Most people think of cancer as a disease of rogue cells, cells that mutate and begin growing out of control. That picture is not wrong, but it is dangerously incomplete. A growing body of research is revealing that cancer cells do not simply grow in a vacuum. They actively reshape the neighborhood around them, and that neighborhood, in turn, reshapes the cancer cells in ways that make them harder to treat, more likely to spread, and more resistant to the therapies designed to destroy them.
What makes this insight so important is the direction of the arrow. For decades, the dominant assumption was that genetic mutations within cancer cells drive everything, including how they produce energy. The emerging picture is very different. It is the abnormal conditions in the tumor’s local environment, its neighborhood, that impose specific metabolic programs on the cancer cells living within it. Mutations may open the door, but it is the neighborhood that tells cancer cells which survival programs to run. Hypoxia stabilizes HIF. Acidosis activates HIF-2α and drives the shift to glutamine and fatty acid utilization. Nutrient deprivation selects for KRAS-driven scavenging. Chronic inflammation co-opts immune cells into metabolic collaborators. These are environmentally imposed programs.
A review published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research and Pharmaceutical Sciences by researchers Jia Li and Zhonghu Bai at Jiangnan University pulled together a wide range of evidence showing exactly how this happens. Their paper, “Tumor Microenvironment Induces Metabolic Reprogramming in Cancer Cells,” describes how four harsh conditions within and around tumors force cancer cells to fundamentally rewire their energy production and cellular material synthesis. The researchers call this rewiring metabolic reprogramming, and it has been recognized as one of the ten hallmarks of cancer.
The science can be complex, but the core ideas are surprisingly intuitive. Here is what the research tells us, and why it matters for anyone whose life has been touched by cancer.
Four Harsh Conditions, Four Survival Strategies
The tumor microenvironment is the cellular neighborhood in which a tumor exists. It includes blood vessels, immune cells, connective tissue cells called fibroblasts, signaling molecules, and the extracellular matrix, the structural scaffolding that holds tissues together. The tumor and its neighborhood interact constantly. Tumors reshape their surroundings to support their own growth, and the surrounding environment, in turn, drives changes in the cancer cells themselves.
Think of this neighborhood as a metabolic battleground. The local conditions inside and around the tumor, low oxygen, rising acidity, dwindling nutrients, and persistent inflammation, do not merely stress cancer cells. They orchestrate specific metabolic shifts, stabilizing molecular switches like HIF, driving cancer cells toward glycolysis, altering how they use glutamine, ramping up fat synthesis, and rewiring the delicate balance of oxidation and reduction reactions that keep cells alive. These are predictable metabolic programs dictated by the environmental context in which the cancer cell finds itself. And critically, these same microenvironmental pressures also reshape the metabolism of immune cells and connective tissue cells in the neighborhood, which then feed back on tumor behavior, creating a self-sustaining loop.
Li and Bai’s review identifies four major stressors within this neighborhood: low oxygen (hypoxia), high acidity (acidosis), nutrient shortage, and chronic inflammation. Each one triggers its own distinct pattern of metabolic reprogramming. And as the researchers show, these patterns are not random. They are precise, coordinated survival strategies that make cancer cells extraordinarily difficult to kill.
Low Oxygen: Cancer’s Energy Switch
Cancer cells multiply so fast that they quickly outstrip the oxygen supply from nearby blood vessels. The resulting low-oxygen environment, called hypoxia, is one of the most widely studied features of solid tumors.
When oxygen runs short, cancer cells activate a molecular switch called hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF). HIF turns on genes that fundamentally change how cells produce energy. Instead of relying on the oxygen-dependent process that healthy cells prefer (called oxidative phosphorylation), cancer cells shift toward glycolysis, a faster but less efficient way to generate energy that does not require oxygen. To support this shift, they ramp up key enzymes, including hexokinase II, pyruvate kinase M2, and lactate dehydrogenase A, and begin pumping large amounts of lactate out of the cell.
But the changes go deeper than just energy production. Low oxygen also forces cancer cells to find new ways to build the fats they need for cell membranes and division. Normally, cells produce these fats by oxidizing a nutrient called glutamine through the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle. In low-oxygen conditions, cancer cells reverse part of this cycle, using glutamine via a process called reductive carboxylation to generate the building blocks for fat synthesis even when the normal pathway is shut down.
Perhaps the most striking finding in the review is the concept of metabolic teamwork within the tumor. Cancer cells in the oxygen-starved core produce lactate and export it. Better-oxygenated cancer cells at the tumor’s edges absorb that lactate and use it as fuel, sparing the limited glucose supply for the most hypoxic regions. Li and Bai describe this as a form of metabolic symbiosis, a cooperative arrangement that makes the tumor far more resilient than any individual cell.
High Acidity: A Second Wave of Rewiring
All the lactate pouring out of oxygen-starved cancer cells creates a second major problem: the tissue surrounding the tumor becomes increasingly acidic. Most people think of tumor acidity as a simple waste product. Li and Bai’s review makes a compelling case that it is much more than that. Acidosis is an active driver of cancer progression in its own right.
During chronic acidosis, cancer cells activate a different transcription factor, HIF-2α, through a mechanism involving the enzymes SIRT1 and SIRT6. This shifts the cell’s metabolic preference away from glucose and toward glutamine, while simultaneously downregulating glucose transporters. In essence, acid-adapted cancer cells learn to run on a different fuel mix than their oxygen-starved counterparts, making them harder to target with any single metabolic strategy.
Even more remarkably, acid-adapted cancer cells simultaneously ramp up both the production and the burning of fatty acids. In healthy cells, a regulatory enzyme called ACC2 prevents this kind of metabolic short circuit. Under acidosis, ACC2 is suppressed, removing the brake. The resulting fatty acid oxidation feeds the mitochondria, but to prevent excess fuel from generating lethal levels of reactive oxygen species, acid-adapted cells partially inhibit a key component of the electron transport chain, complex I. It is a delicate balancing act: enough mitochondrial activity to stay alive, but not so much that the cell destroys itself.
Acidity also promotes invasion and spread. Li and Bai cite research showing that low extracellular pH increases levels of VEGF (a protein that stimulates blood vessel growth) and extracellular proteases (enzymes that break down surrounding tissue). Specialized acid-sensing receptors on the cell surface, including GPR4, GPR65, and GPR68, detect the acidic environment and translate it into changes in gene expression that further reinforce the tumor’s aggressive, treatment-resistant character.
Running on Empty: How Cancer Cells Cope with Starvation
Because the blood vessels that feed tumors are often chaotic and poorly formed, many areas within a tumor experience severe shortages of glucose, glutamine, and other essential nutrients. Li and Bai’s review highlights a remarkable body of research showing that rather than dying under these conditions, cancer cells deploy an array of scavenging strategies.
When glucose is scarce, cancer cells with KRAS mutations gain a selective advantage because these mutations help cells tolerate low-glucose conditions. Cancer cells can also reroute glutamine carbon into acetyl-CoA to compensate for the loss of glucose-derived fuel. When glutamine itself becomes scarce, cells redirect their remaining resources toward asparagine production, which suppresses the unfolded protein response, a stress signal that would otherwise trigger cell death.
Two scavenging mechanisms are especially important. Through macropinocytosis, cancer cells with Ras mutations extend projections from their surface to capture and internalize extracellular proteins, digesting them into amino acids to feed the TCA cycle. Through autophagy, cells break down their own damaged organelles and macromolecules, recycling the components into metabolic building blocks. Li and Bai cite studies showing that in KRAS-driven pancreatic and lung tumors, autophagy is essential for tumor growth. Without it, tumors degenerate into benign growths called oncocytomas, filled with damaged, nonfunctional mitochondria.
The implication is clear: cancer cells are not passively dependent on whatever nutrients happen to be available. They actively forage, scavenge, and recycle, giving them a metabolic resilience that single-target nutritional strategies are unlikely to overcome.
Chronic Inflammation: The Fire That Feeds the Tumor
The fourth microenvironmental stressor Li and Bai describe is chronic inflammation. Virtually all tumors harbor an unresolved inflammatory response, distinct from the healthy, short-lived inflammation that helps the body heal injuries. This tumor-associated inflammation is a persistent smoldering that actively supports cancer’s growth.
The review describes how tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), the two most abundant stromal cell types in the tumor neighborhood, produce a cocktail of cytokines, including IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IFN-γ. Rather than fighting the cancer, this signaling promotes tumor cell survival and proliferation, suppresses effective immune responses, stimulates angiogenesis, and activates autophagy, providing yet another metabolic lifeline.
Li and Bai underscore the scale of the inflammation-cancer connection by noting that while only a minority of cancers arise from inherited mutations, approximately 90% are linked to environmental factors, many of which operate through chronic inflammatory pathways. Chronic infections account for about 20% of cancers, tobacco smoking and inhaled pollutants for about 30%, and dietary factors, including obesity, for about 35%.
The Big Picture: A Web of Mutual Reinforcement
What makes Li and Bai’s review especially valuable is the way it reveals how these four stressors are not independent problems. They are deeply interconnected. Hypoxia generates lactate, which drives acidosis. Acidosis and hypoxia together create selection pressure for metabolic flexibility. Inflammation promotes aberrant angiogenesis, producing chaotic, dysfunctional blood vessels that perpetuate hypoxia and nutrient shortages. Nutrient deprivation selects for the mutations, particularly KRAS, that make cancer cells more aggressive and harder to treat. Each condition feeds the others, creating a self-reinforcing system that is far more resilient than any of its individual components.
The relationship is a true feedback loop. The microenvironment imposes the initial metabolic program, and the altered metabolism of every cell in the neighborhood, cancer cell, immune cell, and fibroblast alike, then modifies the microenvironment in ways that entrench and amplify the original signal. Hypoxia-driven glycolysis floods the neighborhood with lactate, deepening the acidity. Acidosis-induced VEGF production stimulates the growth of new but dysfunctional blood vessels, which worsens both hypoxia and nutrient deprivation. Metabolically reprogrammed immune cells secrete cytokines that intensify the inflammatory milieu. Cause and consequence become increasingly difficult to separate.
This interconnection carries a profoundly important implication: targeting any single microenvironmental stressor in isolation is likely to produce compensatory shifts through the others. A treatment that normalizes oxygen delivery may be undermined if the acidic, inflammatory environment remains intact. An anti-inflammatory approach may fall short if hypoxia continues to drive metabolic rewiring. The web must be addressed as a web.
This extraordinary metabolic plasticity also explains why metabolic strategies designed to “starve” cancer are ultimately futile. A tumor that has already learned to scavenge proteins through macropinocytosis, recycle its own organelles through autophagy, switch among glucose, glutamine, and fatty acids depending on availability, and cooperate metabolically across oxygen gradients is not a tumor that can be defeated by blocking fuel sources. Metabolic restriction does not kill the most dangerous cancer cells. It selects for the most metabolically flexible, aggressive, stem-like cancer cells, the very cells that drive recurrence and metastasis.
What This Means for Cancer Treatment
Li and Bai conclude their review by noting that while our understanding of metabolic reprogramming has improved dramatically, several major challenges remain. Most of the studies they cite were conducted in cell lines rather than intact tumors, and it remains difficult to model the true complexity of the tumor microenvironment in a laboratory dish. They call for more direct analysis of metabolic activity in living tumors, better identification of targetable metabolic vulnerabilities, and greater attention to the metabolism of non-proliferating cancer cells and cancer stem cells, which make up the majority of cells in most solid tumors.
For patients and their families, however, the most actionable takeaway may be this: the metabolic adaptations that make cancer cells so difficult to kill are not permanent features of the cancer cell. They are responses to the abnormal conditions inside and around the tumor. If those conditions can be normalized, cancer cells that rewired themselves to thrive under stress become vulnerable again. Their responsiveness to conventional therapies improves. The immune system’s ability to recognize and attack them is restored.
This reframes the therapeutic goal entirely. Instead of asking how we can kill cancer cells more effectively, we ask how we can change the conditions that make cancer cells so hard to kill. The first question leads to an arms race that cancer, with its extraordinary adaptive capacity, has been winning for a century. The second question leads to a strategy that works with the body’s existing design rather than against it: normalize the microenvironment, restore immune competence, push cancer cells toward differentiation, and create conditions under which conventional therapies are more effective and less toxic.
This does not mean that correcting the tumor microenvironment is simple or that it replaces the need for conventional treatment. It means that the microenvironment represents a real and increasingly well-understood set of therapeutic targets that deserve to be addressed alongside the tumor itself. Strategies targeting inflammation, acidity, oxygenation, and metabolic flexibility are not speculative add-ons. They are grounded in the same biology that makes cancer so formidable in the first place.
There is also a prevention dimension to this reframing that deserves emphasis. The four microenvironmental stressors Li and Bai describe are typically presented as conditions the tumor itself creates as it grows. But in many patients, the soil has been prepared long before the first malignant cell appears. By the time malignant cells arise, they are arising in a microenvironment that is already partially hypoxic, already inflamed, and already characterized by endothelial dysfunction and impaired immune surveillance. The hostile neighborhood conditions that this article describes as driving metabolic reprogramming need not be entirely created by the tumor. The host’s own metabolic dysfunction has been laying the groundwork. A few transformed cells do not need to construct the entire hostile environment from scratch. They simply amplify what is already present. This is one of the reasons the same metabolic dysfunctions that drive cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and accelerated biological aging also predict cancer incidence, and it is why correcting these upstream conditions belongs in any serious conversation about cancer prevention.
Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: The Terrain Before the Tumor
For nearly a century, researchers have recognized that cancer cells display distinctive metabolic behavior. The observation dates to the 1920s, when Otto Warburg noticed that cancer cells ferment glucose to lactate even in the presence of adequate oxygen, a pattern so characteristic it bears his name today. Warburg’s insight was largely sidelined during the decades when cancer research focused almost exclusively on genetic mutations, but it has reemerged forcefully over the last fifteen years. Cancer has been called a “metabolic disease,” and for good reason. The metabolic reprogramming Li and Bai describe is so central to malignant behavior that a growing body of work, led most visibly by Thomas Seyfried and colleagues at Boston College, now views cancer fundamentally as a disorder of cellular energy production and nutrient handling, with genetic mutations serving more as facilitators than as first causes. On this view, mitochondrial dysfunction, disordered nutrient signaling, and metabolic inflexibility do not merely accompany malignant transformation. They precede and enable it.
This framing has direct consequences for how we think about cardiometabolic health. Cancer and cardiometabolic diseases often travel along the same highway, driven by the same underlying metabolic dysfunctions and branching off at different exits depending on a person’s genetic vulnerabilities, tissue susceptibilities, and lifetime exposures. The same biomarkers that predict cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, fasting insulin and HOMA-IR, hemoglobin A1c, triglyceride-to-HDL ratio, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, fasting glucose, apolipoprotein B, waist circumference, and others, also help predict cancer risk, cancer-specific mortality, and the likelihood that an existing cancer will resist treatment. Chronic hyperinsulinemia provides a steady growth-promoting signal through the IGF-1 axis. Elevated blood glucose preferentially feeds the glycolytic metabolism that cancer cells favor. Systemic inflammation, as reflected by elevated hs-CRP, mirrors, at the whole-body level, the local inflammation generated by tumor-associated macrophages and cancer-associated fibroblasts within the tumor microenvironment. Dyslipidemia reshapes the availability of the fatty acids that acid-adapted cancer cells learn to burn. Visceral adipose tissue behaves as an endocrine organ, secreting pro-inflammatory adipokines and aromatase-generated estrogens that feed directly into the same hostile microenvironment described earlier.
When these biomarkers drift out of optimal range, the host’s own physiology begins to resemble, in miniature, the conditions that make established tumors so difficult to treat. A body characterized by insulin resistance, chronic low-grade inflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction is a body in which the tumor microenvironment is already partially assembled. Malignant cells that arise in this setting do not have to build a hostile neighborhood from scratch. They inherit one. And for patients who already have cancer, those same suboptimal biomarkers can blunt the effectiveness of chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy by sustaining the very inflammatory, insulin-driven, oxidatively stressed conditions that cancer cells exploit to adapt and survive. Normalizing cardiometabolic biomarkers is therefore not a soft, preventive afterthought. In patients with active disease, it is part of the treatment itself, pulling the rug out from under the microenvironmental program that Li and Bai describe and restoring conditions under which both the immune system and conventional therapies can do their work.
Niclosamide: A Weapon That Fights Cancer’s Survival Web on Every Front
If the central lesson of Li and Bai’s review is that cancer’s metabolic survival strategies form an interconnected web, then the most promising treatments should be the ones that can address that web as a whole rather than pulling on a single thread. This is exactly what makes a repurposed medication called niclosamide, and particularly its salt form niclosamide ethanolamine (NEN), so compelling.
Niclosamide has been used safely for decades as an anti-parasitic medication. It is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines. But a landmark review published in Frontiers in Oncology by researchers Haowen Jiang, Albert Li, and Jiangbin Ye at Stanford University School of Medicine reveals that niclosamide has a remarkable ability to interfere with the very metabolic adaptations that the tumor neighborhood forces on cancer cells. It does so not by targeting one pathway at a time, but by resetting the metabolic machinery at its foundation. Here is how niclosamide maps onto each of the four survival strategies described in this article, explained in plain language:
- Reversing the energy switch driven by low oxygen: When tumors outgrow their blood supply and oxygen runs low, cancer cells flip a metabolic switch that allows them to produce energy without oxygen, the Warburg effect described earlier. This switch depends on HIF, which is stabilized by a waste product called 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG) that accumulates when oxygen is scarce. Niclosamide works at the level of the mitochondria, the cell’s power plants, to activate the electron transport chain and restore the normal balance between two key molecules: NAD+ and NADH. When this balance shifts back toward normal, two things happen. First, the cell resumes burning fuel via the oxygen-dependent TCA cycle, reversing the Warburg effect. Second, the buildup of 2-HG is reversed, causing HIF to be broken down and removed. Without HIF, the entire cascade of low-oxygen survival adaptations unravels. The metabolic symbiosis that Li and Bai describe, the lactate shuttling between oxygen-starved core cells and better-oxygenated edge cells, loses its driving force because lactate production falls when the Warburg effect is reversed.
- Undermining the acid-adapted survival program: Li and Bai describe how acid-adapted cancer cells activate HIF-2α, switch their fuel preference from glucose to glutamine and fatty acids, and partially shut down complex I of their electron transport chain to avoid producing too many damaging free radicals. Niclosamide disrupts this program at multiple points. Its inhibition of HIF-2α directly undermines the transcriptional program that acid-adapted cells depend on. Its activation of the electron transport chain overrides the cancer cell’s attempt to throttle complex I, forcing more electron flow through the very component the cell was trying to suppress. And because niclosamide accelerates TCA cycle activity and glutamine consumption, it depletes the alternative fuel sources that acid-adapted cells have learned to rely on. Niclosamide also inhibits several signaling pathways, including STAT3, NF-κB, and Notch, that are responsible for increased blood vessel growth and the production of tissue-degrading enzymes, which Li and Bai link to acidosis-driven invasion and spread.
- Disrupting the scavenging strategies cancer cells use to cope with starvation: Li and Bai emphasize that KRAS-mutant cancer cells are especially dangerous under nutrient-poor conditions because they can engulf extracellular proteins through macropinocytosis and recycle their own internal components through autophagy. Niclosamide attacks this problem from multiple angles. It activates an enzyme called GSK-3, which leads to the degradation of the KRAS protein itself, directly undermining the genetic advantage that allows these cells to tolerate starvation. It inhibits mTOR, the master nutrient-sensing switch, through two distinct mechanisms: by activating AMPK (because uncoupling reduces cellular energy reserves) and by dissipating protons from lysosomes, the cellular recycling centers where autophagy’s products are processed. By accelerating glutamine consumption through forward TCA cycling, niclosamide also depletes the glutamine pool that starving cells would otherwise redirect toward asparagine production, the stress-buffering pathway Li and Bai describe as a last line of defense against cell death.
- Quieting the chronic inflammation that feeds the tumor: Li and Bai describe how tumor-associated immune cells and fibroblasts produce a cocktail of inflammatory signals, especially IL-6, that promote cancer cell survival, suppress the immune system’s ability to fight the tumor, and stimulate the growth of new blood vessels. Niclosamide is a potent inhibitor of STAT3, the central signaling molecule downstream of IL-6, blocking it at both its primary activation site and a secondary site that many other STAT3 inhibitors miss entirely. It also suppresses NF-κB, another major inflammatory transcription factor implicated by Li and Bai in tumor promotion. Perhaps most importantly for patients receiving immunotherapy, niclosamide reduces PD-L1 expression, the “don’t eat me” signal that cancer cells display on their surface to evade the immune system. This effect is mediated through the same STAT3 suppression pathway, meaning that niclosamide simultaneously quiets the inflammatory signals that protect the tumor while stripping away one of the tumor’s primary defenses against immune attack.
There is one more dimension to the niclosamide story that ties everything together. The Stanford researchers discovered that beyond its effects on individual signaling pathways, NEN treatment actually remodels the cancer cell’s epigenetic landscape, the system of chemical tags on DNA that determines which genes are turned on and which are turned off. In cancer, the combination of low oxygen, high acidity, and nutrient deprivation causes a characteristic pattern of abnormal DNA methylation that locks cells into a primitive, undifferentiated state with high growth potential. NEN reverses this pattern. By raising the ratio of alpha-ketoglutarate to 2-hydroxyglutarate (the same 2-HG whose reversal dismantles HIF stabilization), NEN reactivates the DNA-demethylating enzymes called TETs that the tumor microenvironment had suppressed. The result is that genes involved in cell maturation and differentiation are reactivated, while genes involved in aggressive growth and cell division are downregulated. In laboratory studies, the genes activated by NEN treatment correspond to favorable-prognosis signatures, whereas the genes suppressed by NEN correspond to unfavorable-prognosis signatures. In animal models, NEN treatment reduced tumor growth and extended survival.
The most important takeaway from the niclosamide research, when read alongside the Li and Bai review, is that niclosamide does not simply block one pathway at a time, the way most targeted therapies do. Because its primary action, uncoupling the mitochondrial membrane, resets the metabolic foundation upon which all four of cancer’s microenvironmental adaptations are built, the downstream effects cascade across the entire survival web simultaneously. The raised NAD+/NADH ratio reverses the Warburg effect and undermines hypoxic and acidotic adaptations. AMPK activation counters mTOR-driven growth signaling and nutrient-sensing survival mechanisms. The shift in the alpha-ketoglutarate-to-2-HG ratio disrupts both HIF stabilization and epigenetic silencing. And the resulting epigenetic remodeling pushes cancer cells toward differentiation and away from the aggressive, stem-like state that the hostile tumor neighborhood selects for. This is exactly the kind of multi-front, system-level intervention that Li and Bai’s review argues is necessary to break the self-reinforcing cycle that makes cancer so difficult to treat.
It is also worth noting that niclosamide has shown synergistic effects with chemotherapy drugs, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy in preclinical studies, consistent with Li and Bai’s prediction that normalizing the tumor microenvironment should improve the effectiveness of conventional treatments. Several clinical trials are currently evaluating niclosamide in cancer patients, with results so far confirming its excellent safety profile even at therapeutic doses.
Bringing It All Together
This is precisely the approach I use for my cancer patients, addressing the tumor microenvironment through a coordinated, multi-front strategy. Using a science-based combination of targeted supplementation to reduce inflammation and restore physiological balance, and carefully chosen repurposed medications, we aim to neutralize the acidic and hypoxic conditions that drive metabolic reprogramming, block the scavenging and survival mechanisms that cancer cells fall back on when conventional treatments put them under pressure, and create conditions that allow chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy to work more effectively with fewer side effects.
Every protocol is built on comprehensive lab work that goes far beyond standard oncology panels, examining 25 critical biomarkers linked to cancer progression, treatment resistance, and recurrence. The goal is not to replace conventional treatment but to make it smarter: to deny cancer the metabolic environment it needs to adapt, survive, and return. The future of cancer treatment may depend less on finding a single magic bullet and more on learning to fight the disease the way it actually operates: as a system, on every front, all at once.
References:
- Allin KH, Nordestgaard BG. Elevated C-reactive protein in the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2011;48(4):155-170.
- Giovannucci E, Harlan DM, Archer MC, et al. Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(7):1674-1685.
- Jiang H, Li AM, Ye J. The magic bullet: Niclosamide. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1004978.
- Li J, Bai Z. Tumor microenvironment induces metabolic reprogramming in cancer cells. Indian Journal of Medical Research and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2018;5(4):69–81.
- Pollak M. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(12):915-928.
- Seyfried TN, Flores RE, Poff AM, D’Agostino DP. Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics. Carcinogenesis. 2014;35(3):515-527.
- Seyfried TN, Shelton LM. Cancer as a metabolic disease. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010;7:7.
- Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123(3191):309-314.
