Ideally that should do the job. You know almost all cancers rely on those two basics, uncontrolled growth and to provide nutrition to newly formed cell body, vascularization. So if you can inhibit either or both of the processes that should prevent the disease from spreading. I believe most of the chemo therapies target either of these two pathways. Now there are different check points in the cell cycle that can be regulated. Same thing is true for angiogenesis, different factors can control the process. So a single drug targeting a single pathway may be sufficient for one type of cancer but may be not for all.

Dear Maizbha,

I would be by far less optimistic than you about your claims :"cell cycle signaling pathways and angiogenesis process can be considered as most reliable targets to treat cancers".

It is indeed what researchers believed into two decades ago.

Today, most of them have abandonned the anti-angiogenic area because the compounds revealed themselves as either inactive or associated with too toxic-side effects.

You must make a clear difference between a scientific area in which you can publish even high impact articles and patients' treatment ...

Hopefully I will not develop a cancer too rapidly, but I would certainly be not treated by "cell cycle inhibitors".

What is "old" is not always "bad" or "has been".

The most potent drugs to combat cancers remain cytotoxic ones (an in some cases cytostatic ones as temozolomide for glioblastoma), about ghalf of them originating from Nature and discovered decades ago ...

Best regards

Robert