Timothy Langford

Although Otto Warburg may be right about the role of glycolysis versus OXPHOS in cancer metabolism, it remains unclear whether an altered metabolism is causative or correlative and is the main driver or a mere passenger in the pathogenesis of cancer. Currently, most of our successful treatments are designed to eliminate non-cancer stem cells (non-CSCs) such as differentiated cancer cells. When the treatments also happen to control CSCs or the stem-ness niche, it is often unintended, unexpected, or undetected for lack of a pertinent theory about the origin of cancer that clarifies whether cancer is a metabolic, genetic, or stem cell disease. Perhaps cellular context matters. After all, metabolic activity may be different in different cell types and their respective microenvironments—whether it is in a normal progenitor stem cell vs. progeny differentiated cell and whether it is in a malignant CSC vs. non-CSC. In this perspective, we re-examine different types of cellular metabolism, e.g., glycolytic vs. mitochondrial, of glucose, glutamine, arginine, and fatty acids in CSCs and non-CSCs. We revisit the Warburg effect, an obesity epidemic, the aspartame story, and a ketogenic diet. We propose that a pertinent scientific theory about the origin of cancer and of cancer metabolism influences the direction of cancer research as well as the design of drug versus therapy development in cancer care.

Biomarkers play a crucial role in the diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutics of cancer. We use biomarkers to identify, image, monitor, and target cancer. In many respects, the discovery of pertinent biomarkers that distinguish fulminant from indolent neoplasms and sensitive from refractory malignancies would be a holy grail of cancer research and therapy. We propose that a stem cell versus genetic theory of cancer may not only enable us to track and trace the biological evolution of cancer but also empower us to attenuate its clinical course and optimize the clinical outcome of patients with cancer. Hence, a biomarker that identifies cancer stem cells (CSCs) and distinguishes them from non-CSCs may serve to elucidate inter-tumoral and intra-tumoral heterogeneity, elevate the values and utility of current prognostic and predictive tests, and enhance drug versus therapy development in cancer care. From this perspective, we focus on CSC biomarkers and discuss stemness or stem-like biomarkers in the context of a unified theory and a consideration of stem cell versus genetic origin. We review their role in primary and mixed tumors, in the elaboration of tumor subtypes, and in the imaging and monitoring of minimal residual diseases. We investigate how scientific theories influence the direction of scientific research and interpretation of experimental results, and how genomics and epigenomics affect the dynamics and trajectories of biomarkers in the conduct of cancer research and in the practice of cancer care.

A simple way to understand the immune system is to separate the self from non-self. If it is self, the immune system tolerates and spares. If it is non-self, the immune system attacks and destroys. Consequently, if cancer has a stem cell origin and is a stem cell disease, we have a serious problem and a major dilemma with immunotherapy. Because many refractory cancers are more self than non-self, immunotherapy may become an uphill battle and pyrrhic victory in cancer care. In this article, we elucidate cancer immunity. We demonstrate for whom, with what, as well as when and how to apply immunotherapy in cancer care. We illustrate that a stem cell theory of cancer affects our perspectives and narratives of cancer. Without a pertinent theory about cancer’s origin and nature, we may unwittingly perform misdirected cancer research and prescribe misguided cancer treatments. In the ongoing saga of immunotherapy, we are at a critical juncture. Because of the allure and promises of immunotherapy, we will be treating more patients not immediately threatened by their cancer. They may have more to lose than to gain, if we have a misconception and if we are on a wrong mission with immunotherapy. According to the stem cell theory of cancer, we should be careful with immunotherapy. When we do not know or realize that cancer originates from a stem cell and has stem-ness capabilities, we may cause more harm than good in some patients and fail to separate the truth from the myth about immunotherapy in cancer care.

From this perspective, we wonder about the clinical implications of oncology recapturing ontogeny in the contexts of neoantigens, tumor biomarkers, and cancer targets. We ponder about the biological ramifications of finding remnants of mini-organs and residuals of tiny embryos in some tumors. We reminisce about classical experiments showing that the embryonic microenvironment possesses antitumorigenic properties. Ironically, a stem-ness niche—in the wrong place at the wrong time—is also an onco-niche. We marvel at the paradox of TGF-beta both as a tumor suppressor and a tumor promoter. We query about the dualism of EMT as a stem-ness trait engaged in both normal development and abnormal disease states, including various cancers. It is uncanny that during fetal development, proto-oncogenes wax, while tumor-suppressor genes wane. Similarly, during cancer development, proto-oncogenes awaken, while tumor-suppressor genes slumber. Importantly, targeting stem-like pathways has therapeutic implications because stem-ness may be the true driver, if not engine, of the malignant process. Furthermore, anti-stem-like activity elicits anti-cancer effects for a variety of cancers because stem-ness features may be a universal property of cancer. When a fetus survives and thrives despite immune surveillance and all the restraints of nature and the constraints of its niche, it is a perfect baby. Similarly, when a neoplasm survives and thrives in an otherwise healthy and immune-competent host, is it a perfect tumor? Therefore, a pertinent narrative of cancer depends on a proper perspective of cancer. If malignant cells are derived from stem cells, and both cells are intrinsically RB1 negative and TP53 null, do the absence of RB1 and loss of TP53 really matter in this whole narrative and an entirely different perspective of cancer?