The New York Times has published an article on one of the most contentious issues in current cancer research: are there specific stem cells that cause cancer, and if so, can treatments be developed that target these stem cells?

The basic hypothesis says there are certain types of cells that are responsible for the growth of tumors. These stem cells, which are different from and should not be confused with embryonic stem cells, renew their own malignant behavior, while also creating the conditions necessary for the development of a tumor’s actual mass. Only a small number of them would be necessary to start a cancerous event—or to sustain a growth—and they would answer the question raised by treatments that destroy most of a tumor but which don’t actually kill all of the cancer: if 99% of the tumor is destroyed, why does the cancer keep coming back? The idea, then, would be to develop treatments that target the stem cells instead of the whole tumor, as killing the stem cells would necessarily kill the tumor as well. Chemotherapy and radiation are actually quite good at shrinking and killing tumors, but they can’t always stop the cancer. If the stem cell hypothesis is true and effective treatments could be developed because of it, many doctors agree that it would constitute a revolution in cancer care.

However, the issue is as contentious as it is because not all doctors agree with the cancerous stem cell hypothesis. Those who don’t agree with it describe the belief that others have of it as bordering on the religious. They feel the science just isn’t in yet and are skeptical of the claims being made that research into cancerous stem cells will be a panacea for all forms of cancer research.

Thus, it is too early to tell if the stem cell hypothesis will be an actual revolution or just another well-intentioned idea that is swept into history, but results should start coming in soon. The National Cancer Institute has setup a $5.4 million research fund to look into cancerous stem cells and three major cancer centers—The University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center in Ann Arbor, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston—are embarking on a preliminary study to test the hypothesis. Once the initial results from this study are in, doctors and scientists will have an opportunity to asses its results and critique its methods and, hopefully, the question will be on a firmer ground for analysis. All involved agree that as far as we’ve come in cancer research, there is still much that can be done to ease the burdens of and improve the treatments for those with cancer.

Labels: cancer