The significance of cancer stem cells (CSC) is the latest hot, though controversial, topic in scientific circles. The talk about CSC has widened to a point that it has become the subject of articles published by popular nonscientific magazines. In 2008, The Economist had a prominent story on "cancer and stem cells," which noted that "the connection could lead to a cure." Cancer may be caused by stem cells gone bad, said the magazine, and if that proves to be correct, "It should revolutionize treatment."
Indeed, in a more recent article published in The New York Times Magazine on Oct. 29, 2010, a case was made that CSC may be the "cancer sleeping cell." The article by Siddhartha Mukherjee, assistant professor in Columbia University's division of medical oncology, argued that CSC may be the cause of relapse in many cancer patients. CSC might be the "ultimate determinant of relapse" in patients, which may "redirect our efforts to develop anticancer drugs," says Mukherjee, who has also authored the book, Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer.
Is it possible, Mukherjee asks, that "the quest to treat cancer has also stalled because we haven't found the right kind of cell?"
Indeed, in a more recent article published in The New York Times Magazine on Oct. 29, 2010, a case was made that CSC may be the "cancer sleeping cell." The article by Siddhartha Mukherjee, assistant professor in Columbia University's division of medical oncology, argued that CSC may be the cause of relapse in many cancer patients. CSC might be the "ultimate determinant of relapse" in patients, which may "redirect our efforts to develop anticancer drugs," says Mukherjee, who has also authored the book, Emperor of all Maladies: A Biography of Cancer.
Is it possible, Mukherjee asks, that "the quest to treat cancer has also stalled because we haven't found the right kind of cell?"