Antibiotics targeting mitochondria kill cancer stem cells of several tumor types

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8856043

Getting rid of the CSC's is great for stopping the formation of new tumor-forming cancer cells, but you still need to kill and/or remove all the existing cancer cells.

So, this could treat the cancer stem cells as if it were an "infection-vector," but you'd still have to stop any current "infection" to save the patient.

This wouldn't really help late stage or aggressive types, but could make treatment efficacy better for cancers in early stages since it may help remove the cells that help a cancer come out of remission.

Maybe people with higher genetic propensity for covered cancer types could rotate on these drugs on a regular basis to reduce their risk? The eternal z-pak... Be interesting to see what the epidemiologists and actuaries come up with to assess the cost-benefit. Consistent anti-biotics would accelerate incidence of anti-biotic-resistant infections. There is no zero-risk since you can't actually take these drugs constantly. A tumor-forming cell could be produced between cycles. The long-term effects at such dosing levels were likely never studied and side-effects could be problems.

More likely, this would become one part of the full-court-press applied to treatment regimens.

Finally, recent clinical trials with doxycycline and azithromycin (intended to target cancer-associated infections, but not cancer cells) have already shown positive therapeutic effects in cancer patients, although their ability to eradicate cancer stem cells was not yet appreciated.

So, the way I read it, "It's a good idea, but we haven't gotten it to work yet, even after some testing, but it's a good idea."

I've been around a few research science labs and understand the pressures on them. Getting published is good...but not sure of the provenance of this outlet.