I'm not so sure:-
To investigate the compartment-specific role of ketogenesis in breast cancer, we first overexpressed two key enzymes for ketone generation, HMGCS2 and BDH1, in hTERT-immortalized human fibroblasts.
So modified two agressive cell lines to prefer ketones.
Our data provide the necessary genetic evidence that ketone body production and re-utilization drive tumor progression and metastasis.
I think that's a bold claim, and misses out some qualifiers, like 'could drive', or 'might drive'. But from my reading, the paper shows that cells modified to prefer ketosis like ketones. It seems a stretch to then jump to suggesting ketone inhibitors as a panacea, or that those enzymes are carcinogenic. That goes back to the news report, which seemed to be bashing ketogenic diets, and also where I liked Ivor Cummings responses.
So to me, it's not that simple. Cancer cells can be 'normal' cells growing in the wrong place, or mutated cells that do the wrong thing in the right place. But they're cells, so need to feed. If the mutation means they can't, they die and don't become a problem. but that's why cancer's a wicked problem because a 'cure' may mean creating something that can target say, epithelial cells growing in a tumour somewhere, but not affecting those cells where they're meant to be.
I think that's also where the report fell down a bit and seemed to jump to keto bashing. There's a lot of bad diet advice and health promotions, but science demands evidence. If someone's got problems with their ketone metabolism, then obviously a ketogenic diet would be a bad thing. Similarly if an oncologist does a biopsy and identifies a ketone-favoring tumour, then it would also be a bad thing. But a cell is a cell, and has to get it's energy from somewhere.
Skimming through the citations for that paper seem to show there's still conflicting opinion, which was the point Ivor Cummings made, ie the evidence either way is still uncertain.
