RESUMEN
Germ cell tumor of the testis (GCT) is a curable cancer even when it is widely metastatic; however, outcomes can differ based on tumor histology. Chemo-resistance in certain phenotypes, such as teratoma and yolk sac tumor, contributes to poor clinical outcomes in some patients with GCT. Despite this resistance to S-YSTemic therapy, many of these tumor subtypes remain amenable to surgical resection and possible cure. In this study, we report on a series of seven patients highlighting two chemo-resistant subtypes of nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT), sarcomatoid yolk sac tumor (S-YST), and epithelioid trophoblastic tumor (ETT) for which early resection rather than additional salvage chemotherapy or high-dose intense chemotherapy might provide a superior clinical outcome and enhance cure rate.
RESUMEN
Although immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer care, there is still an urgent need to enhance its efficacy and ensure its safety. A correct cancer theory and proper scientific method empower pertinent cancer research and enable effective and efficient drug versus therapy development for patient care. In this perspective, we revisit the concept of immune privilege in a cancer cell versus normal cell, as well as in a cancer stem cell versus normal stem cell. We re-examine whether effective immunotherapies are efficacious due to their anti-cancer and/or immune modulatory mechanisms. We reassess why checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are not equal. We reconsider whether one can attribute the utility of immunotherapy to specific cancer subtypes and its futility to certain tumor/immune compartments, components, and microenvironments. We propose ways and means to advance immunotherapy beyond CPIs by combining anti-PD1/L1 with various other treatment modalities according to an appropriate scientific theory, e.g., stem cell origin of cancer, and based on available clinical evidence, e.g., randomized clinical trials. We predict that a stem cell theory of cancer will facilitate the design of better and safer immunotherapy with improved selection of its use for the right patient with the right cancer type at the right time to optimize clinical benefits and minimize potential toxic effects and complications.
RESUMEN
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.
