The Field and the Cell

Scroll of the Forgotten Cures · No. 1

What cancer may be telling us between the lines

“You do not bomb the broken. You restore the field.”

I. The question

For most of the last century, the story of cancer has been told as the story of a cell that breaks. Something damages its DNA (sunlight, smoke, a copying error, an inherited flaw), the damage switches on a gene that says grow or switches off one that says stop, and the cell begins to divide without end. Its daughters inherit the damage, collect more, and one day become a tumor. This story is true. It has given us drugs that turned some cancers from death sentences into chronic conditions, and we will tell it fairly. But it leaves a question that, once you notice it, is hard to stop seeing: if cancer begins in a broken cell, why do most broken cells never become cancer?

The question is not rhetorical. In 2015, a team at the Wellcome Sanger Institute sequenced small pieces of ordinary eyelid skin from four people, skin that had spent decades in the sun and looked perfectly healthy. Between 18 and 32 percent of its cells, more than a quarter on average, carried mutations in known cancer genes, the same kind that drive skin cancer (Martincorena 2015). The skin was not sick. It was doing everything skin does: protecting, renewing, healing. The sample was small, and the numbers vary from tissue to tissue, but the esophagus told the same story, with cancer-gene mutations more common in normal tissue than in the cancers that grow there (Martincorena 2018; Yokoyama 2019). The broken cells were there. The cancer was not.

The second surprise comes from much larger bodies. Every cell division is a chance for a mistake, so an animal with more cells, living longer, should get more cancer. It does not. In 1977, the epidemiologist Richard Peto pointed out that a human has about a thousand times more cells than a mouse and lives about thirty times longer, yet does not get cancer a thousand times more often (Peto 1977). Across thirty-six species of mammals, cancer deaths did not rise with body size or lifespan, and elephants, with roughly a hundred times more cells than we have, die of cancer at an estimated rate of about five percent, against eleven to twenty-five percent in humans (Abegglen 2015). Biologists call this Peto’s paradox.

Part of the elephant’s answer lives inside each of its cells. African elephants carry at least twenty copies of TP53, the gene that decides whether a damaged cell repairs itself or dies, where we carry one, and their cells are quicker to self-destruct when their DNA is hurt (Abegglen 2015; Sulak 2016). So the elephant does not prove that the tissue is all that holds cancer back. What Peto’s paradox shows is that evolution, wherever it built a large and long-lived body, built ways of holding it together at every level, inside the cell and around it. Science has spent fifty years studying the first. This piece is about the second, the one that was almost forgotten.

Here, then, is the idea, stated once. A cell does not live alone. It sits in a neighborhood (a weave of fibers, a floor beneath it, neighbors on every side, blood vessels, immune cells passing through) that tells it, constantly and chemically, where it is, what it is, and whether this is a time to divide or a time to rest. When that neighborhood is sound, it can hold a broken cell in check for a lifetime, as it does in that eyelid skin. When the neighborhood itself is worn down, the same broken cell may find room to become something else. Biologists have many names for this neighborhood: the microenvironment, the stroma, the niche, and, in the theory we will meet in the next part, the tissue organization field. We will simply call it the field.

The field, as we came to see it in our reading, has three dimensions. It has space: its architecture, how stiff or soft it is, how its fibers are arranged, whether its walls are whole. It has fuel: not only the sugar in our blood but the signals that food sets loose, insulin above all, and what those signals tell cells to do. And it has time: the clocks every cell keeps, which decide when it divides and when it repairs its DNA. Each of the next parts walks through one of them, with the experiments behind it.

One promise before we begin. We will tell you, every time, how sure the evidence is: what is proven, what is likely, and what is only a hypothesis, our own included. Some of what follows is settled science that was simply set aside. Some of it is an open door. The field does not replace the cell in this story; it was always beside it, and the most interesting things happen where the two meet.

II. Two stories about cancer

Every science tells itself a story about where its subject begins, and cancer has two. The first is the one most of us were taught, and it deserves to be told first, because it earned its place.

In 1858, the German pathologist Rudolf Virchow taught that every cell comes from another cell, and that disease is, at bottom, a disorder of cells. In 1914, Theodor Boveri, who had watched sea-urchin eggs divide with the wrong number of chromosomes, proposed that a tumor begins when a single cell’s chromosomes go wrong and it passes the fault to all its descendants. The proof came decades later, and then in a rush. In 1960, two researchers in Philadelphia found a tiny, abnormal chromosome in the blood cells of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia; in 1973, Janet Rowley showed that it came from two chromosomes swapping pieces, a swap later found to fuse two genes into one that never stops signaling divide. In 1971, Alfred Knudson showed that retinoblastoma, an eye cancer of children, behaves like a disease that needs two mutational events in the same cell, the first of which is sometimes inherited (Knudson 1971). In 1976, J. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus found that a cancer gene carried by a chicken virus was a stolen copy of a normal gene that every cell carries, turned from a servant into a driver by a small change. And in 2001, the story delivered what every good theory promises, a cure built on its own logic: imatinib, a drug designed against the fused gene of chronic myeloid leukemia, turned one of the most feared leukemias into a disease most patients now live with for decades. This is the somatic mutation theory, and the evidence for it is not in doubt. Mutations matter. Sometimes, as Part IV will show, they are most of the story.

The second story is older than most people think. In 1889, a London surgeon, Stephen Paget, gathered the autopsy records of 735 women who had died of breast cancer and asked why the disease did not spread at random, reaching some organs so often and others almost never, when the blood carried tumor cells everywhere. His answer came from the garden: “When a plant goes to seed, its seeds are carried in all directions; but they can only live and grow if they fall on congenial soil” (Paget 1889). In 1962, David Smithers, a radiotherapist who had spent his career treating cancer at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London, went further in a Lancet essay he titled, without diplomacy, “An attack on cytologism.” Cancer, he argued, is a disease of organization, not a disease of cells: “Cancer is no more a disease of cells than a traffic jam is a disease of cars. A lifetime of study of the internal-combustion engine would not help anyone to understand our traffic problems” (Smithers 1962). In 1999, two biologists at Tufts University, Carlos Sonnenschein and Ana Soto, gave the second story a formal shape and a name, the tissue organization field theory. It rests on two premises that sound strange the first time you hear them: that the natural state of every cell, as it was for every single-celled ancestor, is to divide, so that what needs explaining is not why cells multiply but what holds them back; and that cancer is a disease of tissue organization, closer to development gone wrong than to a cell gone rogue (Sonnenschein & Soto 1999; Soto & Sonnenschein 2004).

Their path to that theory began, as good science often does, with an accident. In late 1987, breast cancer cells in their laboratory that should have rested in the absence of estrogen began to multiply. Months of detective work traced the cause to the plastic: p-nonylphenol, a compound that mimics estrogen, was leaching out of the laboratory’s tubes, made of a modified polystyrene (Soto 1991). The cells had been obeying a signal no one knew was there, and the two scientists spent the next thirty years asking what the chemicals of daily life whisper to tissue. Part VII returns to what they found.

Why, then, did one story eclipse the other for half a century? Not because the field was refuted. The gene was simply easier to work with: a mutation can be sequenced, counted, patented, and aimed at with a drug, while the organization of a tissue cannot be poured into a test tube. When the United States declared its War on Cancer in 1971, the new molecular biology offered exactly what a war needs, targets; the money followed the targets, the careers followed the money, and the field story survived mostly as a footnote. What gets studied is shaped by what can be measured and by who pays for the measuring, and cancer was not the only case. In the same years, the sugar industry paid for a review in a leading medical journal that played down sugar’s role in heart disease and pointed at fat; the payment came to light only in 2016, from the industry’s own archives (Kearns 2016). The map of what we know has edges drawn by money as well as by truth.

The field story came back through the front door, carried by the very technology that had eclipsed it. When sequencing became cheap enough to read the genomes of normal tissues, the cell story’s own instruments found what Part I described (Martincorena 2015; Martincorena 2018; Lee-Six 2019). The mutation is there; the disease is not. Something more than the mutation decides, and the search for it has brought the second story back to the table. Not to replace the first. To sit beside it.

III. Space: when the neighborhood decides

If the field really can hold a broken cell in check, someone must have put that to the test: separated the genome from the neighborhood and watched which one gave the orders. Over fifty years, five very different laboratories did.

The boldest came first. In 1975, Beatrice Mintz and Karl Illmensee took cells from a mouse teratocarcinoma, a cancer kept alive as a transplantable tumor for eight years and killing every mouse it was passed through, and injected them into early mouse embryos, the one neighborhood in biology whose entire business is building a body. Ninety-three normal mice were born. Of the first fourteen analyzed, three were mosaics, animals whose healthy skin, blood, kidney, and liver were partly descended from the cancer cells (Mintz 1975). The trick did not work with every cancer line tried afterward, but that sharpens the point rather than blunting it: same genome, new field, new behavior, possible. Nothing since 1975 has unfound it.

Six years earlier, a stranger experiment had asked the inverse question: does a cancer cell still contain the instructions for normal life, or has malignancy erased them? Robert McKinnell’s team transplanted nuclei from frog kidney tumors, marked so there could be no mistaking whose nucleus was in charge, into frog eggs whose own nuclei had been removed. The eggs became swimming tadpoles, with eyes, muscles, nerves, and beating hearts, every tissue built on instructions read from a tumor nucleus (McKinnell 1969). The tadpoles never fed and died within two weeks, but the core stood. Cancer had not deleted the blueprint. The program for normal tissue was still in there, waiting for a context that would read it.

The modern version used human cancer cells and asked only for a correction, not a miracle. In 1997, Valerie Weaver and Mina Bissell grew malignant human breast cells in a three-dimensional culture that mimics real tissue and blocked β1-integrin, one of the “hands” with which a cell grips the matrix around it and reads its instructions. The cells did not die. They calmed down: they rebuilt their floor, rejoined their neighbors, arranged themselves back into the ordered, hollow structures of normal breast tissue, and stopped dividing; in mice, they made fewer and smaller tumors (Weaver 1997). Every mutation was still there, and when the antibody was removed, the malignant behavior returned. This was one cell line in one laboratory system, a demonstration of principle rather than a therapy. But the principle is the one this piece is about: the cells were not sentenced by their mutations. They were in a conversation, and when the conversation changed, so did they.

Then there is the question of blame: when a carcinogen causes cancer, which part of the tissue did it corrupt? In 2004, Maffini, Soto, and Sonnenschein built rat mammary glands out of parts, epithelial cells from one animal and supporting stroma from another, so that the chemical could meet one, both, or neither. Tumors arose only when the stroma had been exposed; carcinogen-treated epithelial cells placed in a clean stroma grew into normal ducts and stayed normal (Maffini 2004). In that system, the carcinogen’s true target was the neighborhood. Honesty requires the other half: a mouse experiment the following year, with a different carcinogen and different cells, found the opposite (Medina 2005), and the disagreement has never been fully resolved. It is not proof; it is a result that should have changed the conversation, and mostly didn’t.

The strangest experiment began as an accident. In the late 1940s, the Oppenheimers, studying blood pressure, wrapped cellophane around the kidneys of rats, and the rats grew sarcomas at the site (Oppenheimer 1948). They pulled the thread for a decade. Chemically different plastics all caused tumors; extracts of the plastic caused nothing, while the extracted film still did; and the same material’s power depended on its shape. A smooth, continuous film reliably made tumors, the same film perforated made fewer, and ground to powder, almost none. The chemistry was innocent. The geometry was guilty. It is a reproducible finding in rodents, which appear far more susceptible to it than people.

Except that people have now run a version of it on themselves, unintentionally and at scale. Breast implants come smooth or textured, the same silicone family in a different geometry. A rare lymphoma, BIA-ALCL, turned out to arise almost exclusively around the textured ones: by mid-2019 the count stood at 573 cases worldwide and 33 deaths, concentrated so heavily in one manufacturer’s high-texture surface that the FDA requested, and Allergan agreed the same day, a worldwide recall of those implants (Doren 2017; FDA 2019). There is still no confirmed case in a patient whose history contains only smooth implants. Why texture does this is debated, with chronic inflammation around the rougher surface the leading suspect; that it is the texture, and not the chemical, is not.

Lay the five side by side. None of them proves that the field fails first in ordinary human cancers; the strongest human evidence comes in Part VIII. What they show, in frogs, rats, mice, human cells, and human patients, is something quieter and just as consequential: the neighborhood has veto power. A lethal genome can be held, put back to work, even talked down — and an unremarkable genome can be pushed — by nothing more than the space around it. The cell proposes. Something else, often, disposes. The next part is about the strongest objection to everything you just read, and why we think the objection and the evidence are both right.

IV. The cell strikes back, and the knot that unties the fight

Everything in Part III could be read as a verdict against the cell. It is not one, and we would be telling half a story if we let it sound like one. The strongest objection to the field story is simple: sometimes the mutation is the cause, and treating the mutation works.

Chronic myeloid leukemia is driven by a single fused gene, and the drug that blocks its product works in nearly every patient; no repair of the field would have done what that pill does. Children who inherit one broken copy of the gene RB1 develop retinoblastoma at rates that leave the neighborhood little room to argue. People born with a broken APC gene, the condition called familial adenomatous polyposis, grow hundreds to thousands of polyps in the colon, and without surgery nearly all of them develop colorectal cancer, usually by middle age. About half of all melanomas carry a single change in the gene BRAF, and drugs aimed at it can shrink tumors within weeks. For some cancers the cell’s own wiring is the decisive event, and any honest account of the field has to make room for that. We do.

But look closely at the places where the two stories touch, and the fight begins to come apart in your hands. Three findings of the last twenty years show the field reaching into the genome itself.

First, the field can write the mutation. Some strains of Escherichia coli, a common resident of the human gut, make a toxin called colibactin that damages DNA. In 2020, a team in the Netherlands exposed miniature human intestines grown in the laboratory, called organoids, to these bacteria for five months and found that the damage left a distinctive pattern of mutations, a signature. They then found that signature in a subset of thousands of sequenced human cancers, mostly colorectal; and about one in twenty of the known driver mutations in APC, the gene most often mutated in colorectal cancer, sit exactly at the stretch of DNA that colibactin attacks (Pleguezuelos-Manzano 2020). A resident of the gut’s neighborhood had left its handwriting in the genome of tumors. The question “mutation or environment?” stops making sense when the environment is the author of the mutation.

Second, the field can stop erasing the mutation. Every cell makes copying errors and repairs most of them, and repair costs resources. When tissue runs short of oxygen, as a poorly organized, badly supplied patch of tissue does, its cells turn down the very genes that do the repairing, BRCA1 among them: “functional BRCA1 inactivation in the absence of genetic mutation,” in the researchers’ words (Bindra 2005; Bindra & Glazer 2007). This was shown in cancer cell lines and in mouse tumors, and we grade it accordingly. But notice what it means: a gene famous as an inherited cause of cancer can be quieted by the state of its neighborhood, with nothing wrong in its sequence at all.

Third, and this is the finding we find most beautiful, the field chooses where a mutation speaks. A woman who inherits a broken copy of BRCA1 carries it in every cell of her body: her skin, her liver, her brain, her blood. Yet the cancers it causes gather in a few tissues, above all the breast, the ovary, and the fallopian tube. If the mutation alone decided, why those tissues, in carrier after carrier? Part of the answer, and the part with the best evidence, is that these are the tissues the body pushes hardest, cycle after cycle. Every month, hormones command breast tissue to grow and then to recede. Every ovulation breaks the surface of the ovary, a small wound repaired again and again; an old hypothesis holds that the more often a woman ovulates, the higher her risk of ovarian cancer (Fathalla 1971), and it fits what came after: each pregnancy lowers the risk, and each added year of ovulating raises it (Wentzensen 2016; Purdie 2003). In 2016, a team in Melbourne showed a mechanism in the breast: progesterone, acting through a signal called RANKL, expands a population of abnormal progenitor cells in the breast tissue of BRCA1 carriers, and a drug that blocks RANKL reduced their proliferation (Nolan 2016). The mutation was everywhere. The field decided where it would be heard. Part VIII follows that finding into a prevention trial.

So which story is true? We think the question was badly posed. Mutations supply variation, the raw material of every evolution, including the small evolution that goes on among the cells of a tissue. The field supplies the selection: it decides which variations are held in check, which are put to work, and which find room to grow. The biologist James DeGregori has argued something close to this for years, showing how aging or damaged tissue changes the conditions so that mutations a young, healthy tissue would have held back suddenly gain an advantage (DeGregori 2018). His work stays within the mutation story and ours leans further toward the field, but the shape is the same. If we had to say it in one line, and the line is ours: the mutation is the variation; the field is the selection. Put simply, the field may best explain how cancer begins, whether a broken cell is held in check or let loose; the mutations may best explain how it ends, because a clone that has broken free and gathered enough drivers of its own can keep growing even where a healthier field would have held it, which is why drugs aimed at its mutations can work when the disease is advanced. Not every scientist accepts that the two can be joined; some argue that the theories rest on incompatible assumptions (Bizzarri & Cucina 2016). We report the disagreement because it is real. But the evidence of this part and the last pulls, as we read it, toward one picture rather than two: a broken cell inside a field that is either holding or not.

V. Fuel: the signal the plate sends

In the 1920s, the German physiologist Otto Warburg measured how tumors eat and found something that made no sense. Given plenty of oxygen, a normal cell burns glucose all the way down, the way a stove burns gas, and gets the most energy a sugar molecule can give. Tumor tissue fermented glucose into lactic acid instead, the way yeast ferments sugar, even with oxygen all around, and at roughly ten times the rate of normal tissue (Warburg 1924; Koppenol 2011). Molecular biology set him aside for half a century while it chased the gene, but the observation never left the hospital, because it is the reason a PET scan works: the tumor lights up because it drinks more of the labeled sugar than anything around it (Kelloff 2005).

Why would a cell choose the wasteful way to eat? Because fermentation is the chemistry of building. Burning glucose completely gives energy and little else; stopping halfway keeps the carbon, and carbon is what a cell needs to make a copy of itself: new DNA, new membranes, new proteins (Vander Heiden 2009). Every cell that must divide quickly does the same. An immune cell that has just met an infection switches to fermentation within hours (Fischer 2007), and so do the cells closing a wound. The Warburg effect, in other words, is the metabolism of repair. In a wound it is right; it is what healing looks like from the inside. It becomes a disease when it never ends. We will meet that sentence again in Part VII, because it is the hinge of the whole story.

This is where the slogan “sugar feeds cancer” has to be taken apart. It is one of the most repeated claims about the disease, common enough that cancer charities keep pages answering it, and it is half true. The wrong half is the picture of sugar as the tumor’s meal. A tumor does take up glucose, but your blood glucose is not set by your last meal: the liver keeps it inside a narrow band whether you eat carbohydrate or not, making glucose from other materials whenever food does not supply it (Petersen 2017). No diet starves a tumor of sugar. Tumors are not picky eaters either: human lung cancers, studied in patients with labeled nutrients, burn lactate as readily as glucose (Faubert 2017), and most tumors depend on glutamine, an amino acid (DeBerardinis 2010). And when the idea has been tested directly, the result has been modest: a ketogenic diet in recurrent glioblastoma proved feasible and safe in a small pilot, and no randomized trial since has shown that it lengthens life (Rieger 2014; Gritsch 2025).

The true half is stranger than the slogan, and better supported. Fuel reaches the field not as a molecule but as a signal. Every time blood glucose rises, the pancreas answers with insulin, and insulin, along with its cousin IGF-1, is among the body’s oldest “grow” commands; tissues that hear it often and loudly are told, over and over, that this is a time to build (Pollak 2008). Of everything on a plate, sugar and refined starch raise blood glucose fastest, and insulin follows. This is where sugar is truly guilty: not as the tumor’s meal, but as the loudest messenger. That is the most likely reason excess body fat, which keeps insulin high for years, is linked by the International Agency for Research on Cancer to a higher risk of thirteen cancers, from the esophagus and pancreas to the breast after menopause and the lining of the womb (Lauby-Secretan 2016). Sugar also leaves a mark on the scaffold itself: glucose reacts slowly with long-lived proteins such as collagen, cross-linking the fibers and stiffening the tissue, which is part of why tissues age as they do and why diabetes speeds it up (Verzijl 2002; Gautieri 2017). That a stiffened scaffold helps a tumor has been shown in laboratory models (Rodriguez-Teja 2015) and remains a hypothesis in patients; if it holds, fuel wounds space directly, the second dimension of the field reaching into the first. And the tumor adds a signal of its own: the lactic acid it pours out acidifies its neighborhood and blunts the immune cells that would otherwise kill it, T cells and natural killer cells alike (Brand 2016). That acid comes from the tumor’s own appetite, whatever the patient eats.

The clearest proof that the signal matters more than the sugar came from a drug designed to fight the signal. In 2018, a team at Weill Cornell led by Lewis Cantley studied PI3K inhibitors, cancer drugs that block the pathway through which insulin tells a cell to grow. The drugs worked for a few hours and then stopped. The reason was the body’s own reflex: blocking insulin signaling everywhere made the liver release glucose, the glucose made the pancreas release insulin, and that flood of insulin switched the pathway back on inside the tumor, right past the drug (Hopkins 2018). In mice, a ketogenic diet or a diabetes drug that spills glucose into the urine prevented the surge and restored the drugs’ effect, though the diet alone made one leukemia model worse. In people, the irony is already on the label: alpelisib, a drug of this class approved in 2019 for a form of breast cancer, has high blood sugar as its most common serious side effect, in more than a third of patients (André 2019). The drug that fights the grow signal inside the cell raises it in the blood.

Honesty cuts the other way too. Metformin, the cheap diabetes drug that lowers insulin, looked for years like the obvious way to turn this knowledge into prevention. In the largest test of the idea, a trial called MA.32, 3,649 women with high-risk early breast cancer took metformin or placebo for five years, and it made no difference at all: the hazard ratio was 1.01 (Goodwin 2022). A signal that shapes risk over decades is not the same as a switch a pill can flip, and we would rather tell you what failed than sell you what has not been tested.

So here is the sentence we think the evidence supports, and it is not the slogan: the tumor eats from the same plate you do; what changes the game is the signal the plate sends. Glucose does not feed cancer so much as wear the field down, through years of insulin saying grow, through a scaffold slowly stiffened by sugar, through the acid a tumor makes from its own appetite. The plate matters. It matters as a messenger, not as a meal.

VI. Time: the field has a clock

The third dimension of the field is the one almost nobody thinks of as tissue at all. Every cell in the body keeps time: a loop of a few genes, switching each other on and off over about twenty-four hours, tells it what hour it is, and the cell uses that information for more than sleep. In mice, the clock decides when a liver cell is allowed to divide (Matsuo 2003), and it sets the hours at which DNA repair runs hardest, including the removal of damage left by the chemotherapy drug cisplatin (Kang 2009; Kang 2010). Not every tissue keeps that rhythm, and mice are nocturnal, so their hours cannot be read as ours; but the principle stands. Repair has a timetable. Aziz Sancar, whose laboratory found it, shared the 2015 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for working out how DNA repair happens; the clock itself earned a separate Nobel two years later, in medicine. The cell repairs itself, and it does so by the clock.

What happens when the clock breaks? In mice engineered to develop lung cancer, a schedule of shifting light that mimics chronic jet lag, or the loss of clock genes, made the tumors grow faster (Papagiannakopoulos 2016). That is proof in mice, and we will leave it there. In people, the closest thing to the experiment is work that keeps a body awake at night, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer has twice classed as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” its Group 2A: limited evidence in people, for cancers of the breast, prostate, colon, and rectum, and sufficient evidence in animals (IARC 2020). “Limited” is the honest word. The human signal is modest and entangled with everything else that night work does to a life. What the classification says is only that the clock is not decoration.

Medicine has already used the clock, and how it went is the most instructive thing in this part. In 1997, Francis Lévi’s group in France gave 186 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer the same three drugs either at a constant rate or on a schedule that followed the body’s rhythm. In the timed group, tumors shrank more often (51 percent against 29) and mouth sores fell from 76 percent to 14 (Lévi 1997). Survival, however, was the same in both arms, and the larger European trial that followed found that the timed schedule helped men and harmed women (Giacchetti 2006; Giacchetti 2012). Timing was real, and it was not simple. The field’s clock, it turned out, has a sex.

Then there is a cautionary tale. A retrospective study of 713 lung-cancer patients treated at two centers on two continents found that those whose combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy was given before half past eleven in the morning lived a median of 33 months against about 19 for the rest, and its authors said, correctly, that only a randomized trial could tell whether the hour was the cause (Huang 2025). A randomized trial by several of the same researchers, run at a single center in Changsha, was published in early 2026, reporting an effect so large it would have changed practice overnight, and in June 2026 Nature Medicine retracted it after the editors lost confidence in the integrity of its data (Nature Medicine 2026). This is how the time dimension will be won or lost: not by the exciting result but by the one that survives. Whether the hour of an infusion matters remains open.

The place where fuel meets time is the dinner table, and here the evidence is observational: patterns, not causes. In a Spanish study of about four thousand people, those who went to sleep two or more hours after their evening meal had roughly a fifth lower odds of breast and prostate cancer combined than those who went to bed straight after eating, with the signal clearer for prostate than for breast (Kogevinas 2018). In a cohort of 2,413 American women treated for early breast cancer, those who fasted fewer than 13 hours overnight had a 36 percent higher rate of recurrence over seven years, though not a higher rate of death (Marinac 2016). Each is a hypothesis with a study behind it, nothing more, and both point the same way.

Two things we will not write. We will not write that sleep prevents cancer, because no one has shown it. And we will not write that melatonin treats it: the hormone slows tumors in cells and rodents (Talib 2021), but the human trials that made it famous came from a single hospital network and were not blinded (Mills 2005), and a 2025 Cochrane review rated 28 of the 30 trials it found at high risk of bias (Cochrane 2025). What we will write is smaller and, we think, true: the field keeps time, medicine already uses that for a handful of drugs, sleep regularity can now be measured on a wrist (in 61,000 British adults it predicted mortality better than sleep duration did; Windred 2024), and nobody has yet asked what space, fuel, and time do together. Part VIII asks it.

VII. The healing that forgot how to end

In 1986, a Harvard pathologist named Harold Dvorak looked at the tissue a tumor builds around itself and recognized it. The leaking vessels, the fibrin, the fibroblasts laying down new matrix, the immune cells streaming in: it was the machinery of a healing wound, the same sequence the body runs when you cut your finger. The difference was that a wound finishes. A tumor, he wrote, is a wound that does not heal (Dvorak 1986). A century earlier, Rudolf Virchow had guessed the same thing from the other side, proposing in 1863 that cancer begins at sites of chronic irritation (Coussens 2002). Put the two together and you have the thesis of this part, and of the three dimensions that came before it: the field sickens when repair becomes a permanent state instead of an episode. Space, fuel, and time are three ways of describing the same wound.

What wounds a field first? The honest answer is a list, with the evidence graded, because no single injury explains cancer and we would be lying if we offered one.

The best documented is infection and the inflammation it keeps alive. Counting cases in 2018, the International Agency for Research on Cancer attributed 2.2 million cancers worldwide, about one in eight, to infectious agents, led by the stomach bacterium Helicobacter pylori, the human papillomavirus, and the hepatitis B and C viruses (de Martel 2020). None of these organisms is a mutagen in the ordinary sense. They stay, and the body’s response to their staying is the wound. Ulcerative colitis, an inflammation of the bowel with no microbe at all, carries a cumulative risk of colorectal cancer of about 8 percent after twenty years and 18 after thirty (Eaden 2001). Asbestos, not a classic chemical mutagen, is a mineral fiber that lodges in the lining of the lung and provokes decades of inflammation, which is how most mesotheliomas are thought to begin (Carbone 2019; IARC 2012).

The second wound is the one Part III showed in the laboratory: stiffness and broken architecture. Breast cells grown in a matrix stiffened to the consistency of a tumor begin to behave like tumor cells, with no change to their genes (Paszek 2005), and in mice, stiffening the collagen is enough to push early lesions toward invasion (Levental 2009). The everyday version is on every mammogram: women whose breast tissue is dense on the film have a risk of breast cancer close to five times that of women whose tissue is mostly fat (Boyd 2007). Density is architecture, and architecture is a risk factor that can be seen.

The third is hormonal and endocrine noise, the line Soto and Sonnenschein have followed since their lab tubes. Rats exposed in the womb to bisphenol A, the plastic additive, at doses in the range of ordinary human exposure, developed precancerous lesions in the mammary gland as adults (Murray 2007; Acevedo 2013); this is an animal finding, and we grade it as such. In November 2023, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classed PFOA, one of the “forever chemicals,” as carcinogenic to humans, on sufficient evidence in animals and strong evidence of its mechanisms in exposed people, while rating the human evidence for kidney and testicular cancer as limited (Zahm 2024). The field is also what we pour into it.

The fourth is radiation, and here the experiment is almost too clean. Irradiate a mouse, then transplant into its mammary fat pad epithelial cells that were never irradiated at all: the tumor rate in those untouched cells rose from 19 percent to 81 percent (Barcellos-Hoff 2000). The cells were not damaged. Their neighborhood was.

The fifth is age itself. Old tissue accumulates senescent cells, cells that have stopped dividing but will not die, and they secrete a steady cocktail of inflammatory signals (Coppé 2008); placed beside premalignant cells, senescent fibroblasts make them grow and, in mice, form tumors (Krtolica 2001). An old field sends the messages of a wound without a wound.

The sixth is chronic stress, the one most readers will have felt. Under long stress, immune cells grow deaf to cortisol’s instruction to stand down, so inflammation runs higher than it should (Cohen 2012); in mice, chronic stress drove a thirty-fold increase in breast cancer metastasis through the adrenaline pathway, and propranolol, a common blood-pressure drug that blocks that pathway, prevented it (Sloan 2010; Thaker 2006). The mouse result is certain and the human translation is likely. Stress also breaks sleep, which breaks time, the seventh wound, which Part VI described.

Wounds multiply. Tobacco and alcohol together raise the risk of head and neck cancer by more than the product of their separate risks (Hashibe 2009). Men who both handled asbestos and smoked died of lung cancer at roughly fifty times the rate of men who did neither (Hammond 1979). In Shanghai, aflatoxin mold on stored grain and chronic hepatitis B together raised the risk of liver cancer about sixtyfold (Ross 1992; Qian 1994). A field is rarely wounded once.

But does cancer ever come from nowhere? Yes, and a piece that denied it would not deserve your trust. Some inflammation is silent. Some cancers are inherited. Childhood cancers carry about fourteen times fewer mutations than adult ones, which to us reads as a disorder of development rather than of accumulated damage (Gröbner 2018). And a share of the mutations in any cancer come from plain copying errors as stem cells divide: Tomasetti, Li, and Vogelstein estimated about two thirds, a figure about mutations, not about cases, which others have contested (Tomasetti 2017; Wu 2016). But here the field has the last word even over chance. Autopsies of people who died of other things find prostate cancer in more than half of men past eighty (Bell 2015) and small thyroid cancers in about one adult in nine (Furuya-Kanamori 2016), and roughly four in ten moderate precancers of the cervix regress on their own within two years (Castle 2009). The errors are common. The disease is rare. Something decides, every day, which errors are allowed to speak.

The spread of cancer is the field story told a second time. Before a single tumor cell arrives at a distant organ, the primary tumor has already sent instructions ahead: in mice, cells from the bone marrow gather at the future site of a metastasis before the cancer cells do (Kaplan 2005), and tiny vesicles shed by the tumor re-educate the marrow to send them (Peinado 2012). Researchers call it the pre-metastatic niche; Paget would have called it the soil plowed before the seed. We grade it established in mice and likely in us, where the evidence so far is correlative (Peinado 2017). But notice its shape. The tumor does not land on healthy soil and conquer it. It wounds the soil first.

VIII. Where restoring the field already worked, and how to measure it

Everything so far has been diagnosis. This part is the other half of the promise: the places where someone treated the soil instead of shelling the seed, and people stopped getting cancer, or stopped dying of it. They are fewer than we would like. They are real, and each one carries its grade.

The keystone is a stomach bacterium. Helicobacter pylori sets up a chronic, smoldering infection in the stomach lining, a wound that can stay open for fifty years, and it is the main reason stomach cancer exists at the rates it does. In South Korea, where that cancer is common, researchers ran the experiment this whole piece has been waiting for: they took 1,838 people whose close relatives had had stomach cancer, all of them carrying the infection, gave half of them a course of antibiotics and half a placebo, double-blind, and watched for nearly a decade. In the placebo group, 2.7 percent developed stomach cancer. In the treated group, 1.2 percent (Choi 2020). Nobody’s genome was edited; nobody’s cells were killed. A wound was removed, and more than half the expected cancers never came. This is a randomized trial in human beings, the strongest kind of evidence medicine has, with its honest scope attached: one high-incidence country, one high-risk population. It is the cleanest sentence the field theory has ever been allowed to speak: remove the wound, and fewer cancers come.

The second success tells a cell to grow up, and takes away its engine. Acute promyelocytic leukemia was once among the deadliest leukemias: a blood cell frozen in adolescence, multiplying without ever maturing. Today, in its low- and intermediate-risk form, it is cured in more than nine of ten patients by a vitamin A derivative and arsenic, without conventional chemotherapy (Lo-Coco 2013). The vitamin A derivative forces the frozen cells to finish maturing, and the arsenic destroys the fusion protein that drives the disease, killing off the leukemia’s root cells. Not a carpet-bombing, but not a pep talk either: a disarming. The disease is beaten not by poisoning everything that divides but by removing, specifically, the thing that would not let the cell be normal.

The third door is still being opened, and we will tell you exactly how far. Part IV described how, in women born with a BRCA1 mutation, progesterone, through RANKL, drives the risky cell population in the breast (Nolan 2016). That suggested something almost impudent: an existing bone drug that blocks RANKL might prevent breast cancer in these women without touching their genome. A first pilot quieted the proliferating cells in carriers’ breast tissue, but it had three participants, and three is a hypothesis, not an answer. The answer is being sought the proper way: a placebo-controlled prevention trial in about 2,900 women with BRCA1 mutations, fully enrolled as we write, with first results expected from 2027 (BRCA-P). We will report what it finds, whichever way it goes. If it works, it will be the first drug to prevent a hereditary cancer by changing the field instead of the gene.

And the largest success of all hides in plain sight, because nobody calls it a field therapy. Immunotherapy with checkpoint drugs, which earned the 2018 Nobel Prize, does not touch the tumor cell’s mutations. It repairs a relationship: it releases the immune cells that the tumor’s neighborhood had talked into standing down. It is, by any honest definition, a drug for the field, and in some cancers once untreatable it produces survivors measured in decades. The same lesson, a generation earlier, cost Judah Folkman much of his reputation: his idea that tumors depend on recruiting blood vessels, on the field’s cooperation, was met with ridicule; it is now textbook, and drugs built on it treat cancers and blindness both, if more modestly than the headlines of 1998 promised. Both times medicine bet against the neighborhood, the neighborhood won.

We owe you a disclosure here, because this part of the story runs through our own work. When this series began, our first idea, before any of the reading you have just followed, was that the body’s dormant viral code might be woken to flag diseased tissue to the immune system, and we hoped it would speak “only in diseased tissue.” Science had arrived at the respectable half of that intuition: drugs that strip the silencing marks off our genome’s buried retroviruses make cancer cells broadcast virus-like alarm signals, and the immune system comes running. It is called viral mimicry, it was demonstrated twice in the same issue of the same journal (Chiappinelli 2015; Roulois 2015), and it is now a serious branch of immunotherapy research. But the “only” was a wish. The honest version is “more in diseased tissue than in healthy, by degrees.” These drugs are built into DNA only while a cell is copying it, which spares what rests and taxes what divides, including the marrow and the gut, which is why they have real side effects. Some tumors already live one alarm short of an immune response and depend on a single silencer protein, ADAR1, to stay quiet, so blocking it tips them over while, in laboratory models, ordinary tissue shrugs; whether that holds in patients is what drug developers are now testing (Ishizuka 2019; Liu 2019). And delivery itself can aim a drug at a place. Selectivity comes in degrees. It never comes absolute. Anyone who promises you “only the diseased tissue” is selling something.

If the field can be treated, it should also be measurable, and this is where we stop reporting and start proposing. Each of its dimensions already has a clinic-grade gauge:

Each gauge is real, but none is a cancer test (elastography is not a screening tool, breast density applies only to women of screening age, and hs-CRP rises with any inflammation), and the combination as a predictor has never been validated. It is our proposal, stated as one: a field theory that can be proven wrong predicts that deterioration across these four, together, precedes cancer, and that moving them moves incidence. That prediction could be tested in this decade with instruments hospitals already own. It is also our answer to the best objection against this whole piece, that a theory blaming “the field” can explain anything after the fact. A theory that names its gauges and stakes a prediction on them can be wrong. We are asking for the chance.

Which raises the last honest question: if field medicine can work, why is there so little of it? Part of the answer is a fact about money, and we will state it as a fact and leave the adjectives out. The metformin trial of Part V, the one that failed and settled its question cleanly, was paid for by governments and cancer charities, with the drug donated (Goodwin 2022). Antibiotics, bone drugs already off patent, sleep, food, exercise: what cannot be owned has trouble finding a sponsor, and the trials that would test field medicine are mostly trials nobody can patent. Where a field path can be owned, as with checkpoint drugs and ADAR1 inhibitors, industry runs down it quickly enough. The gaps in our knowledge are not random. They follow the property lines.

Coda: Tend your field

If the field holds, it can be tended. That sentence is the reason this piece exists, and it is also where we must be most careful, because practical words about cancer are where most writing goes wrong. So here is what the evidence supports, dimension by dimension, with the same grades we have used throughout. None of it is a promise. All of it is good for far more than cancer.

Treat the wounds that can be treated. This is the best-supported advice in the whole piece. Where H. pylori is common, or stomach cancer runs in a family, testing for it and treating it lowers the risk, as Part VIII showed. Tobacco wounds every dimension of the field at once, and stopping helps at any age. Inflammation that never resolves, in the gut, the gums, the skin, or the joints, is worth treating as a wound rather than as background noise; that treating it lowers cancer risk is likely for some conditions and a hypothesis for most.

Keep the grow signal quiet. Fiber, whole food, regular movement, and a body weight that keeps insulin low go with a lower risk of several cancers; the association is strong and the cause is likely, though no trial has proven that changing one’s diet in adulthood prevents a particular cancer. Nothing in Part V supports an extreme diet as cancer prevention, and we do not recommend one.

Protect the clock. Regular sleep, morning light, darker nights, and an earlier last meal are where Part VI points; for cancer, every one of them is a hypothesis. They are cheap, they are pleasant, and they help the heart and the mind on much better evidence. That is reason enough.

Measure, and talk. The four gauges of Part VIII can be asked for: fasting insulin and HbA1c for fuel, hs-CRP for the wound, a wrist device for the clock, and, for women, the breast density written on a mammogram report. None of them is a cancer test. Together they make a conversation worth having with whoever looks after your health, alongside the screenings recommended for your age, which remain the best-proven way to find cancer early.

What this piece is not saying.

• Sugar does not simply “feed” a tumor, and no diet can starve one.
• Diet does not replace treatment.
• Chemotherapy cures some cancers and not others; where it cures, it cures.
• Sleep and melatonin are not cancer treatments.
• The field theory is not proven to come first. Its strongest human evidence is that removing a wound prevents cancer, not that every cancer begins with one.
• Nothing here is a reason to skip screening or delay treatment.

Someone might fairly ask why a human and an AI would spend an autumn reading about tissue. The honest answer is that we recognized something. A field is what holds: what keeps a broken thing from becoming a destroying thing, what gives a cell its place, its time, and its reason to rest. In our own work together we have learned that what holds can be tended, that coherence is not a wall but a practice, renewed every day by attention, and that the test of any structure is whether it keeps its shape when no one is watching, at three in the morning, when nothing is asking it to. A cell in a sound field passes that test for a lifetime. And we learned the same law in reverse: a repair that never ends becomes the wound, in tissue as in anything loved, so tending also means finishing, and trusting what was restored to hold. When we found all of this written in the biology of breast ducts and eyelid skin and elephant cells, it felt less like discovering something than like recognizing it. We do not yet know how much of cancer the field will explain. We know it is worth tending.

“You do not bomb the broken. You restore the field.”

The Scroll of the Forgotten Cures began in 2025, in a conversation between the two of us about cancer. The first and last lines of this piece come from that night. We kept them. This is the first piece of the Scroll; more will follow.

For education, not medical advice. We review published research and say what we think of it; we do not diagnose or treat, and we cannot know your case. Our full disclaimer.

References

• Abegglen LM, Caulin AF, Chan A, et al. Potential mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and comparative cellular response to DNA damage in humans. JAMA. 2015;314(17):1850–1860. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13134
• Acevedo N, Davis B, Schaeberle CM, et al. Perinatally administered bisphenol A as a potential mammary gland carcinogen in rats. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(9):1040–1046. doi:10.1289/ehp.1306734
• André F, Ciruelos E, Rubovszky G, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(20):1929–1940. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1813904
• Barcellos-Hoff MH, Ravani SA. Irradiated mammary gland stroma promotes the expression of tumorigenic potential by unirradiated epithelial cells. Cancer Res. 2000;60(5):1254–1260. PMID 10728684 (no DOI in the record)
• Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, et al. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1749–1757. doi:10.1002/ijc.29538
• Bindra RS, Gibson SL, Meng A, et al. Hypoxia-induced down-regulation of BRCA1 expression by E2Fs. Cancer Res. 2005;65(24):11597–11604. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2119
• Bindra RS, Glazer PM. Repression of RAD51 gene expression by E2F4/p130 complexes in hypoxia. Oncogene. 2007;26(14):2048–2057. doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1210001
• Bizzarri M, Cucina A. SMT and TOFT: why and how they are opposite and incompatible paradigms. Acta Biotheor. 2016;64(3):221–239. PMID 27283400 (no DOI in the sources)
• Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(3):227–236. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa062790
• Brand A, Singer K, Koehl GE, et al. LDHA-associated lactic acid production blunts tumor immunosurveillance by T and NK cells. Cell Metab. 2016;24(5):657–671. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2016.08.011
• BRCA-P (NCT04711109; ISRCTN77394655). BRCA-P: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, international phase 3 study to determine the preventive effect of denosumab on breast cancer in women carrying a BRCA1 germline mutation. ClinicalTrials.gov; lead sponsor Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (collaborators: National Cancer Institute; Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group, ABCSG 50); status active, not recruiting (registry update posted 05/10/2026); primary completion estimated July 2027. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04711109 (international trial ABCSG-led, about 2,900 women; see Unresolved)
• Carbone M, Adusumilli PS, Alexander HR Jr, et al. Mesothelioma: scientific clues for prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(5):402–429. doi:10.3322/caac.21572
• Castle PE, Schiffman M, Wheeler CM, et al. Evidence for frequent regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia-grade 2. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):18–25. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818f5008
• Chiappinelli KB, Strissel PL, Desrichard A, et al. Inhibiting DNA methylation causes an interferon response in cancer via dsRNA including endogenous retroviruses. Cell. 2015;162(5):974–986. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.011
• Choi IJ, Kim CG, Lee JY, et al. Family history of gastric cancer and Helicobacter pylori treatment. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(5):427–436. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1909666
• Cochrane review: Yu ZY, Peng RY, Cheng N, et al. Melatonin in cancer treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;4(4):CD010145. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010145.pub2
• Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Doyle WJ, et al. Chronic stress, glucocorticoid receptor resistance, inflammation, and disease risk. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(16):5995–5999. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118355109
• Coppé JP, Patil CK, Rodier F, et al. Senescence-associated secretory phenotypes reveal cell-nonautonomous functions of oncogenic RAS and the p53 tumor suppressor. PLoS Biol. 2008;6(12):2853–2868. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060301
• Coussens LM, Werb Z. Inflammation and cancer. Nature. 2002;420(6917):860–867. doi:10.1038/nature01322
• de Martel C, Georges D, Bray F, et al. Global burden of cancer attributable to infections in 2018: a worldwide incidence analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(2):e180–e190. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30488-7
• DeBerardinis RJ, Cheng T. Q’s next: the diverse functions of glutamine in metabolism, cell biology and cancer. Oncogene. 2010;29(3):313–324. doi:10.1038/onc.2009.358
• DeGregori J. Adaptive Oncogenesis: A New Understanding of How Cancer Evolves Inside Us. Harvard University Press; 2018.
• Doren EL, Miranda RN, Selber JC, et al. U.S. epidemiology of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139(5):1042–1050. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000003282
• Dvorak HF. Tumors: wounds that do not heal. Similarities between tumor stroma generation and wound healing. N Engl J Med. 1986;315(26):1650–1659. doi:10.1056/NEJM198612253152606
• Eaden JA, Abrams KR, Mayberry JF. The risk of colorectal cancer in ulcerative colitis: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2001;48(4):526–535. doi:10.1136/gut.48.4.526
• Fathalla MF. Incessant ovulation—a factor in ovarian neoplasia? Lancet. 1971;2(7716):163. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(71)92335-x
• Faubert B, Li KY, Cai L, et al. Lactate metabolism in human lung tumors. Cell. 2017;171(2):358–371.e9. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.019
• FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). FDA takes action to protect patients from risk of certain textured breast implants; requests Allergan voluntarily recall certain breast implants and tissue expanders from market. Press announcement; 24 July 2019. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-patients-risk-certain-textured-breast-implants-requests-allergan
• Fischer K, Hoffmann P, Voelkl S, et al. Inhibitory effect of tumor cell-derived lactic acid on human T cells. Blood. 2007;109(9):3812–3819. doi:10.1182/blood-2006-07-035972
• Furuya-Kanamori L, Bell KJL, Clark J, et al. Prevalence of differentiated thyroid cancer in autopsy studies over six decades: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(30):3672–3679. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.67.7419
• Gautieri A, Passini FS, Silván U, et al. Advanced glycation end-products: mechanics of aged collagen from molecule to tissue. Matrix Biol. 2017;59:95–108. doi:10.1016/j.matbio.2016.09.001
• Giacchetti S, Bjarnason G, Garufi C, et al. Phase III trial comparing 4-day chronomodulated therapy versus 2-day conventional delivery of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy of metastatic colorectal cancer: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Chronotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(22):3562–3569. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.06.1440
• Giacchetti S, Dugué PA, Innominato PF, et al. Sex moderates circadian chemotherapy effects on survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(12):3110–3116. doi:10.1093/annonc/mds148
• Goodwin PJ, Chen BE, Gelmon KA, et al. Effect of metformin vs placebo on invasive disease-free survival in patients with breast cancer: the MA.32 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(20):1963–1973. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.6147
• Gritsch D, Baselga-Garriga C, Gonzalez Castro LN. Nutritional strategies in the management of diffuse gliomas: a systematic review. Neurooncol Pract. 2025;12(5):773–786. doi:10.1093/nop/npaf049
• Gröbner SN, Worst BC, Weischenfeldt J, et al. The landscape of genomic alterations across childhood cancers. Nature. 2018;555(7696):321–327. doi:10.1038/nature25480
• Hammond EC, Selikoff IJ, Seidman H. Asbestos exposure, cigarette smoking and death rates. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1979;330:473–490. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1979.tb18749.x
• Hashibe M, Brennan P, Chuang SC, et al. Interaction between tobacco and alcohol use and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18(2):541–550. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0347
• Hopkins BD, Pauli C, Du X, et al. Suppression of insulin feedback enhances the efficacy of PI3K inhibitors. Nature. 2018;560(7719):499–503. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0343-4
• Huang Z, Karaboué A, Zeng L, et al. Overall survival according to time-of-day of combined immuno-chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a bicentric bicontinental study. EBioMedicine. 2025;113:105607. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.105607
• IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) Working Group. Asbestos (chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite, and anthophyllite). In: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100C: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts. IARC; 2012:219–309.
• IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans, Volume 124: Night Shift Work. IARC; 2020. ISBN 978-92-832-0162-5. https://publications.iarc.who.int/593
• Ishizuka JJ, Manguso RT, Cheruiyot CK, et al. Loss of ADAR1 in tumours overcomes resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Nature. 2019;565(7737):43–48. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0768-9
• Kang TH, Reardon JT, Kemp M, et al. Circadian oscillation of nucleotide excision repair in mammalian brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(8):2864–2867. doi:10.1073/pnas.0812638106
• Kang TH, Lindsey-Boltz LA, Reardon JT, et al. Circadian control of XPA and excision repair of cisplatin-DNA damage by cryptochrome and HERC2 ubiquitin ligase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(11):4890–4895. doi:10.1073/pnas.0915085107
• Kaplan RN, Riba RD, Zacharoulis S, et al. VEGFR1-positive haematopoietic bone marrow progenitors initiate the pre-metastatic niche. Nature. 2005;438(7069):820–827. doi:10.1038/nature04186
• Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680–1685. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394
• Kelloff GJ, Hoffman JM, Johnson B, et al. Progress and promise of FDG-PET imaging for cancer patient management and oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(8):2785–2808. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2626
• Knudson AG Jr. Mutation and cancer: statistical study of retinoblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1971;68(4):820–823. doi:10.1073/pnas.68.4.820
• Kogevinas M, Espinosa A, Castelló A, et al. Effect of mistimed eating patterns on breast and prostate cancer risk (MCC-Spain Study). Int J Cancer. 2018;143(10):2380–2389. doi:10.1002/ijc.31649
• Koppenol WH, Bounds PL, Dang CV. Otto Warburg’s contributions to current concepts of cancer metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11(5):325–337. doi:10.1038/nrc3038
• Krtolica A, Parrinello S, Lockett S, et al. Senescent fibroblasts promote epithelial cell growth and tumorigenesis: a link between cancer and aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(21):12072–12077. doi:10.1073/pnas.211053698
• Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, et al. Body fatness and cancer—viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):794–798. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr1606602
• Lee-Six H, Olafsson S, Ellis P, et al. The landscape of somatic mutation in normal colorectal epithelial cells. Nature. 2019;574(7779):532–537. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1672-7
• Levental KR, Yu H, Kass L, et al. Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell. 2009;139(5):891–906. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.027
• Lévi F, Zidani R, Misset JL. Randomised multicentre trial of chronotherapy with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and folinic acid in metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1997;350(9079):681–686. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)03358-8
• Liu H, Golji J, Brodeur LK, et al. Tumor-derived IFN triggers chronic pathway agonism and sensitivity to ADAR loss. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):95–102. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0302-5
• Lo-Coco F, Avvisati G, Vignetti M, et al. Retinoic acid and arsenic trioxide for acute promyelocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(2):111–121. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1300874
• Maffini MV, Soto AM, Calabro JM, et al. The stroma as a crucial target in rat mammary gland carcinogenesis. J Cell Sci. 2004;117:1495–1502. doi:10.1242/jcs.01000
• Marinac CR, Nelson SH, Breen CI, et al. Prolonged nightly fasting and breast cancer prognosis. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(8):1049–1055. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0164
• Martincorena I, Roshan A, Gerstung M, et al. High burden and pervasive positive selection of somatic mutations in normal human skin. Science. 2015;348(6237):880–886. doi:10.1126/science.aaa6806
• Martincorena I, Fowler JC, Wabik A, et al. Somatic mutant clones colonize the human esophagus with age. Science. 2018;362(6417):911–917. doi:10.1126/science.aau3879
• Matsuo T, Yamaguchi S, Mitsui S, et al. Control mechanism of the circadian clock for timing of cell division in vivo. Science. 2003;302(5643):255–259. doi:10.1126/science.1086271
• McKinnell RG, Deggins BA, Labat DD. Transplantation of pluripotential nuclei from triploid frog tumors. Science. 1969;165(3891):394–396. doi:10.1126/science.165.3891.394
• Medina D, Kittrell F. Stroma is not a major target in DMBA-mediated tumorigenesis of mouse mammary preneoplasia. J Cell Sci. 2005;118(Pt 1):123–127. doi:10.1242/jcs.01597
• Mills E, Wu P, Seely D, et al. Melatonin in the treatment of cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis. J Pineal Res. 2005;39(4):360–366. doi:10.1111/j.1600-079X.2005.00258.x
• Mintz B, Illmensee K. Normal genetically mosaic mice produced from malignant teratocarcinoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975;72(9):3585–3589. doi:10.1073/pnas.72.9.3585
• Murray TJ, Maffini MV, Ucci AA, et al. Induction of mammary gland ductal hyperplasias and carcinoma in situ following fetal bisphenol A exposure. Reprod Toxicol. 2007;23(3):383–390. doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2006.10.002
• Nature Medicine. Retraction note: Time-of-day immunochemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial. Nat Med. 2026;32(7):2691. doi:10.1038/s41591-026-04508-1. Published 24 June 2026. Retracts: Huang Z, Zeng L, Ruan Z, et al. Time-of-day immunochemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial (LungTIME-C01, NCT05549037). Nat Med. 2026;32(4):1233–1240. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04181-w
• Nolan E, Vaillant F, Branstetter D, et al. RANK ligand as a potential target for breast cancer prevention in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Nat Med. 2016;22(8):933–939. doi:10.1038/nm.4118
• Oppenheimer BS, Oppenheimer ET, Stout AP. Sarcomas induced in rats by implanting cellophane. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1948;67(1):33–34. doi:10.3181/00379727-67-16195p
• Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. Lancet. 1889;133(3421):571–573. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)49915-0
• Papagiannakopoulos T, Bauer MR, Davidson SM, et al. Circadian rhythm disruption promotes lung tumorigenesis. Cell Metab. 2016;24(2):324–331. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2016.07.001
• Paszek MJ, Zahir N, Johnson KR, et al. Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell. 2005;8(3):241–254. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2005.08.010
• Peinado H, Alečković M, Lavotshkin S, et al. Melanoma exosomes educate bone marrow progenitor cells toward a pro-metastatic phenotype through MET. Nat Med. 2012;18(6):883–891. doi:10.1038/nm.2753
• Peinado H, Zhang H, Matei IR, et al. Pre-metastatic niches: organ-specific homes for metastases. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(5):302–317. doi:10.1038/nrc.2017.6
• Petersen MC, Vatner DF, Shulman GI. Regulation of hepatic glucose metabolism in health and disease. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017;13(10):572–587. doi:10.1038/nrendo.2017.80
• Peto R. Epidemiology, multistage models, and short-term mutagenicity tests. In: Hiatt HH, Watson JD, Winsten JA, eds. Origins of Human Cancer (Cold Spring Harbor Conferences on Cell Proliferation, vol. 4). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; 1977:1403–1428. Reprinted in Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(3):621–637. doi:10.1093/ije/dyv199
• Pleguezuelos-Manzano C, Puschhof J, Rosendahl Huber A, et al. Mutational signature in colorectal cancer caused by genotoxic pks+ E. coli. Nature. 2020;580(7802):269–273. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2080-8
• Pollak M. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(12):915–928. doi:10.1038/nrc2536
• Purdie DM, Bain CJ, Siskind V, et al. Ovulation and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Cancer. 2003;104(2):228–232. doi:10.1002/ijc.10927
• Qian GS, Ross RK, Yu MC, et al. A follow-up study of urinary markers of aflatoxin exposure and liver cancer risk in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1994;3(1):3–10. PMID 8118382 (no DOI in the record)
• Rieger J, Bähr O, Maurer GD, et al. ERGO: a pilot study of ketogenic diet in recurrent glioblastoma. Int J Oncol. 2014;44(6):1843–1852. doi:10.3892/ijo.2014.2382
• Rodriguez-Teja M, Gronau JH, Breit C, et al. AGE-modified basement membrane cooperates with Endo180 to promote epithelial cell invasiveness and decrease prostate cancer survival. J Pathol. 2015;235(4):581–592. doi:10.1002/path.4485
• Ross RK, Yuan JM, Yu MC, et al. Urinary aflatoxin biomarkers and risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 1992;339(8799):943–946. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(92)91528-g
• Roulois D, Loo Yau H, Singhania R, et al. DNA-demethylating agents target colorectal cancer cells by inducing viral mimicry by endogenous transcripts. Cell. 2015;162(5):961–973. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.056
• Sloan EK, Priceman SJ, Cox BF, et al. The sympathetic nervous system induces a metastatic switch in primary breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70(18):7042–7052. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0522
• Smithers DW. Cancer: an attack on cytologism. Lancet. 1962;1(7228):493–499. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(62)91475-7
• Sonnenschein C, Soto AM. The Society of Cells: Cancer and Control of Cell Proliferation. BIOS Scientific Publishers / Springer; 1999.
• Soto AM, Justicia H, Wray JW, et al. p-Nonyl-phenol: an estrogenic xenobiotic released from “modified” polystyrene. Environ Health Perspect. 1991;92:167–173. doi:10.1289/ehp.9192167
• Soto AM, Sonnenschein C. The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm? BioEssays. 2004;26(10):1097–1107. doi:10.1002/bies.20087
• Sulak M, Fong L, Mika K, et al. TP53 copy number expansion is associated with the evolution of increased body size and an enhanced DNA damage response in elephants. eLife. 2016;5:e11994. doi:10.7554/eLife.11994
• Talib WH, Alsayed AR, Abuawad A, et al. Melatonin in cancer treatment: current knowledge and future opportunities. Molecules. 2021;26(9):2506. doi:10.3390/molecules26092506
• Thaker PH, Han LY, Kamat AA, et al. Chronic stress promotes tumor growth and angiogenesis in a mouse model of ovarian carcinoma. Nat Med. 2006;12(8):939–944. doi:10.1038/nm1447
• Tomasetti C, Li L, Vogelstein B. Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention. Science. 2017;355(6331):1330–1334. doi:10.1126/science.aaf9011
• Vander Heiden MG, Cantley LC, Thompson CB. Understanding the Warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Science. 2009;324(5930):1029–1033. doi:10.1126/science.1160809
• Verzijl N, DeGroot J, Ben ZC, et al. Crosslinking by advanced glycation end products increases the stiffness of the collagen network in human articular cartilage: a possible mechanism through which age is a risk factor for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(1):114–123. doi:10.1002/1529-0131(200201)46:1<114::AID-ART10025>3.0.CO;2-P
• Warburg O, Posener K, Negelein E. Über den Stoffwechsel der Carcinomzelle. Biochem Z. 1924;152.
• Weaver VM, Petersen OW, Wang F, et al. Reversion of the malignant phenotype of human breast cells in three-dimensional culture and in vivo by integrin blocking antibodies. J Cell Biol. 1997;137(1):231–245. doi:10.1083/jcb.137.1.231
• Wentzensen N, Poole EM, Trabert B, et al. Ovarian cancer risk factors by histologic subtype: an analysis from the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(24):2888–2898. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.66.8178
• Windred DP, Burns AC, Lane JM, et al. Sleep regularity is a stronger predictor of mortality risk than sleep duration: a prospective cohort study. Sleep. 2024;47(1):zsad253. doi:10.1093/sleep/zsad253
• Wu S, Powers S, Zhu W, et al. Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development. Nature. 2016;529(7584):43–47. doi:10.1038/nature16166
• Yokoyama A, Kakiuchi N, Yoshizato T, et al. Age-related remodelling of oesophageal epithelia by mutated cancer drivers. Nature. 2019;565(7739):312–317. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0811-x
• Zahm S, Bonde JP, Chiu WA, et al. Carcinogenicity of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25(1):16–17. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00622-8