A replicated patient-specific component of tumour telomere length across two pan-cancer cohorts

Abstract

Bulk telomere length measured from tumour sequencing is routinely interpreted as a property of the cancer cells. However, a tumour specimen is a mixture, and the patient who supplies it has a telomere length of their own. Here I re-analyse published pan-cancer telomere estimates and ask how much of a tumour's telomere length is patient-specific. A calibration step comes first. Whole-genome and low-pass estimates recover the known cross-sectional attrition of leukocyte telomeres with age, at 26.6 bp per year in blood normals, whereas whole-exome estimates do not. After adjustment for cancer type, sequencing centre and sex, the exome slope is minus 0.6 bp per year. In 684 blood-normal aliquots sequenced by both assays, the whole-genome estimate declines at 38.9 bp per year, whereas the exome estimate from the same DNA shows no detectable decline. The difference between assays is 41.5 bp per year, with P = 3 x 10^-10. Because exome data constitute 78.6% of the original resource, downstream analyses use only whole-genome and low-pass libraries. Within those data, tumour telomere length tracks the patient's matched-normal telomere length. The Spearman correlation is 0.395 in TCGA, with positive associations in 22 of 23 cancer types. This finding replicates in PCAWG using a different telomere estimator, with a correlation of 0.472 and positive associations in all 24 histologies examined. Adjustment for cancer type, sequencing centre and library type leaves a regression coefficient of 0.385. The association is also stable after adjustment for age, sex, tumour purity, leukocyte fraction, ploidy, sequencing coverage and continental ancestry, with coefficients ranging from 0.406 to 0.429. Pure normal-cell admixture is rejected as the sole explanation. Under a two-compartment mixture model, the coefficient for host telomere length is expected to equal 1 and the host-by-purity interaction to equal minus 1. These restrictions are jointly rejected with P = 0.001. Tumour purity, leukocyte fraction and age each explain only about 1 to 3% of within-cohort variance and do not alter the cross-cancer ranking. By contrast, the between-cohort coefficient is not directly interpretable. Its apparent near one-to-one relationship with tissue-associated telomere length depends strongly on which tissue supplies the matched-normal reference and on the statistical spread of that predictor, falling to 0.44 when organ-matched solid tissue is used. Bulk tumour telomere length is therefore a composite phenotype containing a replicated patient-specific component. Telomere biomarker studies should include matched-normal telomere length as a covariate rather than treating tumour telomere length as exclusively tumour-intrinsic.