How existing, approved drugs are being investigated for new applications in cancer care, and how molecular profiling can help patients and clinicians identify which ones may be worth exploring.
The Core Idea
Drug repurposing, the investigation of existing approved medications for potential applications in cancer treatment, is an area of growing scientific interest. A range of drugs originally licensed for other conditions are now being studied for possible anti-cancer effects, with the advantage that their safety profiles are already well-characterised through years of clinical use.
The challenge is identifying which repurposed drugs may be relevant for an individual patient’s disease, and integrating them sensibly alongside diet, lifestyle, and conventional treatment. That’s where molecular profiling has begun to play a role.
This was the focus of our live discussion on April 28th with Amanda King, metabolic oncology nutritionist and co-author of Metabolic Drugs for Cancer, and Travis Christofferson, author of Tripping Over the Truth. Below are the key takeaways.
Why Many Repurposed Drugs Are Investigated but Not Formally Approved
Most drugs being studied for repurposing in oncology share a similar story. A medication is approved for its primary indication, such as diabetes, hypertension, or infection, and over years of widespread use, observational data and mechanistic research begin to suggest possible relevance to cancer biology.
Metformin is one of the most-studied examples. Originally developed for type 2 diabetes, observational studies in diabetic populations have suggested associations between metformin use and lower cancer incidence, though the strength and interpretation of these findings remains an active area of research.
A practical reason these drugs often remain in this investigational state is economic. Once a drug becomes generic, there is limited commercial incentive to fund the large, expensive trials needed to gain a new oncology indication. As a result, much of the research is carried out by academic groups, non-profits, and independent investigators. While the evidence base continues to grow, most repurposed drugs remain off-label for cancer.
The Repurposing Landscape Is Too Broad for Any Clinician to Track Manually
The number of drugs and supplements with research suggesting potential relevance to cancer biology runs into the hundreds, spanning pathways across metabolism, inflammation, DNA repair, mitochondrial function, angiogenesis, and immune signalling.
A few examples raised in the session:
- Doxycycline: preclinical research has examined its effects on cancer cell mitochondria and possible chemo-sensitisation
- Propranolol: being studied in cancers where adrenergic signalling may contribute to disease progression
- Berberine and metformin: both interact with multiple metabolic pathways relevant to cancer biology
The level of evidence varies widely across these examples, from preclinical and observational studies through to randomised trials in specific contexts. The challenge for clinicians is that no individual practitioner can realistically synthesise this volume of literature for each patient. Amanda noted that she has spent over 12 hours researching the published evidence relevant to a single patient case. That reflects the depth of work involved in doing this responsibly.
Molecular Profiling Helps Identify Which Repurposed Drugs May Be Relevant
This is where precision oncology and the Polaris Report come in.
A large proportion of cancer patients in the US now receive some form of molecular testing, but only a small fraction of the targets identified, around 7%, can currently be matched to an FDA-approved cancer drug. Much of the remaining molecular data is not formally acted on.
When the lens is widened to include repurposed drugs, supplements, and lifestyle interventions with published evidence linking them to specific molecular targets, the proportion of identifiable, evidence-supported options expands considerably. The Polaris Report is designed to make this process systematic, taking a patient’s molecular profile and surfacing the published evidence linking specific repurposed drugs, supplements, and lifestyle strategies to the molecular features of their cancer.
The report also draws on the concept of synthetic lethality, a well-established research area in which loss of one gene’s function creates a dependency on another, opening up additional potential targets. By systematically mining published bioinformatic databases, the Polaris Report can flag these relationships and the interventions that have been studied in connection with them.
How the Polaris Report Organises the Evidence
For each drug-target relationship surfaced, the Polaris Report attaches four transparent scores:
- G score (Gene): how central the gene is in cancer biology, based on published research
- D score (Drug): how established the drug is in oncology and its current approval status
- Evidence score: the volume and quality of published research supporting the finding
- Binding score: whether direct molecular binding has been demonstrated in published studies
These combine into an overall ASTRON score that gives clinicians a transparent, ranked view of where the strongest published evidence lies. The score is not a prediction of clinical response and not a probability of efficacy. It is a way of organising the existing literature so clinicians can prioritise their review.
The report distinguishes between FDA-approved oncology drugs, drugs being investigated through repurposing, and supplements, allowing clinicians to see the full landscape of published evidence side by side. It draws on over 170,000 peer-reviewed papers and updates as new research is published.
The Polaris Report Is a Research Synthesis Tool, Not a Treatment Plan
The Polaris Report does not replace clinical judgement, does not constitute medical advice, and is not designed to be acted on by patients independently. It is a research synthesis tool, designed to compress what would otherwise be many hours of literature review into a structured, evidence-scored summary that supports clinician decision-making.
Treatment decisions depend on far more than molecular data alone. The patient’s overall health, prior treatments, side-effect tolerance, current medications, available healthcare resources, and stage of treatment all matter. The clinician integrates all of this; the Polaris Report informs that integration.
Amanda echoed this from the practitioner side. Patients attempting to interpret the report on their own and self-prescribe based on the highest-scoring interventions risks compounding side effects, missing relevant interactions, or building unnecessarily complex regimens. A clinician who understands the underlying pathways can often consolidate interventions and tailor a protocol to the individual.
What This Looks Like in Practice
Amanda shared that, in her clinical experience, integrating molecular insight from Polaris reports into a wider metabolic oncology framework has supported meaningful work with her patients, though she was clear that outcomes vary, that no single tool drives any individual case, and that any patient’s response depends on the full clinical picture.
The Polaris Report functions as one input alongside diet, lifestyle, conventional treatment, and clinical judgement. Used in this way, it reduces the literature-review burden on clinicians and helps them focus on synthesising the relevant evidence for the patient in front of them.
The Bottom Line
Drug repurposing widens the range of options being investigated in cancer care. Molecular profiling helps identify which of those options may be most relevant for a given patient. The Polaris Report bridges the two, translating molecular data into a structured, evidence-scored summary of repurposed drugs, supplements, and lifestyle strategies that clinicians can review and act on within their own clinical judgement.
For patients: if you have had molecular testing, your results may contain information that hasn’t yet been fully reviewed in the context of all available evidence. Discussing this with your clinician is a sensible next step.
For clinicians: whether you work in conventional oncology, integrative medicine, or both, the Polaris Report is designed to surface the published evidence relevant to your patient’s molecular profile, supporting more informed and personalised decision-making.
To learn more about the Polaris Report or to schedule a call with our team, visit astron.health.
To work with Amanda directly or learn more about her practice, visit her website or contact her at admin@amandakingnd.com.
Astron Health Blog 
Leave a comment