🏠 Home
Teaching
📚 All Courses Molecular Therapeutics (MOLD-405) Cell & Molecular Biology Special Topics Biomedical Sciences Syllabi 👤 About Me 🎓 CV / Download 📄 Publications 🛠 Services 🔬 Lab Resources ✍️ Blog 🎓 Student Portal ✉️ Contact 🌐 العربية
Illustration with two panels: the classic adult model, in which mutations accumulate and clones diversify before late metastasis, and a proposed paediatric framework in which a developmental progenitor with an early driver switches reversibly among proliferative, migratory, drug-tolerant and stem-like states; below, three example cancers (neuroblastoma, Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma) with the state changes discussed in the review
The framework as described in the review (illustration prepared for this article, not a figure from the review). Schematic only.

Metastasis is the leading cause of cancer deaths in children, yet childhood tumors usually carry far fewer mutations than adult cancers. A review published this week by Darrell Green (University of East Anglia) and Darren Sexton (Liverpool John Moores University) argues that this is less of a paradox than it looks: cells that arise from developmental programs may already be able to move, resist treatment and seed new sites by switching between reversible states.

Key points
CancerState change discussedMechanisms named in the review
NeuroblastomaAdrenergic to mesenchymal, and backNOTCH, enhancer rewiring, SWI/SNF remodeling
Ewing sarcomaEWSR1::FLI1 high (proliferative) to low (migratory)Fusion dosage, YAP/TEAD, HOXD13
OsteosarcomaImmunometabolic niche adaptationExtracellular vesicles, macrophages, hypoxia, ferroptosis resistance
MedulloblastomaProgenitor-like, therapy-resistant stateIDH1-linked metabolism, chromatin remodeling
RhabdomyosarcomaUndifferentiated to differentiatedKDM3A axis, PAX3/PAX7, myogenic differentiation

What the review is

This is a narrative review in Trends Open, not a new experiment. The authors gather genomic, epigenomic, developmental and single-cell studies across neuroblastoma, Ewing sarcoma, osteosarcoma, medulloblastoma, high-grade glioma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Wilms tumor and leukemia, and propose a framework. It does not report new patient or laboratory data, and it presents its central ideas as hypotheses that need testing.

The proposal

Many childhood tumors have low mutation burdens but still show structural genome changes, so the authors do not call them genetically static. Their proposal is that genetic changes and developmental origin define the landscape of states a tumor can reach, while epigenetic, metabolic and microenvironmental signals move cells between those states. They stress that this complements clonal evolution and does not replace it. They also point to metastasis studies in which genetically distinct subclones from one tumor seeded the same sites, which fits a broadly accessible state better than a single metastasis-specific mutation.

Examples the authors draw on

In neuroblastoma, cells interconvert between an adrenergic and a mesenchymal identity through NOTCH signaling, enhancer rewiring and SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling, and both populations can still form tumors in vivo. In Ewing sarcoma, cells move between a proliferative state with high EWSR1::FLI1 and a migratory state with low EWSR1::FLI1, and work with controlled degradation of the fusion protein suggests that intermediate levels may favor metastasis most. In osteosarcoma, extracellular vesicles and macrophage conditioning help prepare a lung niche. In group 3 medulloblastoma, an IDH1-linked progenitor-like state is linked to resistance that inhibition reversed in the cited work. In rhabdomyosarcoma, a KDM3A axis and high PAX3 and PAX7 activity keep cells undifferentiated, while differentiation is linked to less spread.

How the authors say it could be tested

The central difficulty, they write, is proving causation: seeing several cell states in a tumor does not show that cells move between them, and enrichment of a state in metastases does not show whether it arose during spread or was already present. They call for lineage tracing, barcoding, live imaging, paired genomic and epigenomic profiling and state-specific perturbation. They note that neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma come closest to that standard, whereas for many other cancers the evidence is still mostly associative.

What it could mean for treatment

The authors do not propose a drug. They discuss constraining transitions, differentiation therapy such as retinoids in neuroblastoma, epigenetic inhibitors such as histone demethylase inhibition in Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma, and targeting the metabolic and immune dependencies that metastatic states create. They also list risks: blocking one state could select another, epigenetic drugs act broadly, and normal child development shares these programs.

Keep in mind

The university press release says the work shows that childhood cancers do not need extra mutations to spread and that it challenges a long-held assumption. The review itself is more cautious: it says that genetic selection remains important, that cancers differ in how much they depend on plasticity, and that the model's central test is still to be done in patients. Predicting a tumor's next state from its current state is described as the decisive goal, not an achieved one.

Original paper
Paper
Green D, Sexton DW. Developmental plasticity as a framework for paediatric cancer metastasis. Trends Open. 2026. Published online November 9, 2026. Review.
Type
Narrative review
DOI
10.1016/j.treopn.2026.10.002
Funding
No funding was required for writing this article, according to the authors. The authors declare no competing interests.
Dr. Abdelmuhsen Abusneina
Abdelmuhsen Abusneina, PhDAssociate Professor
Research focus: Molecular Oncology and Cancer Metabolism
Department of Molecular Diagnostics, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, University of Benghazi, Libya

Weekly digest

The week's briefs and science news in one email. See the privacy policy.

← Back to the blog