Over a century of cancer research: Inconvenient truths and promising leads.

Carlos Sonnenschein,Ana M Soto

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000670

Carlos Sonnenschein, Ana M Soto

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000670

Copy DOI

Journal: PLoS biology	Publication Date: Apr 1, 2020
Citations: 47	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Tufts University, École Normale Supérieure - PSL

Abstract

Despite over a century of intensive efforts, the great gains promised by the War on Cancer nearly 50 years ago have not materialized. Since 1999, we have analyzed the lack of progress in explaining and “curing” cancer by examining the merits of the premises that determine how cancer is understood and treated. Our ongoing critical analyses have aimed at clarifying the sources of misunderstandings at the root of the cancer puzzle while providing a plausible and comprehensive biomedical perspective as well as a new theory of carcinogenesis that is compatible with evolutionary theory. In this essay, we explain how this new theory, the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), can help chart a path to progress for cancer researchers by explaining features of cancer that remain unexplainable from the perspective of the still hegemonic somatic mutation theory (SMT) and its variants. Of equal significance, the premises underlying the TOFT offer new perspectives on basic biological phenomena.

Highlights

The lack of significant improvements in the understanding of carcinogenesis, and the failure to reach the cherished goal of “curing” cancer as envisioned by the 1971 War on Cancer declaration, encouraged several researchers to question the strategy of the war effort during the last quarter century [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]
Researchers, clinicians, and patients have called for a critical evaluation of theories of carcinogenesis [8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]
In this Essay, we address these issues from a historical perspective, outline the merits of the 2 main theories of carcinogenesis, and draw—when possible—constructive conclusions

Summary

Introduction

The lack of significant improvements in the understanding of carcinogenesis, and the failure to reach the cherished goal of “curing” cancer as envisioned by the 1971 War on Cancer declaration, encouraged several researchers to question the strategy of the war effort during the last quarter century [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. Researchers, clinicians, and patients have called for a critical evaluation of theories of carcinogenesis [8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. In this Essay, we address these issues from a historical perspective, outline the merits of the 2 main theories of carcinogenesis, and draw—when possible—constructive conclusions. Given the vastness of the topic, we are necessarily leaving out a few historical milestones [6,25,26,27,28]

Background

Findings

Conclusions