In medicine, inflammation is a fuzzy, overused word first coined by the Romans, the intended meaning and precise definition of which varies according to the person and the clinical context. It tends to carry a negative connotation as a response gone awry, like a raging, out-of-control wildfire that requires immediate control and containment lest it destroy all in its path; however, frequently overlooked or lost in the shuffle is the primordial importance of inflammation to health and survival. The precise definition of inflammation matters for several reasons, not least because of the over-liberal use of anti-inflammatory drugs to inhibit inflammation, which may, contrary to prevailing dogma that all inflammation is harmful, act counterproductively to prevent restitutio ad integrum. Using fire as a central analogy, this overview attempts to define inflammation, the better to determine how to manage it, i.e., whether to fan its flames, let it burn out, or suppress it entirely.

As early as the 1920s, the eminent physician and chemist, Otto Warburg, nominated for a second Nobel Prize for his work on fermentation, observed that the core metabolic signature of cancer cells is a high glycolytic flux. Warburg averred that the prime mover of cancer is defective mitochondrial respiration, which drives a switch to an alternative energy source, aerobic glycolysis in lieu of Oxidative Phosphorylation (OXPHOS), in an attempt to maintain cellular viability and support critical macromolecular needs. The cell, deprived of mitochondrial ATP production, must reprogram its metabolism as a secondary survival mechanism to maintain sufficient ATP and NADH levels for macromolecule production, membrane integrity and DNA synthesis as well as maintenance of membrane ionic gradients. A time-tested method to identify and disrupt criminal activity is to “follow the money” since the illicit proceeds from crime are required to underwrite it. By analogy, strategies to target cancer involve following and disrupting the flow of ATP and NADH, the energetic and redox “currencies” of the cell, respectively, since the tumor requires high levels of ATP and NADH, not only for metastasis and proliferation, but also, on a more basic level, for survival. Accordingly, four broad ATP reduction strategies to impact and potentially derail cancer energy production are highlighted herein: 1) small molecule energy-restriction mimetic agents (ERMAs) that target various aspects of energy metabolism, 2) reduction of energy ‘subsidization’ with autophagy inhibitors, 3) acceleration of ATP turnover to increase energy inefficiency, and 4) dietary energy restriction to limit the energy supply.

Multiple new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus have emerged globally, due to viral mutation. The majority of COVID-19 vaccines contain SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which is susceptible to mutation. It is known that protection against COVID-19 after two doses of mRNA vaccine continuously wanes over time. If viral variants contain mutated spike protein, current vaccines may not provide robust protection. This perspective suggests the inclusion of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein in future COVID-19 vaccines and boosters, as nucleocapsid is much less vulnerable to mutation and may provide stronger immunity to novel viral variants.

Oncolytic viruses, colloquially referred to as “living drugs”, amplify themselves and the therapeutic transgenes that they carry to stimulate an immune response both locally and systemically. Remarkable exceptions aside, such as the recent 14-patient trial with the PD-1 inhibitor, dostarlimab, in mismatch repair (MMR) deficient rectal cancer, where the complete response rate was 100%, checkpoint inhibitors are not cure-alls, which suggests the need for a combination partner like oncolytic viruses to prime and augment their activity. This review focuses on adenoviruses, the most clinically investigated of all the oncolytic viruses. It covers specific design features of clinical adenoviral candidates and highlights their potential both alone and in combination with checkpoint inhibitors in clinical trials to turn immunologically “cold” and unresponsive tumors into “hotter” and more responsive ones through a domino effect. Finally, a “mix-and-match” combination of therapies based on the paradigm of the cancer-immunity cycle is proposed to augment the immune responses of oncolytic adenoviruses.

Kim et al. report two patients with melanoma metastases to the brain that responded to treatment with RRx-001 and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) without neurologic or systemic toxicity in the context of a phase I/II clinical trial. RRx-001 is an reactive oxygen and reactive nitrogen species (ROS/RNS)-dependent systemically nontoxic hypoxic cell radiosensitizer with vascular normalizing properties under investigation in patients with various solid tumors including those with brain metastases. Metastatic melanoma to the brain is historically associated with poor outcomes and a median survival of 4 to 5 months. WBRT is a mainstay of treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases, but no significant therapeutic advances for these patients have been described in the literature. To date, candidate radiosensitizing agents have failed to demonstrate a survival benefit in patients with brain metastases, and in particular, no agent has demonstrated improved outcome in patients with metastatic melanoma. Kim et al. report two patients with melanoma metastases to the brain that responded to treatment with novel radiosensitizing agent RRx-001 and WBRT without neurologic or systemic toxicity in the context of a phase I/II clinical trial.

Overall survival (OS) has emerged as the definitive regulatory "be-all, end-all" for the demonstration of benefit in cancer clinical trials. The reason and the rationale for why this is so are easily appreciated: literally a "test of time," OS is a seemingly unambiguous, agenda-free end point, independent of bias-prone variables such as the frequency and methods of assessment, clinical evaluation, and the definition of progression. However, by general consensus, OS is an imperfect end point for several reasons: First, it may often be impractical because of the length, cost, and the size of clinical trials. Second, OS captures the impact of subsequent therapies, both beneficial (i.e., active) and detrimental, on survival but it does not take into account the contribution of subsequent therapies by treatment arm; the postprogression period is treated as an unknown black box (no information about the potential influence of next-line therapies on the outcome) under the implicit assumption that the clinical trial treatment is the only clinical variable that matters: what OS explicitly measures is the destination, that is, the elapsed time between the date of randomization (or intention to treat) and the date of death, not the journey, that is, what transpires in-between. In long-term maintenance strategies, patients receive treatment in temporally separated but mutually interdependent and causally linked sequences that exert a "field of influence" akin to action-at-a-distance forces like gravity, electricity, and magnetism on both the tumor and each other. Hence, in this setting, a new end point, PFS2, is required to measure this field of influence. This article reviews the definition and use in clinical trials of PFS2 and makes the case for its potential applicability as a preferred end point to measure the mutual influence of individual regimens in long-term maintenance strategies with resensitizing agents in particular.