1.1 The Multifaceted Nature of Cancer
Cancer represents a collection of diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells in the body. It encompasses more than 100 distinct diseases, each with its molecular features and biological behaviors (Weinberg, 2014). This variety adds significant complexity to the quest for a cure. Each type of cancer can originate from different cell types, be driven by a unique combination of genetic mutations, and respond differently to treatments (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2011). Thus, the search for a universal cure is confounded by the disease’s intrinsic complexity.
The multifaceted nature of cancer arises from the multiple steps involved in tumor development, known as the “hallmarks of cancer” (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2000). These hallmarks include sustained proliferative signaling, evasion of growth suppressors, avoiding immune destruction, enabling replicative immortality, induction of angiogenesis, activation of invasion and metastasis, reprogramming of energy metabolism, and evading apoptosis. The contribution of these biological capabilities to cancer development varies between different types of cancer and among individuals with the same type of cancer, thereby complicating the development of a single cure.
Understanding cancer’s heterogeneity also involves examining the role of the tumor microenvironment, which comprises various cells, molecules, and blood vessels that surround and interact with a tumor. The microenvironment plays a critical role in tumor progression and response to therapy (Quail & Joyce, 2013). For example, some cancers may develop resistance to therapies through interactions with surrounding stromal cells or through changes in the extracellular matrix that protects the tumor cells.
Genetic diversity within a single tumor can give rise to distinct subpopulations of cancer cells, each with different responsiveness to therapy. This intratumor heterogeneity can lead to incomplete eradication of the disease following treatment and, subsequently, to disease recurrence (Greaves & Maley, 2012). Treatments that may be effective against one population of cells in a tumor may not be as effective against another, requiring personalized approaches to cancer therapy.
Another dimension adding to this complexity is the concept of cancer stem cells, which are a small subpopulation of cells within a tumor with the ability to self-renew, produce heterogeneous lineages of cancer cells that comprise the tumor, and are often resilient to conventional therapies (Clarke, 2005). These cells are thought to play a crucial role in cancer relapse and metastasis.
To obviate the intricate nature of cancer, researchers and clinicians confront the challenge of developing personalized medicine strategies. These involve the use of molecular diagnostic testing, including genome sequencing, to tailor treatments to an individual’s specific cancer profile (Sawyers, 2008). Thus, while targeted therapies have been developed to address certain mutations or pathways prevalent in some cancers, the variable nature of these mutations across different cancers prevents these therapies from being universally curative.
The multidimensional aspect of cancer complicates the quest for a one-size-fits-all solution. The heterogeneity and resilience of this disease mandate a continued and comprehensive approach to research that accounts for the many factors contributing to cancer development and resistance to therapies.
1.2. Historical Perspective on Cancer Treatments
Cancer treatments have undergone a significant evolution throughout history, showcasing a persistent quest to understand and conquer this multifaceted disease. From the early use of radical surgeries to the advent of radiotherapy in the early 20th century, each era of cancer treatment has been characterized by a combination of trial, error, hope, and disappointment. Hippocrates, often considered the father of medicine, was among the first to describe cancer, using the term “carcinos” to denote tumors that were incurable (Mukherjee, 2010). It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that radical surgical techniques, such as mastectomy, became prevalent, practiced by surgeons like William Halsted who believed in removing not only the tumor but also the surrounding tissues and lymph nodes (Halsted, 1894).
As science progressed, the introduction of radiotherapy, brought forth by the discovery of X-rays by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen and the use of radium by Marie Curie, offered new hope in the local control of cancer. This period marked a transition from purely physical interventions toward the inclusion of physics in cancer treatment. However, radiotherapy’s limitations were soon evident; while it could sometimes shrink tumors, it was not always curative and was often associated with significant side effects due to the damage of healthy tissue surrounding the cancer cells (Grubbe, 1903).
Chemotherapy’s genesis can be traced back to the use of mustard gas during World War I. Observations of the bone marrow-suppressive effects of the gas led to the development of nitrogen mustards as some of the first chemotherapy agents, signaling the birth of systemic anti-cancer treatment (Goodman et al., 1946). However, like radiotherapy, chemotherapy was a double-edged sword; capable of shrinking tumors but also causing widespread toxicity and often a grueling experience for patients.
By the latter part of the 20th century, the understanding that cancer is not a single disease but rather a collection of disorders with diverse genetic landscapes reshaped the approach towards treatment. This gave rise to targeted therapies and the era of personalized medicine. Drugs like imatinib, for chronic myeloid leukemia, became poster children for this new approach, demonstrating that molecularly targeted agents could achieve significant responses with fewer side effects (Druker et al., 2001).
Despite these significant advances in understanding and treating cancer, a complete and universal cure has remained elusive. Each pioneering treatment has brought about incremental gains in survival rates, but not without facing limitations. The historical perspective of cancer treatments emphasizes the iterative nature of scientific progress and underscores the challenges posed by cancer’s complexity—the very challenges that must be addressed to achieve the long-sought-after cure.
2.1 Genetic Variation and Cancer Heterogeneity
Cancer is not a singular disease; it is a collection of diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells. One of the most significant challenges in finding a cure for cancer lies in its immense genetic variation and heterogeneity. Each type of cancer can exhibit a unique genetic profile, and even individual tumors within the same patient can have distinct genetic variations (Vogelstein et al., 2013). These variations affect how tumors grow, spread, and respond to treatments, complicating the development of a one-size-fits-all cure.
Intratumor heterogeneity refers to the presence of genetically diverse cancer cells within a single tumor, which can result in varying responses to treatment across the tumor population (Marusyk, Almendro, & Polyak, 2012). This diversity can arise through mutations, gene duplications, deletions, and epigenetic alterations. As cancer cells divide, they can accumulate different mutations, leading to the evolution of subclones with distinct genetic and phenotypic properties. Some subclones may be resistant to therapies that are effective against others, resulting in therapy-resistant recurrences after initial treatment success.
The distinction between driver mutations, which confer a growth advantage to cancer cells, and passenger mutations, which do not affect the cells’ fitness, is essential in understanding cancer progression and treatment resistance (Stratton, Campbell, & Futreal, 2009). High-throughput genome sequencing of cancer cells has provided insights into the vast array of genetic changes that can contribute to tumorigenesis. However, these changes are not only numerous but also differ from patient to patient, and from tumor to tumor, making the identification of universally druggable targets an enormous challenge.
Furthermore, the tumor microenvironment plays a significant role in cancer development and progression. The interactions between cancer cells and surrounding stromal cells, immune cells, and extracellular matrix can influence tumor growth and treatment resistance (Joyce & Pollard, 2009). Tumors may secrete factors that induce angiogenesis, allowing them to develop their own blood supply, or they may manipulate immune cells to suppress immune responses that, under normal circumstances, would eliminate them.
The heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment, much like genetic heterogeneity, poses obstacles to effective treatment. Therapies that target the tumor alone may not adequately address the complex biology of the overall tumor ecosystem. A deeper understanding of the interplay between cancer genetics, tumor heterogeneity, and the tumor microenvironment is critical for designing personalized treatments and advancing towards potential cures.
In conclusion, the immense genetic variability and heterogeneity among cancers make it incredibly difficult to design universal treatments. While personalized medicine approaches, such as those based on specific molecular and genetic characteristics of the patient’s tumor, show promise, they require a level of understanding and a technical capability that the medical field continues to develop. The future of cancer treatment likely resides not in a single cure, but in an array of precision therapies tailored to the complex biology of each individual’s cancer.
2.2 Challenges in Targeting Metastasis and Recurrence
Cancer metastasis and recurrence are two of the most formidable challenges in the quest for a cure. Metastasis occurs when cancer cells break away from the primary tumor and spread to other parts of the body, forming new tumors. Recurrence, on the other hand, refers to the return of cancer, either at the original site or elsewhere, after a period of remission. These phenomena are significant hurdles in cancer treatment for several reasons.
Firstly, the biological process of metastasis is complex and not fully understood. Cancer cells that metastasize have often undergone genetic and epigenetic changes that confer survival advantages, such as resistance to apoptosis, enhanced invasiveness, and the ability to evade the immune system (Valastyan & Weinberg, 2011). This allows them to thrive in foreign tissue environments. Additionally, the pre-metastatic niche, a microenvironment in distant tissues prepared by primary tumor-secreted factors, further supports the survival and growth of these cells (Psaila & Lyden, 2009). These factors together make targeting metastatic cells particularly difficult.
Recurrence is often due to microscopic residual disease, which persists despite initial treatment success. These cells can remain dormant for years before becoming clinically detectable again. The mechanisms behind cancer cell dormancy and reactivation are topics of intense research but are still not well-characterized. Recent evidence suggests that the tumor microenvironment and immune system interactions play significant roles (Oskarsson et al., 2014). Hence, therapy must not only address the primary tumor but also undetectable disseminated and dormant cells.
Secondly, heterogeneity within and between tumor types significantly hampers the development of a one-size-fits-all cure. The molecular and cellular diversity of cancer leads to variable responses to treatments, making it challenging to predict which therapy will be effective for a given patient. Furthermore, this heterogeneity may change over time and under therapeutic pressure, which can lead to the emergence of treatment-resistant cell clones (Marusyk et al., 2012).
Treatments targeting specific molecular pathways, like tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immune checkpoint blockers, have made remarkable progress in the treatment and management of certain cancers. However, these treatments often provide control rather than a cure, and their effectiveness may wane over time as the cancer evolves. As such, ongoing vigilance for signs of progression or recurrence is essential. Unfortunately, currently used screening methods may not detect all biomarkers or molecular changes associated with recurrence or metastasis early on.
To overcome these hurdles, researchers are investigating multimodal treatment strategies that combine surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and novel targeted therapies. The rationale is to attack the cancer cells from multiple angles to prevent or limit metastasis and recurrence. Clinical trials are essential for testing these strategies, and improved methodologies for tracking treatment response and disease progression are crucial (Navin & Hicks, 2011).
Improved understanding of the biology of metastasis and recurrence, coupled with the development of more effective systemic therapies, could significantly shift the landscape of cancer treatment. However, the unpredictable nature of these phenomena and the constant evolution of cancer cells mean that finding a definitive cure remains a challenge.
In conclusion, addressing the challenges posed by metastasis and recurrence requires a multipronged approach that includes understanding the biological basis of these processes, improving methods for early detection, and developing tailored therapies that can be adapted as the disease evolves. Continued research into these areas is critical if we hope to one day find a definitive cure for cancer.
3.1 Limitations of Current Research Models
Cancer research has made significant strides over the past few decades, leading to improvements in screening, diagnosis, and treatments. Despite these advances, there are inherent limitations within the current research models that hinder the pace at which a universal cure for cancer can be discovered.
Traditional research models for cancer involve several methodologies, including in vitro studies with cancer cell lines, animal models, and clinical trials. Each of these approaches has provided valuable insights into the biology of cancer and the efficacy of treatments. However, they also have fundamental constraints that may not accurately recapitulate the complex human tumor microenvironment or fully predict the therapeutic outcomes in patients. In vitro studies often rely on cancer cells that have been cultured for extended periods, which may diverge significantly from the properties of original tumor cells (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2011). This cellular drift can lead to misleading conclusions about the potential efficacy of therapeutic agents.
Animal models, such as murine systems, have been instrumental in advancing understanding of cancer development and progression. However, they are not perfect representations of human disease due to species-specific differences in physiology and immune responses (Day et al., 2015). These disparities can affect how a human cancer behaves compared to its animal model counterpart and complicate the translation of preclinical findings to clinical success. Additionally, genetic modification of animal models to induce tumors may not encompass the genetic diversity and complexity found in human cancers, leading to an oversimplified view of the disease.
Clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating cancer treatments’ effectiveness in humans. Yet, their design and execution face numerous issues. Trials are often limited by sample size, patient selection biases, and strict inclusion criteria, which may not reflect the broader cancer patient population. These factors compromise the generalizability of trial results (Ellis & Fidler, 2010). Furthermore, the traditional phased structure of clinical trials can be time-consuming and expensive, potentially delaying the availability of promising treatments.
In parallel with these methodological limitations, there is the problem of reproducibility in cancer research. Many studies have reported difficulties in replicating groundbreaking findings, which is critical for validating potential treatments (Begley & Ellis, 2012). This challenge is exacerbated by a scientific culture that incentivizes novel, positive results over negative or confirmatory studies, leading to a publication bias that may overestimate the benefits of certain interventions.
Emerging research techniques, such as patient-derived organoids and xenografts, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, and computational modeling, hold promise for overcoming some of these limitations. Patient-derived models can capture the heterogeneity of human tumors better and allow for more personalized drug testing (Sachs et al., 2018). Meanwhile, advances in genomic editing and systems biology offer powerful tools to dissect the molecular underpinnings of cancer and identify novel therapeutic targets.
In conclusion, the limitations of current research models in cancer are multifaceted, impacting our ability to understand the disease fully and develop effective treatments. Innovation within cancer research methodologies is essential to overcoming these hurdles and encouraging more accurate and generalizable findings, which are fundamental to progressing towards the elusive goal of curing cancer.
4.3.2 The Need for Advanced Diagnostic and Therapeutic Technologies
In the ongoing quest to find a cure for cancer, the development of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic technologies plays a crucial role. Despite significant progress in medical science, the complexity of cancer as a collection of diseases has continually outpaced the abilities of existing technologies. The heterogeneity of tumors, which may vary greatly not only between different types of cancer but also within the same tumor, demands personalized treatment approaches. As a result, personalized medicine, powered by high-throughput genomic sequencing and sophisticated bioinformatics, has emerged as a key area of focus in oncological research.
The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has revolutionized the field by providing detailed insights into the genetic landscape of cancers (Mardis, 2017). The capability to sequence entire cancer genomes rapidly and cost-effectively has unleashed new possibilities for understanding the unique genetic alterations that drive each patient’s cancer. This knowledge is imperative for the development of targeted therapies, which aim to attack cancer cells based on the specific genetic mutations they carry, sparing the normal, healthy cells. However, despite these advances, the transition from genomic data to effective treatments remains a significant challenge. The vast amount of data generated requires sophisticated computational tools for analysis, and the biological relevance of many genetic alterations is still poorly understood (Collins & Varmus, 2015).
Imaging technologies also play a pivotal role in cancer diagnosis and the assessment of treatment efficacy. Techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) scans have improved in resolution and specificity, but they still often fail to detect micrometastases or differentiate between benign and malignant cells (Weissleder & Pittet, 2008). Innovations in imaging, like the use of nanoparticles as contrast agents, promise to improve the sensitivity and accuracy of these modalities.
Moreover, there is a growing recognition of the potential of immunotherapy, a therapeutic approach that harnesses the body’s immune system to fight cancer (Pardoll, 2012). Checkpoint inhibitors, cancer vaccines, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies represent the forefront of this field. However, these treatments are currently only effective for a subset of patients and cancers. Identifying biomarkers that predict which patients will respond to immunotherapy, and understanding why some tumors are resistant, are areas of intense study.
Nevertheless, there are obstacles in the development and implementation of these technologies. Clinical trials testing new diagnostics and therapies are expensive and time-consuming. Regulatory hurdles also play a role, as the approval process for new treatments is rigorous to ensure patient safety. Furthermore, translating laboratory discoveries into real-world applications often encounters the “valley of death,” a gap between initial discovery and commercial development where many innovations fail to secure the funding and support needed for further advancement (Butler, 2008).
To overcome these difficulties, there is a need for strong collaboration between academia, industry, and regulatory bodies. Partnerships can accelerate the translation of scientific discoveries into clinical applications. Initiatives like the Cancer Moonshot aim to break down barriers to research collaboration and provide the necessary resources to fuel the development of next-generation technologies.
In conclusion, advanced diagnostic and therapeutic technologies are key to unlocking the mysteries of cancer and achieving the ultimate goal of finding a cure. Progress in genomics, imaging, and immunotherapy is paving the way for more effective and personalized treatments. However, innovative solutions must be matched with supportive infrastructure, from data analysis to clinical translation, to maximize their impact in the fight against cancer.
4.1 Funding, Affordability, and Access to Cancer Treatments
The quest to overcome cancer is not just a biological battle but also a socioeconomic and ethical challenge. The development and dispersion of cancer treatments are heavily influenced by funding, affordability, and access, which can determine the availability of life-saving therapies to the general population. With the surge in global cancer cases, the demand for cost-effective management of cancer is more critical than ever.
A cancer diagnosis can impose a significant economic burden on patients and health care systems alike. The cost of cancer care in the United States, for instance, is projected to reach billions of dollars annually (Mariotto et al., 2011). Innovative treatments such as immunotherapies and targeted therapies are often expensive, making them a financial strain for both individuals and insurance systems. For instance, the cost of CAR T-cell therapy, a type of treatment where a patient’s T cells are modified to attack cancer cells, can exceed several hundred thousand dollars (Cohen et al., 2017). This treatment represents advancement in cancer therapy but also underscores the challenges of affordability.
The disparities in cancer treatment funding are evident not only within countries but also on a global scale, leading to variabilities in cancer outcomes. High-income countries typically allocate more resources to health care, allowing for better infrastructure, research, and treatments (Bray et al., 2018). In contrast, lower-income countries often struggle with inadequate resources, resulting in limited access to cancer care and higher mortality rates. The difference in access is also attributed to disparate health insurance systems and economic support mechanisms across countries.
Public and private funding for cancer research plays a pivotal role in the development of new treatments and interventions. The allocation of funds to diverse types of research – from basic science to clinical trials – impacts the translational speed of experimental therapies into clinical practice. However, the concentration of funding towards specific types of cancer may curtail the breadth of research required to tackle the disease universally. For instance, some malignancies, referred to as ‘orphan cancers,’ receive less attention and funding, thus limiting treatment options and advancements (Kibbe & Mulcahy, 2017).
Furthermore, the affordability and access to cancer treatments have ethical implications. As new and effective treatments become available, a moral dilemma arises when considering who receives these treatments and who does not, based on an individual’s financial capability or geographic location. Ethical considerations also come into play in research priorities, questioning whether the focus should be on the most scientifically promising areas or those that affect the largest number of patients.
To overcome these socioeconomic and ethical challenges, global efforts such as the World Health Organization’s Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases aim to reduce the burden of cancer by promoting universal health coverage and access to essential medicines (World Health Organization, 2013). Nevertheless, achieving equitable cancer care requires concerted actions by all stakeholders, including governments, health systems, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies, to balance the scales of accessibility, affordability, and ethical distribution of resources.
In conclusion, the multifaceted factors of funding, affordability, and access to cancer treatments underscore the interconnection between the science of medicine and the structure of society. To accelerate progress towards curing cancer, innovations in treatment must be coupled with equitable social policies and ethical consideration, ensuring that advancements benefit all segments of society.
4.2 Ethical Issues in Cancer Treatment Research and Trials
Cancer research is a field where rapid advancements could potentially save millions of lives. However, it is also an area fraught with ethical considerations that impact the trajectory of finding a cure. These issues arise in various forms, from the design of clinical trials to the implications of genetic testing.
Firstly, the ethical use of human subjects in cancer research is a fundamental concern (Emanuel et al., 2000). Clinical trials are essential to advancing our understanding of effective treatments, yet they must be conducted with the utmost respect for patient autonomy, informed consent, and beneficence. The Helsinki Declaration, which is a set of ethical principles for conducting research involving human subjects, has undergone multiple revisions to adapt to the evolving nature of medical research. According to these principles, patients should be fully informed about the potential risks and benefits of participating in a trial and should participate voluntarily without undue inducement.
Another ethical consideration is the equity of access to clinical trials. Historically, certain groups, such as minorities, women, and the elderly, have been underrepresented in cancer research (Chen et al., 2014). This has ramifications for the applicability of research findings across diverse populations and potentially exacerbates health disparities. Ensuring that trial populations are reflective of the diversity of cancer patients is not just an ethical necessity but also a scientific imperative to understand how treatments work in different demographic groups.
The development of personalized medicine based on genetic information also introduces ethical challenges (Joly et al., 2017). As targeted therapies become more prevalent, questions arise about the privacy of genetic data and the potential for discrimination by employers or insurers based on an individual’s genetic risk of cancer. Furthermore, the management of incidental findings—that is, the discovery of unrelated genetic susceptibilities while searching for cancer-related ones—also poses challenging ethical decisions about disclosure to the patient, which could cause anxiety or lead to other health interventions.
Lastly, the fairness in the distribution of the benefits of cancer research is a pressing ethical issue (Singer & Daar, 2001). With high costs associated with new cancer treatments, there is a risk that only a privileged few will have access to the latest advances. Ethical considerations must inform decisions about pricing and the allocation of resources to ensure that the life-saving results of cancer research are available to all segments of the population, regardless of socioeconomic status.
These ethical dimensions underscore the complexity in the quest to cure cancer. They serve as reminders that alongside the scientific and medical challenges, efforts to find a cure must also contend with considerations that encompass notions of justice, respect, and human dignity.
References:
real article (Begley (2012), Raise standards for preclinical cancer research):
Begley, C. G., & Ellis, L. M. (2012). Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483(7391), 531–533.
real article (Bray (2018), Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries):
Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., & Jemal, A. (2018). Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68(6), 394-424.
real article (Butler (2008), Translational research: Crossing the valley of death):
Butler, D. (2008). Crossing the valley of death. Nature, 453(7197), 840-842.
real article (Chen (2014), Twenty years post‐NIH Revitalization Act: Enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): Laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual):
Chen, M. S., Jr., Lara, P. N., Dang, J. H. T., Paterniti, D. A., & Kelly, K. (2014). Twenty years post-NIH Revitalization Act: Enhancing minority participation in clinical trials (EMPaCT): Laying the groundwork for improving minority clinical trial accrual. Cancer, 120(Suppl 7), 1091-1096.
check:
Clarke, M. F. (2005). Cancer: The blind spot of regenerative medicine. Nature, 435(7046), 1046-1048.
check:
Cohen, A. D., Garfall, A. L., Stadtmauer, E. A., Melenhorst, J. J., Lacey, S. F., Lancaster, E., Vogl, D. T., Weiss, B. M., Dengel, K., Nelson, A., Plesa, G., Chen, F., Davis, M. M., Hwang, W. T., Young, R. M., Brogdon, J. L., Isaacs, R., Pruteanu-Malinici, I., Siegel, D. L., … June, C. H. (2017). B cell maturation antigen-specific CAR T cells are clinically active in multiple myeloma. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 127(6), 2218-2228.
real article (Collins (2015), A New Initiative on Precision Medicine):
Collins, F. S., & Varmus, H. (2015). A new initiative on precision medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(9), 793-795.
real article: (Day (2015), Preclinical Mouse Cancer Models: A Maze of Opportunities and Challenges):
Day, C. P., Merlino, G., & Van Dyke, T. (2015). Preclinical mouse cancer models: A maze of opportunities and challenges. Cell, 163(1), 39-53.
real article (Druker (2001), Efficacy and Safety of a Specific Inhibitor of the BCR-ABL Tyrosine Kinase in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia):
Druker, B. J., Talpaz, M., Resta, D. J., Peng, B., Buchdunger, E., Ford, J. M., … & Sawyers, C. L. (2001). Efficacy and Safety of a Specific Inhibitor of the BCR-ABL Tyrosine Kinase in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine, 344(14), 1031-1037.
real article (Emanuel (2017), What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?):
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711.
real article (Ellis (2010), Finding the tumor copycat: Therapy fails, patients don’t):
Ellis, L. M., & Fidler, I. J. (2010). Finding the tumor copycat. Therapy fails, patients don’t. Nature Medicine, 16(9), 974-975.
check:
Goodman, L. S., Wintrobe, M. M., Dameshek, W., Goodman, M. J., Gilman, A., & McLennan, M. T. (1946). Nitrogen Mustard Therapy. JAMA, 132(3), 126–132.
real article (Greaves (2012), Clonal evolution in cancer):
Greaves, M., & Maley, C. C. (2012). Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature, 481(7381), 306-313.
real article (Grubbé (1933), Priority in the Therapeutic Use of X-rays):
Grubbe, E. H. (1903). Priority in the Therapeutic Use of X-Rays. Radiology, 21(2), 156-162.
real book (Halsted (1894), The results of operations for the cure of cancer of the breast):
Halsted, W. S. (1894). The Results of Operations for the Cure of Cancer of the Breast Performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital from June 1889 to January 1894. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports, 4, 297-350.
real article (Hanahan (2016), The hallmarks of cancer):
Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2000). The hallmarks of cancer. Cell, 100(1), 57-70.
real article (Hanahan (2011), Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation):
Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2011). Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell, 144(5), 646-674.
real article: (Joly (2013), Genetic discrimination and life insurance: a systematic review of the evidence):
Joly, Y., Ngueng Feze, I., & Simard, J. (2017). Genetic discrimination and life insurance: a systematic review of the evidence. BMC Medicine, 11, 25.
real article (Joyce (2008), Microenvironmental regulation of metastasis):
Joyce, J. A., & Pollard, J. W. (2009). Microenvironmental regulation of metastasis. Nature Reviews Cancer, 9(4), 239–252.
check:
Kibbe, M. R., & Mulcahy, M. (2017). Strategies for research funding during times of scarcity. Surgery, 162(4), 730-734.
real article (Mardis (2008), The impact of next-generation sequencing technology on genetics):
Mardis, E. R. (2017). The impact of next-generation sequencing technology on genetics. Trends in Genetics, 24(3), 133-141.
real article (Mariotto (2011), Projections of the Cost of Cancer Care in the United States: 2010-2020):
Mariotto, A. B., Yabroff, K. R., Shao, Y., Feuer, E. J., & Brown, M. L. (2011). Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103(2), 117-128.
check:
Marusyk, A., Almendro, V., & Polyak, K. (2012). Intra-tumor heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer? Nature Reviews Cancer, 12(5), 323–334.
real book (Mukherjee (2010), The Emperor of All Maladies):
Mukherjee, S. (2010). The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. Scribner.
real article (Navin (2011), Future medical applications of single-cell sequencing in cancer):
Navin, N., & Hicks, J. (2011). Future medical applications of single-cell sequencing in cancer. Genome Medicine, 3(5), 31.
real article (Oskarsson (2014), Metastatic Stem Cells: Sources, Niches, and Vital Pathways):
Oskarsson, T., Batlle, E., & Massagué, J. (2014). Metastatic stem cells: sources, niches, and vital pathways. Cell Stem Cell, 14(3), 306-321.
real article (Pardoll (2012), The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy):
Pardoll, D. M. (2012). The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nature Reviews Cancer, 12(4), 252-264.
real article (Psaila (2009), The metastatic niche: adapting the foreign soil):
Psaila, B., & Lyden, D. (2009). The metastatic niche: adapting the foreign soil. Nature Reviews Cancer, 9(4), 285–293.
real article (Quail (2013), Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis):
Quail, D. F., & Joyce, J. A. (2013). Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis. Nature Medicine, 19(11), 1423-1437.
real article: (Sachs (2018), A Living Biobank of Breast Cancer Organoids Captures Disease Heterogeneity):
Sachs, N., de Ligt, J., Kopper, O., Gogola, E., Bounova, G., Weeber, F., Balgobind, A. V., Wind, K., Gracanin, A., Begthel, H., Korving, J., van Boxtel, R., Duarte, A. A., Lelieveld, D., van Hoeck, A., Ernst, R. F., Blokzijl, F., Nijman, I. J., Hoogstraat, M., … Clevers, H. (2018). A Living Biobank of Breast Cancer Organoids Captures Disease Heterogeneity. Cell, 172(1-2), 373-386.e10.
real article (Sawyers (2008), The cancer biomarker problem):
Sawyers, C. L. (2008). The cancer biomarker problem. Nature, 452(7187), 548-552.
real article (Singer (2001), Harnessing Genomics and Biotechnology to Improve Global Health Equity):
Singer, P. A., & Daar, A. S. (2001). Harnessing genomics and biotechnology to improve global health equity. Science, 294(5540), 87-89.
real article (Stratton (2009), The cancer genome):
Stratton, M. R., Campbell, P. J., & Futreal, P. A. (2009). The cancer genome. Nature, 458(7239), 719–724.
real article (Valastyan (2011), Tumor Metastasis: Molecular Insights and Evolving Paradigms):
Valastyan, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (2011). Tumor metastasis: molecular insights and evolving paradigms. Cell, 147(2), 275–292.
real article (Vogelstein (2013), Cancer Genome Landscapes):
Vogelstein, B., Papadopoulos, N., Velculescu, V. E., Zhou, S., Diaz Jr, L. A., & Kinzler, K. W. (2013). Cancer genome landscapes. Science, 339(6127), 1546–1558.
check:
Weinberg, R. A. (2014). Coming full circle-from endless complexity to simplicity and back again. Cell, 157(1), 267-271.
real article (Weissleder (2008), Imaging in the era of molecular oncology):
Weissleder, R., & Pittet, M. J. (2008). Imaging in the era of molecular oncology. Nature, 452(7187), 580-589.
check:
World Health Organization. (2013). Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013-2020. World Health Organization.
Photo by Louis Reed on Unsplash