Fatty acid-binding protein 4 (FABP4) has emerged as a multifunctional regulator in cancer biology, linking dysregulated lipid metabolism, immune modulation, and tumor progression. Initially recognized for its role in fatty acid transport and lipid homeostasis, FABP4 is now understood as a secreted adipokine that influences diverse oncogenic processes, particularly in adipose-rich tumor microenvironments. It is upregulated in various cancers and secreted by both tumor and cancer-associated fibroblasts. FABP4 facilitates lipid transfer, promotes fatty acid oxidation, and reprograms cancer cell metabolism. It also contributes to the crosstalk between tumor-associated macrophages, T-cells, and dendritic cells. FABP4 also supports epithelial-mesenchymal transition, enhances tumor cell plasticity, promotes invasion and metastasis, and has an impact on therapeutic resistance. The inhibition of FABP4 using small-molecule inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies has shown promise in restoring therapeutic sensitivity and reducing metastasis in preclinical models. FABP4 has emerged as a potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarker that predicts poor outcomes in multiple cancer types, supporting risk stratification and noninvasive diagnostics. Together, these findings place FABP4 at the intersection of tumor metabolism, immune evasion, and therapy resistance, highlighting its potential as both a biomarker and a therapeutic target in precision oncology and personalized medicine.

In many cases, chemotherapeutic anticancer therapies’ contribution to life extension is low, and serious adverse effects are common.^1,2 Also the cost of cancer treatments is extremely high and is increasing constantly.²

Vascularization plays an important role in the microenvironment of the tumor. Therefore, it should be a key element to be considered in the development of in vitro cancer assays. In this study, we decellularized in vitro capillaries to remove genetic material and optimized the medium used to increase the robustness and versatility of applications. The growth pattern and drug responses of cancer cell lines and patient-derived primary cells were studied on decellularized capillaries. Interestingly, two distinct growth patterns were seen when cancer cells were grown on decellularized capillaries: “network” and “cluster”. Network formation correlated with the metastatic properties of the cells and cluster formation was observed in non-metastatic cells. Drug responses of patient-derived cells correlated better with clinical findings when cells were cultured on decellularized capillaries compared with those cultured on plastic. Decellularized capillaries provide a novel method for cancer cell culture applications. It bridges the gap between complex 3D culture methods and traditional 2D culture methods by providing the ease and robustness of 2D culture as well as an in vivo-like microenvironment and scaffolding for 3D cultures.

Drug treatments have been designed to inhibit tumor angiogenesis in hope of stopping tumor growth. However, not all tumor types respond to this type of treatment. A screening method which identifies angiogenesis inducing cancer types would help predict the efficacy of angiogenesis-inhibiting drugs for the patients. Our goal is to develop (1) a cell assay to assess the angiogenic induction potential of patient-derived tumor cells, and (2) a protocol for culturing cancer cells on a vascular platform. We optimized the media composition and seeding density of cells (hASC, HUVEC, and cancer cells) to 48-, 96-, and even 384-well plate sizes to allow vascular formation and cancer cell proliferation and subsequent analysis with high throughput. The angiogenic induction potential of patient-derived cancer cells was investigated by quantifying the formation of tubular structures and the drug response of cancer cells grown on a vascular platform was evaluated using gene expression and cell viability (WST-1) assay. Immunocytochemistry was performed with von Willebrand factor, collagen IV, CD44, cytokeratin 19 and ALDH1A1. The angiogenic induction potential test was shown to be responsive to the induction of angiogenesis by cancer cells. The responses of cancer cells were different when grown on a vascular platform or on plastic, seen in gene expression level and viability results. These two protocols are promising novel tools for aiding the selection of efficient cancer drugs for personalized medicine and as an alternative cancer cell culture platform.

Ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT), typically implemented as a ketogenic diet (KD), has re-emerged as a potential adjuvant strategy in oncology. Its rationale is grounded in the metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells, including their reliance on glucose and lipid substrates and the signaling functions of ketone bodies. Despite extensive preclinical evidence of anti-proliferative and immunomodulatory effects, clinical translation in cancer therapy has been slow and inconsistent. This review critically examines the mechanistic basis, experimental and clinical evidence, and translational challenges of KMT across epithelial cancers. We emphasize that “ketogenic interventions” comprise mechanistically distinct modalities, including classical KD, fasting, fasting-mimicking diets, and exogenous ketone supplementation, which are frequently conflated yet differ substantially in their endocrine and metabolic contexts. Across clinical studies, KMT is generally feasible and associated with improvements in quality of life and metabolic parameters; however, robust evidence for the survival benefit of KMT remains limited and heterogeneous. Mechanistically, ketone bodies exert both metabolic and signaling functions, including inhibition of histone deacetylases, lysine β-hydroxybutyrylation, and receptor-mediated effects. Tumor responses are highly context-dependent: ketolytic capacity, governed by enzymes such as OXCT1, can render ketones either a metabolic vulnerability or an alternative fuel for cancer cells. KMT can modify the complex tumor microenvironment, exerting potentially opposing effects on cancer cells, immune cell populations, fibroblasts, and adipocytes. We argue that the central limitation of the field is not a lack of biological activity, but of insufficient integration of tumor-intrinsic metabolism, host physiology, and microenvironmental context. KD/KMT should therefore be regarded not as a universal anticancer therapy, but as a stratified metabolic intervention, whose progress will depend on biomarker-guided patient selection, improved experimental models, and rational combination strategies within a “press-pulse” therapeutic framework.

Ketogenic metabolic therapy (KMT), most commonly implemented as a ketogenic diet (KD), has re-emerged as a potential adjuvant strategy in oncology. Its rationale is grounded in the metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells, including their reliance on glucose and lipid substrates and the signaling functions of ketone bodies. Despite extensive preclinical evidence of anti-proliferative and immunomodulatory effects, clinical translation in cancer therapy has been slow and inconsistent. This review critically examines the mechanistic basis, experimental and clinical evidence, and translational challenges of KMT across epithelial cancers. We emphasize that “ketogenic interventions” comprise mechanistically distinct modalities, including classical KD, fasting, fasting-mimicking diets, and exogenous ketone supplementation, that are frequently conflated yet differ substantially in their endocrine and metabolic contexts. Across clinical studies, KMT is consistently feasible and associated with clear improvements in quality of life and metabolic parameters; however, robust evidence for the survival benefit of KMT remains limited and heterogeneous. Mechanistically, ketone bodies exert both metabolic and signaling functions, including inhibition of histone deacetylases, lysine β-hydroxybutyrylation, and receptor-mediated effects. Tumor responses are highly context-dependent: ketolytic capacity, governed by enzymes such as OXCT1, can render ketones either a metabolic vulnerability or an alternative fuel for cancer cells. KMT effectively reshapes the complex tumor microenvironment, exerting potentially opposing effects on cancer cells, immune cell populations, fibroblasts, and adipocytes. We argue that the central limitation of the field is not a lack of biological activity but of insufficient integration of tumor-intrinsic metabolism, host physiology, and microenvironmental context. KD/KMT should therefore be regarded not as a universal anti-cancer therapy but as a stratified metabolic intervention, whose progress will depend on biomarker-guided patient selection, improved experimental models, and rational combination strategies within a “press–pulse” therapeutic framework.