The biological sense of cancer: a hypothesis

BACKGROUND: Most theories about cancer proposed during the last century share a common denominator: cancer is believed to be a biological nonsense for the organism in which it originates, since cancer cells are believed to be ones evading the rules that control normal cell proliferation and differentiation. In this essay, we have challenged this interpretation on the basis that, throughout the animal kingdom, cancer seems to arise only in injured organs and tissues that display lost or diminished regenerative ability. HYPOTHESIS: According to our hypothesis, a tumor cell would be the only one able to respond to the demand to proliferate in the organ of origin. It would be surrounded by "normal" aged cells that cannot respond to that signal. According to this interpretation, cancer would have a profound biological sense: it would be the ultimate way to attempt to restore organ functions and structures that have been lost or altered by aging or noxious environmental agents. In this way, the features commonly associated with tumor cells could be reinterpreted as progressively acquired adaptations for responding to a permanent regenerative signal in the context of tissue injury. Analogously, several embryo developmental stages could be dependent on cellular damage and death, which together disrupt the field topography. However, unlike normal structures, cancer would have no physiological value, because the usually poor or non-functional nature of its cells would make their reparative task unattainable. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis advanced in this essay might have significant practical implications. All conventional therapies against cancer attempt to kill all cancer cells. However, according to our hypothesis, the problem might not be solved even if all the tumor cells were eradicated. In effect, if the organ failure remained, new tumor cells would emerge and the tumor would reinitiate its progressive growth in response to the permanent regenerative signal of the non-restored organ. Therefore, efficient anti-cancer therapy should combine an attack against the tumor cells themselves with the correction of the organ failure, which, according to this hypothesis, is fundamental to the origin of the cancer

Therapeutic Anti-Tumor Vaccines: From Tumor Inhibition to Enhancement

Numerous immunization trials have proved successful in preventing the growth of experimental animal tumors and human hepatocarcinomas induced by hepatitis B virus. These results have prompted researchers and physicians to use vaccines in a therapeutic mode but the results have, in general, been disappointing even when strongly immunogenic murine tumors were concerned. Data presented herein suggest that immunotherapy induced by a single dose of a dendritic cell-based vaccine against a murine established tumor or against residual tumor cells after debulking the primary tumor, can render not only inhibitory or null but also stimulatory effects on tumor growth. These different effects might be dependent on where the system is located in the immune response curve that relates the quantity of the immune response to the quantity of target tumor cells. We suggest that high ratios render tumor inhibition, medium and very low ratios render null effects and low ratios—between medium and very low ones—render tumor stimulation. Since the magnitude of these ratios would depend on the antigenic profile of the tumor, the immunogenic strength of the vaccine used and the immunological state of the host, studies aimed to determine the magnitude of these variables in each particular case, seem to be necessary as a pre-condition to design rational immunotherapeutic approaches to cancer. In contrast, if these studies are neglected, the worst thing that an immunotherapist could face is not merely a null effect but enhancement of tumor growth