Stem Cell Theory of Cancer: Clinical Implications for Cellular Metabolism and Anti-Cancer Metabolomics.

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.

Stem Cell Origin of Cancer: Clinical Implications for Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy.

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.

Stem Cell Origin of Cancer: Implications of Oncogenesis Recapitulating Embryogenesis 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?

Stem Cell Theory of Cancer: Clinical Implications of Epigenomic versus Genomic Biomarkers 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.

Surgical Residents' Perception of Multi-Specialty Learning.

OBJECTIVE: Perceptions are important and can affect efficacy of trainer-trainee interactions. Inherent bias toward other specialties may influence the perceived benefit of a multi-specialty learning environment. The aim of this work was to determine surgical resident perceptions regarding the utility of learning from faculty and with learners from other surgical specialties. DESIGN: We measured surgical residents' perceptions before and after a multi-specialty robotic simulation event. Pre- and post-activity surveys were administered electronically to all residents determining previous experience with robotic surgery, perceptions of learning from faculty in different surgical sub-specialties, and of learning from and with residents in other surgical specialties. SETTING: Robotic simulation laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: General surgery (GS), Obstetrics and gynecology (OBG), and Urology (URO) residents in one academic healthcare program. RESULTS: Prior to the simulation, OBG and URO residents perceived highest utility in learning from faculty within their own specialty. While OBG residents reported high pre-activity agreement that learning from other faculty was useful, more than 50% of GS and URO residents were neutral or disagreed that learning from OBG faculty was useful. Pre-activity, all specialties perceived highest value in learning from and about residents of their own specialty. Following the educational event, all specialties reported increased agreement that learning from faculty of different specialties had utility. Following the simulation, the cohort reported the multi-specialty learning environment improved their knowledge and confidence in robotic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in a multi-specialty educational event can improve perceptions of surgical residents regarding the utility of being taught by faculty in different specialties. Resident opinion of the benefits of learning with and about learners from other specialties can also be improved. Multi-specialty learning environments are important in developing communities of practice to allow socialization and promotion of positive identity development in our surgical residents, which may ultimately benefit efficacy of learning and patient care.

Klamath Tribal Response to the Pandemic of COVID-19 Among Klamath Tribal Community in Oregon, USA.

INTRODUCTION: Socially-disadvantaged populations are more at risk of contracting COVID-19 than those with access to better medical facilities. We looked at responses of Klamath Tribes in Oregon, USA to mitigate spread of COVID-19 in a community with a higher incidence of obesity, diabetes and coronary heart disease, compared to the general US population. This study reports on Klamath Tribes response to COVID-19 March -September 2020. METHODS: Klamath Tribes Tribal Health and Family Services established a COVID-19 Incident Management Team (IMT), instituting creative programs including a Walk-In Testing Center, implementing strict infection control protocols and regular sharing of information on the pandemic and prevalence of COVID-19 amongst Klamath Tribes. All COVID-19 tests were documented with positive cases isolated and people with high risk exposures quarantined and provided with wrap-around medical and social services until recovered or past quarantine time period. RESULTS: A total of 888 (12%) tribal members were tested for COVID1-19 between March to September 2020; 50 were found positive for COVID-19, giving a test positivity rate of 5.6% (Male - 6.3%; Female - 5.2%). No deaths have been reported amongst the local Klamath Tribes and other American Indians/Alaska Native (AI/AN) population served by the tribe. CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that structural inequities including income disparities have shaped racial and ethnic impact of epidemics around the world, the timely response, establishment of partnerships and proactive control of the epidemic resulted in minimal impact among the Klamath Tribal and other AI/AN populations served by the tribal facilities.

Urinary Molecular Biomarker Test Impacts Prostate Biopsy Decision Making in Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet need for noninvasive methods to better identify patients at increased risk for clinically significant prostate cancer. SelectMDx® is a molecular urine test validated for the detection of Gleason score 7 and higher cancers (ISUP [International Society of Urological Pathology] Grade Group 2-5). In this multicenter trial we evaluated the test's impact on prostate biopsy decision making in clinical practice. METHODS: The study involved 5 U.S. community urology practices which sequentially enrolled 418 patients who received a SelectMDx test between May 2016 and April 2017 while undergoing evaluation for initial prostate biopsy. All tests were ordered by the urologist for patient management. We determined biopsy and prostate cancer detection rates in patients with SelectMDx positive versus SelectMDx negative results. RESULTS: Of the 418 subjects evaluated with SelectMDx 253 (61%) had negative results and 165 (39%) had positive results. Subsequent biopsy rates for SelectMDx positive and negative cases were 60% (99) and 12% (32), respectively (p <0.001). Time from SelectMDx result to biopsy was shorter for those with positive vs negative results (median 2 vs 5 months, p=0.001). Of patients who underwent biopsy within 3 months of testing 71 (43%) with positive results underwent biopsy and 27 had cancers identified, including 10 greater than Grade Group 2. Of 9 patients with SelectMDx negative results (3.6%) who underwent biopsy 4 were diagnosed with cancer, all Grade Group 2 or less. CONCLUSIONS: SelectMDx had a significant impact on initial prostate biopsy decision making. Biopsy rates in SelectMDx positive cases were fivefold higher than in SelectMDx negative cases. These results describe the clinical utility of SelectMDx in real-world community urology practice.

A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The 4Kscore combines measurement of four kallikreins in blood with clinical information as a measure of the probability of significant (Gleason ≥7) prostate cancer (PCa) before prostate biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To perform the first prospective evaluation of the 4Kscore in predicting Gleason ≥7 PCa in the USA. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective enrollment of 1012 men scheduled for prostate biopsy, regardless of prostate-specific antigen level or clinical findings, was conducted at 26 US urology centers between October 2013 and April 2014. INTERVENTION: The 4Kscore. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was Gleason ≥7 PCa on prostate biopsy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, risk calibration, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were determined, along with comparisons of probability cutoffs for reducing the number of biopsies and their impact on delaying diagnosis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Gleason ≥7 PCa was found in 231 (23%) of the 1012 patients. The 4Kscore showed excellent calibration and demonstrated higher discrimination (AUC 0.82) and net benefit compared to a modified Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 model and standard of care (biopsy for all men) according to DCA. A possible reduction of 30-58% in the number biopsies was identified with delayed diagnosis in only 1.3-4.7% of Gleason ≥7 PCa cases, depending on the threshold used for biopsy. Pathological assessment was performed according to the standard of care at each site without centralized review. CONCLUSION: The 4Kscore showed excellent diagnostic performance in detecting significant PCa. It is a useful tool in selecting men who have significant disease and are most likely to benefit from a prostate biopsy from men with no cancer or indolent cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: The 4Kscore provides each patient with an accurate and personalized measure of the risk of Gleason ≥7 cancer to aid in decision-making regarding the need for prostate biopsy.