrence (112).

These processes are exemplified by a report that the use of doxorubicin to induce senescence in a murine breast cancer model results in release of the SASP factors eotaxin, CXCL5, and CCL5, which promote tumorigenesis manifested as cancer relapse (105). Eotaxin promotes invasion through MMP3 upregulation, CXCL5 activates VEGF to stimulate angiogenesis and AKT/GSK3β/β-catenin signaling to stimulate EMT, and CCL5 promotes proliferation by upregulating c-myc and cyclin D1 (105). Accordingly, eliminating doxorubicin-induced SCs reduces tumor growth and cancer relapse (83). Another study demonstrated that a well-established two-step carcinogenesis protocol of DMBA and TPA administration promotes skin carcinogenesis — specifically the progression of benign papillomas to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin — in a senescence-dependent manner via p38/MAPK/ERK signaling. Furthermore, eliminating SCs reduces p38/MAPK/ERK signaling and prevents the progression of benign papillomas to SCC, showing that senescence induction plays a role in tumor promotion (113).

Immune evasion is another critical effect of SASP factors. Non-tumor cells affected by TIS secrete a SASP comprising WNT16B, IL-6, and TIMP-1, protecting cancers from chemotherapy (114). In addition, CCL2 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) models attracts CCR2⁺ myeloid cells that stimulate SC clearance via immunosurveillance but can promote the growth of already established HCC cells by inhibiting NK cell–mediated clearance of cancer cells (115). Therefore, senescence may create a local immunosuppressive environment favoring the persistence of tumor cells. Indeed, coinjecting senescent fibroblasts with skin carcinoma cells into mice increases tumor growth via infiltration of immunosuppressive myeloid cells, while this effect is absent in immunocompromised mice (116).

Senotherapeutics

Two strategies exist for targeting senescence: eliminating SCs through senolytics that inhibit SCAPs, and alleviating phenotypes of SCs by senomorphics, which inhibit the SASP. These drugs are primarily adjuncts to chemotherapy, intended to eliminate therapy-induced SCs (senolytics) or mitigate SC effects (senomorphics) — a strategy termed “one-two punch” cancer therapy (117). Notably, senescence is physiologically crucial in wound healing (118, 119), embryogenesis (120, 121), and initiation of labor (122). Therefore, senotherapies should ideally combat the pathologic effects of SC accumulation while sparing these physiologically beneficial aspects. Lastly, the establishment of senescence takes several weeks, which underlies the “hit-and-run” principle of senolytic therapy: senolytic drugs administered intermittently over extended time intervals are just as effective as continuous administration.

Clinical data on the efficacy of senolytics. The first senolytics selected using bioinformatics approaches were dasatinib, an approved chemotherapy drug, and quercetin, a naturally occurring flavonoid (88). Fisetin is another naturally occurring flavonoid closely related to quercetin but with a shorter half-life. In vitro studies evaluating fisetin as a senolytic revealed antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects (123, 124). The short half-life of these drugs is in line with the hit-and-run principle. Indeed, intermittent administration of dasatinib and quercetin (D+Q) is as effective as continuous dosing, suggesting a direct cytotoxic effect rather than receptor occupancy or enzyme inhibition (125). Lastly, navitoclax inhibits BCL-2, promoting apoptosis of SCs (126). Unlike the other senolytics, navitoclax targets a specific SCAP, whereas dasatinib, quercetin, and fisetin target SCs and not a pathway; i.e., these drugs were not developed using the classic one target, one drug, one disease model. This distinction accounts for navitoclax’s unfavorable adverse effect profile, as it targets non-SCs expressing BCL-2, particularly platelets, causing thrombocytopenia (127). However, conjugating navitoclax with SA-β-gal increases specificity for SCs and reduces platelet toxicity (128). Conventional high-throughput library screens identify second-generation senolytics, and many now exist (129).

Since senolytic drugs constitute a novel therapeutic modality, the initial clinical trials using these drugs were restricted to severe treatment-refractory conditions (89). In this context, the first study reported significantly improved physical health measures in IPF patients receiving intermittent D+Q, as measured by 6-minute walk distance, 4-meter gait speed, and chair-stand time (130). Another phase I trial administered D+Q to diabetic kidney disease patients and sampled adipose tissue before treatment and 11 days after treatment to evaluate SC burden. Indeed, p16^INK4, p21^CIP1, and SA-β-gal expression decreased in post-treatment adipocytes. In addition, a panel of circulating SASP factors showed a decrease in levels of IL-1α, IL-6, MMP-9, and MMP-12 (131).

Numerous clinical trials are currently under way evaluating senolytics in cancer survivors. A study assessing the efficacy of D+Q therapy in decreasing SC burden in HCT survivors, manifested in lower levels of senescence biomarkers, is currently ongoing at the Mayo Clinic (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02652052). Two clinical trials, AFFIRM (NCT03430037) and AFFIRM-LITE (NCT03675724), are investigating fisetin for alleviation of frailty and associated disorders in older women and older adults, respectively.

Discussion

Focusing on cellular senescence over other mechanisms assumes that senescence drives accelerated aging processes in cancer survivors while conferring a relatively limited role to other biologic aging hallmarks. This, however, has not been proven; but since transformative preclinical advancements in alleviating age-related health conditions have been achieved by elimination of SCs, we feel it appropriate to focus our Review on cellular senescence and advocate that considering cellular senescence as the driver of early aging in survivors could have great benefits in advancing the implementation of potential cutting-edge interventions to mitigate premature aging.

However, phenotypic differences between physiologic aging and early aging in survivors are not yet apparent, nor are the distinctions in the molecular mechanisms driving them; differences between physiologic aging and survivor aging need to be anticipated. Furthermore, physiologic aging is characterized by disparities in organ-specific aging, reflecting inherent variation in tissue susceptibility to aging (132). In survivors, chemotherapy and radiotherapy may also differentially affect organ systems, leading to organ-specific aging phenotypes; this may also be dependent on the specific treatment survivors receive. Another problem is rationalizing the limitation of trials to specific biomarkers over others. Since it is impossible to be all-inclusive, preclinical research must provide the groundwork for associating specific aging biomarkers with organ-specific outcomes. Regarding senescence, the relative contributions of different senescence-inducing pathways to specific age-related diseases remain undetermined. A very recent study showed that radiation-induced osteoporosis in mice is mainly driven by p21^CIP1 SCs rather than SCs expressing p16^INK4 and that eliminating p21⁺, but not p16⁺, cells ameliorates this pathology (133). These comparative mouse models should be used by future research to associate specific senescence pathways with organ-specific aging outcomes, which will help rationalize the use of specific biomarkers over others.

SC heterogeneity — whereby SCs differ in their phenotype based on cell type, tissue of origin, nature of the senescence-inducing stimulus, and time elapsed since the insult — needs to be better characterized. This heterogeneity manifests in varying SASP compositions and in the use of different SCAPs by SCs to evade death, affecting therapy response (117). SC heterogeneity can limit the indication of certain senotherapies to specific cancer types, as well as limit the generalized efficacy of senolytics in clinical trials, since TIS cells in other cancer types may exhibit different properties (134, 135). Heterogeneity in the expression of SC markers also complicates the detection and monitoring of SC activity. A recent study showed that even though the pharmacologic CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib induces p53-dependent senescence, these TIS cells elaborate a SASP lacking proinflammatory factors and thereby lack the various protumorigenic effects of the SASP, while still retaining its antiproliferative and immunosurveillance impact (136). This is in line with the notion that cancer patients tolerate CDK4/6 inhibitors better than standard chemotherapies.

The lack of a specific biomarker of senescence hinders effective monitoring of SC burden, and limits accurate characterization of SC heterogeneity. Moreover, tissues such as muscle cells do not appear to express p16^INK4 or p21^CIP1 (137). The prognostic significance of monitoring SC burden in cancer survivors is not fully understood, and long-term clinical studies assessing patients currently enrolled in trials are required. Furthermore, biomarkers of senolysis are needed to better evaluate the effects of senolytics. A recent study demonstrated that oxylipin 15-deoxy-Δ12,14-prostaglandin J2, a particular oxylipin (138), accumulated inside SCs and was released upon their elimination, suggesting its utilization as a senolysis biomarker (138).

Although epigenetic age and senescent biomarkers constitute potential endpoints for clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of senotherapies, lifestyle and environmental differences other than chronologic age and cancer therapy also influence epigenetic age. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis on social, environmental, and biologic accelerators of epigenetic aging revealed male sex, alcohol consumption, low education level, low socioeconomic status, high BMI, diabetes, and smoking to accelerate epigenetic aging on Horvath, Hannum, PhenoAge, and GrimAge aging clocks (139). How this multitude of factors can confound the results of studies using epigenetic aging as an endpoint of aging in cancer survivors remains undetermined. Clinical trials using epigenetic clocks to evaluate the effect of senolytics must control for these variables.

The senescence-inducing capabilities of immunotherapies remain unelucidated in cancer but are theoretically likely due to their apoptosis-inducing mechanism of action. For example, rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, induces senescence in B cell lymphoma, manifested as increased SA-β-gal expression, p21/p53 signaling, and elaboration of a SASP (80, 140). Therefore, future research should focus on whether and how immunotherapies induce senescence, and accelerate aging in various specific cancer types, as the number of cancer survivors who receive immunotherapeutic regimens will only increase in the following years.

The relevance of accelerated cellular senescence also remains unexplored in cancer patients treated surgically. Senescence plays a crucial role in physiologic wound healing. PDGF-AA, a SASP component, induces collagen production and wound contraction by activating myofibroblasts. MMPs are essential to wound remodeling. Senescence induction may also prevent fibrosis. Accordingly, SC depletion in mouse models impairs wound healing (118). However, while transient senescence is beneficial, chronic senescence dysregulates wound healing (119). A two-pronged approach needs to be adopted when associating senescence and outcomes in surgically treated cancer patients, i.e., the effects of both a high SC burden and senotherapies.

Undoubtedly, there is a concerted effort from the scientific community to address the phenotypes, mechanisms, biomarkers, and interventions of early aging in cancer survivors. However, there has been much hype concerning therapeutics and misuse of the so-called anti-aging agents without conclusive evidence of safety and efficacy. Knowledge about cellular senescence has exponentially increased in recent years on the basis of preclinical studies, but only the outcomes of well-designed, robust clinical studies can prove whether senotherapies will be beneficial in decreasing morbidity, increasing longevity, and improving quality of life in survivors. Thus, the scientific community must go through the rigorous process of translating bench work into clinical trials with a well-defined outcome. Only after completion of randomized trials, if senolytics and other anti-aging drugs show excellent short- and long-term safety and efficacy, should these drugs be used in the clinic.

Author contributions

Under the supervision of SKH, SS and AS wrote the first draft; all authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Copyright: © 2022, Shafqat et al. This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reference information: J Clin Invest. 2022;132(13):e158452.https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI158452.

References

1. Baker GT 3rd, Sprott RL. Biomarkers of aging. Exp Gerontol. 1988;23(4-5):223–239.
   View this article via: CrossRef Google Scholar
2. Farber S, Diamond LK. Temporary remissions in acute leukemia in children produced by folic acid antagonist, 4-aminopteroyl-glutamic acid. N Engl J Med. 1948;238(23):787–793.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
3. Jemal A, et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–249.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
4. Oeffinger KC, et al. Chronic health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(15):1572–1582.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
5. Friedman DL, et al. Subsequent neoplasms in 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(14):1083–1095.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
6. Mohty B, Mohty M. Long-term complications and side effects after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: an update. Blood Cancer J. 2011;1(4):e16.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
7. Fried LP, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–M156.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
8. Ness KK, et al. Physiologic frailty as a sign of accelerated aging among adult survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the St Jude Lifetime cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(36):4496–4503.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
9. Cupit-Link MC, et al. Biology of premature ageing in survivors of cancer. ESMO Open. 2017;2(5):e000250.
   View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
10. Wang S, et al. Cancer treatment-induced accelerated aging in cancer survivors: biology and assessment. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(3):427.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
11. Jacobsen PB, et al. Identification of key gaps in cancer survivorship research: findings from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Survey. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(3):190–193.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
12. Siddique A, et al. Functional decline among older cancer survivors in the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(11):3124–3133.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
13. Lintermans A, et al. Aromatase inhibitor-induced loss of grip strength is body mass index dependent: hypothesis-generating findings for its pathogenesis. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(8):1763–1769.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
14. Lintermans A, et al. A prospective assessment of musculoskeletal toxicity and loss of grip strength in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors and tamoxifen, and relation with BMI. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;146(1):109–116.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
15. Courneya KS, et al. Effects of aerobic and resistance exercise in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(28):4396–4404.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
16. Hornsby WE, et al. Safety and efficacy of aerobic training in operable breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a phase II randomized trial. Acta Oncol. 2014;53(1):65–74.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
17. Mohile SG, et al. Practical assessment and management of vulnerabilities in older patients receiving chemotherapy: ASCO Guideline for Geriatric Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(22):2326–2347.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
18. Hurria A, et al. Cancer treatment as an accelerated aging process: assessment, biomarkers, and interventions. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:e516–e522.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
19. Mohile SG, et al. Communication with older patients with cancer using geriatric assessment: a cluster-randomized clinical trial from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(2):196–204.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
20. Li D, et al. Geriatric assessment-driven intervention (GAIN) on chemotherapy-related toxic effects in older adults with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(11):e214158.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
21. Mohile SG, et al. Evaluation of geriatric assessment and management on the toxic effects of cancer treatment (GAP70+): a cluster-randomised study. Lancet. 2021;398(10314):1894–1904.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
22. Soo WK, et al. Integrated geriatric assessment and treatment (INTEGERATE) in older people with cancer planned for systemic anticancer therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(suppl 15):12011.
23. Nipp RDQ, et al. Effects of a perioperative geriatric intervention for older adults with cancer: a randomized clinical trial. J Geriatr Oncol. 2022;13(4):410–415.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
24. Wildiers H, et al. International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(24):2595–2603.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
25. López-Otín C, et al. The hallmarks of aging. Cell. 2013;153(6):1194–1217.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
26. Guida JL, et al. Measuring aging and identifying aging phenotypes in cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019;111(12):1245–1254.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
27. Lidzbarsky G, et al. Genomic instabilities, cellular senescence, and aging: in vitro, in vivo and aging-like human syndromes. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018;5:104.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
28. Niedernhofer LJ, et al. Nuclear genomic instability and aging. Annu Rev Biochem. 2018;87:295–322.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
29. Levine EG, Bloomfield CD. Leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes secondary to drug, radiation, and environmental exposure. Semin Oncol. 1992;19(1):47–84.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
30. Davies SM. Therapy-related leukemia associated with alkylating agents. Med Pediatr Oncol. 2001;36(5):536–540.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
31. Mertens AC, et al. Cause-specific late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(19):1368–1379.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
32. Ezoe S. Secondary leukemia associated with the anti-cancer agent, etoposide, a topoisomerase II inhibitor. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(7):2444–2453.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
33. Allodji RS, et al. Role of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the risk of leukemia after childhood cancer: an international pooled analysis. Int J Cancer. 2021;148(9):2079–2089.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
34. Goldsby R, et al. Second solid malignancies among children, adolescents, and young adults diagnosed with malignant bone tumors after 1976: follow-up of a Children’s Oncology Group cohort. Cancer. 2008;113(9):2597–2604.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
35. Demoor-Goldschmidt C, de Vathaire F. Review of risk factors of secondary cancers among cancer survivors. Br J Radiol. 2019;92(1093):20180390.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
36. Tchkonia T, et al. Cellular senescence and the senescent secretory phenotype: therapeutic opportunities. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(3):966–972.
    View this article via: JCI CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
37. Hu K, et al. Integrated evaluation of telomerase activation and telomere maintenance across cancer cell lines. Elife. 2021;10:e66198.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
38. Vaiserman A, Krasnienkov D. Telomere length as a marker of biological age: state-of-the-art, open issues, and future perspectives. Front Genet. 2021;11:630186.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
39. Gadalla SM, Savage SA. Telomere biology in hematopoiesis and stem cell transplantation. Blood Rev. 2011;25(6):261–269.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
40. Eipel M, et al. Epigenetic age predictions based on buccal swabs are more precise in combination with cell type-specific DNA methylation signatures. Aging (Albany NY). 2016;8(5):1034–1048.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
41. Zhang RG, et al. Effects of cisplatin on telomerase activity and telomere length in BEL-7404 human hepatoma cells. Cell Res. 2002;12(1):55–62.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
42. Ouellette MM, et al. Targeting telomerase-expressing cancer cells. J Cell Mol Med. 2011;15(7):1433–1442.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
43. Horvath S. DNA methylation age of human tissues and cell types. Genome Biol. 2013;14(10):R115.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
44. Hannum G, et al. Genome-wide methylation profiles reveal quantitative views of human aging rates. Mol Cell. 2013;49(2):359–367.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
45. Levine ME, et al. An epigenetic biomarker of aging for lifespan and healthspan. Aging (Albany NY). 2018;10(4):573–591.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
46. Lu AT, et al. DNA methylation GrimAge strongly predicts lifespan and healthspan. Aging (Albany NY). 2019;11(2):303–327.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
47. Mendelson MM. Epigenetic age acceleration: a biological doomsday clock for cardiovascular disease? Circ Genom Precis Med. 2018;11(3):e002089.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
48. Perna L, et al. Epigenetic age acceleration predicts cancer, cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality in a German case cohort. Clin Epigenetics. 2016;8(1):64.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
49. Fransquet PD, et al. The epigenetic clock as a predictor of disease and mortality risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Epigenetics. 2019;11(1):62.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
50. Johnson AA, et al. The role of DNA methylation in aging, rejuvenation, and age-related disease. Rejuvenation Res. 2012;15(5):483–494.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
51. Piekarz RL, Bates SE. Epigenetic modifiers: basic understanding and clinical development. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(12):3918–3926.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
52. Maes K, et al. Epigenetic modifiers: anti-neoplastic drugs with immunomodulating potential. Front Immunol. 2021;12:652160.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
53. Venturelli S, et al. Differential induction of apoptosis and senescence by the DNA methyltransferase inhibitors 5-azacytidine and 5-aza-2’-deoxycytidine in solid tumor cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013;12(10):2226–2236.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
54. Amatori S, et al. Premature senescence induced by DNA demethylating agent (Decitabine) as therapeutic option for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Lung Cancer. 2011;71(1):113–115.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
55. Almeida LO, et al. Unlocking the chromatin of adenoid cystic carcinomas using HDAC inhibitors sensitize cancer stem cells to cisplatin and induces tumor senescence. Stem Cell Res. 2017;21:94–105.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
56. Elknerova K, et al. Epigenetic modulation of gene expression of human leukemia cell lines — induction of cell death and senescence. Neoplasma. 2011;58(1):35–44.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
57. Xu WS, et al. Induction of polyploidy by histone deacetylase inhibitor: a pathway for antitumor effects. Cancer Res. 2005;65(17):7832–7839.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
58. Nepali K, Liou JP. Recent developments in epigenetic cancer therapeutics: clinical advancement and emerging trends. J Biomed Sci. 2021;28(1):27.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
59. Sehl ME, et al. The acute effects of adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy on peripheral blood epigenetic age in early stage breast cancer patients. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2020;6:23.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
60. Robinson N, et al. Anti-cancer therapy is associated with long-term epigenomic changes in childhood cancer survivors. Br J Cancer. 2022;
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
61. Mangelinck A, Mann C. DNA methylation and histone variants in aging and cancer. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol. 2021;364:1–110.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
62. de Toro-Martín J, et al. Body mass index is associated with epigenetic age acceleration in the visceral adipose tissue of subjects with severe obesity. Clin Epigenetics. 2019;11(1):172.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
63. Wu X, et al. Effect of tobacco smoking on the epigenetic age of human respiratory organs. Clin Epigenetics. 2019;11(1):183.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
64. Daniel M, Tollefsbol TO. Epigenetic linkage of aging, cancer and nutrition. J Exp Biol. 2015;218(pt 1):59–70.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
65. Sapienza C, Issa JP. Diet, nutrition, and cancer epigenetics. Annu Rev Nutr. 2016;36:665–681.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
66. Zhang C, et al. Escape of hair follicle stem cells causes stem cell exhaustion during aging. Nat Aging. 2021;1(10):889–903.
    View this article via: CrossRef Google Scholar
67. Harrison DE. Proliferative capacity of erythropoietic stem cell lines and aging: an overview. Mech Ageing Dev. 1979;9(5):409–426.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
68. Yu KR, et al. The impact of aging on primate hematopoiesis as interrogated by clonal tracking. Blood. 2018;131(11):1195–1205.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
69. Cupit-Link MC, et al. Relationship between aging and hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018;24(10):1965–1970.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
70. Kollman C, et al. Donor characteristics as risk factors in recipients after transplantation of bone marrow from unrelated donors: the effect of donor age. Blood. 2001;98(7):2043–2051.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
71. Beauséjour C. Bone marrow-derived cells: the influence of aging and cellular senescence. Hand Exp Pharmacol. 2007;(180):67–88.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
72. Hayflick L. The limited in vitro lifetime of human diploid cell strains. Exp Cell Res. 1965;37:614–636.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
73. Hayflick L, Moorhead PS. The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains. Exp Cell Res. 1961;25(3):585–621.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
74. Salama R, et al. Cellular senescence and its effector programs. Genes Dev. 2014;28(2):99–114.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
75. Kuilman T, et al. The essence of senescence. Genes Dev. 2010;24(22):2463–2479.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
76. Rodier F, Campisi J. Four faces of cellular senescence. J Cell Biol. 2011;192(4):547–556.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
77. Herranz N, Gil J. Mechanisms and functions of cellular senescence. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(4):1238–1246.
    View this article via: JCI CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
78. Sikora E, et al. Morphological and functional characteristic of senescent cancer cells. Curr Drug Targets. 2016;17(4):377–387.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
79. Siddiqui MS, et al. Persistent γH2AX: a promising molecular marker of DNA damage and aging. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res. 2015;766:1–19.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
80. Wang B, et al. Senescent cells in cancer therapy: friends or foes? Trends Cancer. 2020;6(10):838–857.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
81. te Poele RH, et al. DNA damage is able to induce senescence in tumor cells in vitro and in vivo. Cancer Res. 2002;62(6):1876–1883.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
82. Marcoux S, et al. Expression of the senescence marker p16INK4a in skin biopsies of acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors: a pilot study. Radiat Oncol. 2013;8:252.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
83. Demaria M, et al. Cellular senescence promotes adverse effects of chemotherapy and cancer relapse. Cancer Discov. 2017;7(2):165–176.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
84. Krishnamurthy J, et al. Ink4a/Arf expression is a biomarker of aging. J Clin Invest. 2004;114(9):1299–1307.
    View this article via: JCI CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
85. Baker DJ, et al. Naturally occurring p16Ink4a-positive cells shorten healthy lifespan. Nature. 2016;530(7589):184–189.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
86. Baker DJ, et al. Clearance of p16Ink4a-positive senescent cells delays ageing-associated disorders. Nature. 2011;479(7372):232–236.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
87. Childs BG, et al. Cellular senescence in aging and age-related disease: from mechanisms to therapy. Nat Med. 2015;21(12):1424–1435.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
88. Zhu Y, et al. The Achilles’ heel of senescent cells: from transcriptome to senolytic drugs. Aging Cell. 2015;14(4):644–658.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
89. Kirkland JL, Tchkonia T. Senolytic drugs: from discovery to translation. J Intern Med. 2020;288(5):518–536.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
90. Palmer AK, et al. Cellular senescence: at the nexus between ageing and diabetes. Diabetologia. 2019;62(10):1835–1841.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
91. Palmer AK, et al. Targeting senescent cells alleviates obesity-induced metabolic dysfunction. Aging Cell. 2019;18(3):e12950.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
92. Wang L, et al. Targeting p21(Cip1) highly expressing cells in adipose tissue alleviates insulin resistance in obesity. Cell Metab. 2022;34(1):75–89.
    View this article via: CrossRef Google Scholar
93. Xu M, et al. Senolytics improve physical function and increase lifespan in old age. Nat Med. 2018;24(8):1246–1256.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
94. Zhang P, et al. Senolytic therapy alleviates Aβ-associated oligodendrocyte progenitor cell senescence and cognitive deficits in an Alzheimer’s disease model. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22(5):719–728.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
95. Chinta SJ, et al. Cellular senescence is induced by the environmental neurotoxin paraquat and contributes to neuropathology linked to Parkinson’s disease. Cell Rep. 2018;22(4):930–940.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
96. Farr JN, et al. Independent roles of estrogen deficiency and cellular senescence in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis: evidence in young adult mice and older humans. J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34(8):1407–1418.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
97. Xu M, et al. Transplanted senescent cells induce an osteoarthritis-like condition in mice. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2016;72(6):780–785.
    View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
98. Barnes PJ, et al. Cellular senescence as a mechanism and target in chronic lung diseases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;200(5):556–564.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
99. Saleh T, et al. Tumor cell escape from therapy-induced senescence as a model of disease recurrence after dormancy. Cancer Res. 2019;79(6):1044–1046.
    View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
100. Saleh T, Gewirtz DA. Considering therapy-induced senescence as a mechanism of tumour dormancy contributing to disease recurrence. Br J Cancer. 2022;126(10):1363–1365.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
101. Lee S, Schmitt CA. The dynamic nature of senescence in cancer. Nat Cell Biol. 2019;21(1):94–101.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
102. Milanovic M, et al. Senescence-associated reprogramming promotes cancer stemness. Nature. 2018;553(7686):96–100.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
103. Roberson RS, et al. Escape from therapy-induced accelerated cellular senescence in p53-null lung cancer cells and in human lung cancers. Cancer Res. 2005;65(7):2795–2803.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
104. Mosieniak G, et al. Polyploidy formation in doxorubicin-treated cancer cells can favor escape from senescence. Neoplasia. 2015;17(12):882–893.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
105. Jackson JG, et al. p53-mediated senescence impairs the apoptotic response to chemotherapy and clinical outcome in breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2012;21(6):793–806.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
106. Krtolica A, et al. Senescent fibroblasts promote epithelial cell growth and tumorigenesis: a link between cancer and aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(21):12072–12077.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
107. Fisher DT, et al. The two faces of IL-6 in the tumor microenvironment. Semin Immunol. 2014;26(1):38–47.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
108. Coppé JP, et al. Secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor by primary human fibroblasts at senescence. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(40):29568–29574.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
109. Coppé JP, et al. Senescence-associated secretory phenotypes reveal cell-nonautonomous functions of oncogenic RAS and the p53 tumor suppressor. PLoS Biol. 2008;6(12):2853–2868.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
110. Goulet CR, et al. Cancer-associated fibroblasts induce epithelial-mesenchymal transition of bladder cancer cells through paracrine IL-6 signalling. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):137.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
111. Wang L, et al. Activation of IL-8 via PI3K/Akt-dependent pathway is involved in leptin-mediated epithelial-mesenchymal transition in human breast cancer cells. Cancer Biol Ther. 2015;16(8):1220–1230.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
112. Luo X, et al. Stromal-initiated changes in the bone promote metastatic niche development. Cell Rep. 2016;14(1):82–92.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
113. Alimirah F, et al. Cellular senescence promotes skin carcinogenesis through p38MAPK and p44/42MAPK signaling. Cancer Res. 2020;80(17):3606–3619.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
114. Collado M, Serrano M. Senescence in tumours: evidence from mice and humans. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(1):51–57.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
115. Eggert T, et al. Distinct functions of senescence-associated immune responses in liver tumor surveillance and tumor progression. Cancer Cell. 2016;30(4):533–547.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
116. Ruhland MK, et al. Stromal senescence establishes an immunosuppressive microenvironment that drives tumorigenesis. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11762.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
117. Prasanna PG, et al. Therapy-induced senescence: opportunities to improve anticancer therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(10):1285–1298.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
118. Demaria M, et al. An essential role for senescent cells in optimal wound healing through secretion of PDGF-AA. Dev Cell. 2014;31(6):722–733.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
119. Wilkinson HN, Hardman MJ. Senescence in wound repair: emerging strategies to target chronic healing wounds. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:773.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
120. Muñoz-Espín D, et al. Programmed cell senescence during mammalian embryonic development. Cell. 2013;155(5):1104–1118.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
121. Storer M, et al. Senescence is a developmental mechanism that contributes to embryonic growth and patterning. Cell. 2013;155(5):1119–1130.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
122. Cox LS, Redman C. The role of cellular senescence in ageing of the placenta. Placenta. 2017;52:139–145.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
123. Zhu Y, et al. New agents that target senescent cells: the flavone, fisetin, and the BCL-X_L inhibitors, A1331852 and A1155463. Aging. 2017;9(3):955–963.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
124. Yang PM, et al. Dietary flavonoid fisetin targets caspase-3-deficient human breast cancer MCF-7 cells by induction of caspase-7-associated apoptosis and inhibition of autophagy. Int J Oncol. 2012;40(2):469–478.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
125. Farr JN, et al. Targeting cellular senescence prevents age-related bone loss in mice. Nat Med. 2017;23(9):1072–1079.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
126. Zhu Y, et al. Identification of a novel senolytic agent, navitoclax, targeting the Bcl-2 family of anti-apoptotic factors. Aging Cell. 2016;15(3):428–435.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
127. Chang J, et al. Clearance of senescent cells by ABT263 rejuvenates aged hematopoietic stem cells in mice. Nat Med. 2016;22(1):78–83.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
128. Nakajima W, et al. Combination with vorinostat overcomes ABT-263 (navitoclax) resistance of small cell lung cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2016;17(1):27–35.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
129. Fuhrmann-Stroissnigg H, et al. SA-β-galactosidase-based screening assay for the identification of senotherapeutic drugs. J Vis Exp. 2019(148):e58133.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
130. Justice JN, et al. Senolytics in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: results from a first-in-human, open-label, pilot study. EBioMedicine. 2019;40:554–563.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
131. Hickson LJ, et al. Senolytics decrease senescent cells in humans: preliminary report from a clinical trial of Dasatinib plus Quercetin in individuals with diabetic kidney disease. EBioMedicine. 2019;47:446–456.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
132. Khan SS, et al. Molecular and physiological manifestations and measurement of aging in humans. Aging Cell. 2017;16(4):624–633.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
133. Chandra A, et al. Targeted clearance of p21- but not p16-positive senescent cells prevents radiation-induced osteoporosis and increased marrow adiposity. Aging Cell. 2022;21(5):e13602.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
134. Basisty N, et al. A proteomic atlas of senescence-associated secretomes for aging biomarker development. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(1):e3000599.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
135. Wyld L, et al. Senescence and cancer: a review of clinical implications of senescence and senotherapies. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(8):2134.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
136. Wang B, et al. Pharmacological CDK4/6 inhibition reveals a p53-dependent senescent state with restricted toxicity. EMBO J. 2022;41(6):e108946.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
137. Idda ML, et al. Survey of senescent cell markers with age in human tissues. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12(5):4052–4066.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
138. Wiley CD, et al. Oxylipin biosynthesis reinforces cellular senescence and allows detection of senolysis. Cell Metab. 2021;33(6):1124–1136.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
139. Oblak L, et al. A systematic review of biological, social and environmental factors associated with epigenetic clock acceleration. Ageing Res Rev. 2021;69:101348.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
140. Däbritz JH, et al. CD20-targeting immunotherapy promotes cellular senescence in B-cell lymphoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(5):1074–1081.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
141. Hayek S, et al. Prevalence and predictors of frailty in childhood cancer survivors and siblings: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(3):232–247.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
142. Delaney A, et al. Progression of frailty in survivors of childhood cancer: a St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Report. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(10):1415–1421.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
143. Arora M, et al. Physiologic frailty in nonelderly hematopoietic cell transplantation patients: results from the bone marrow transplant survivor study. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(10):1277–1286.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
144. Wang X, et al. Clinical and genetic risk prediction of subsequent CNS tumors in survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the COG ALTE03N1 study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(32):3688–3696.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
145. Applebaum MA, et al. Neuroblastoma survivors are at increased risk for second malignancies: a report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project. Eur J Cancer. 2017;72:177–185.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
146. Haddy N, et al. Repair of ionizing radiation-induced DNA damage and risk of second cancer in childhood cancer survivors. Carcinogenesis. 2014;35(8):1745–1749.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
147. Lee JJ, et al. Telomere length shortening in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients undergoing chemotherapy. Ann Hematol. 2003;82(8):492–495.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
148. Ariffin H, et al. Young adult survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia show evidence of chronic inflammation and cellular aging. Cancer. 2017;123(21):4207–4214.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
149. Gramatges MM, et al. Telomere content and risk of second malignant neoplasm in survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(4):904–911.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
150. Xiao C, et al. Epigenetic age acceleration, fatigue, and inflammation in patients undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: a longitudinal study. Cancer. 2021;127(18):3361–3371.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
151. Qin N, et al. Epigenetic age acceleration and chronic health conditions among adult survivors of childhood cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(5):597–605.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
152. Xiao C, et al. Association of epigenetic age acceleration with risk factors, survival, and quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;111(1):157–167.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
153. Rosko A, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant induces the molecular aging of T-cells in multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2015;50(10):1379–1381.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
154. Sanoff HK, et al. Effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy on markers of molecular age in patients with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(4):dju057.
     View this article via: PubMed Google Scholar
155. Shachar SS, et al. Effects of breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy regimens on expression of the aging biomarker, p16^INK4a. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020;4(6):pkaa082.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
156. Bourlon MT, et al. Immunosenescence profile and expression of the aging biomarker (p16(INK4a)) in testicular cancer survivors treated with chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):882.
     View this article via: CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar