Renewing Prosaic Generics for Cancer Treatment

Cancer remains one of the most formidable public health challenges worldwide, affecting millions of people every year. As the average life expectancy increases because of improved healthcare, the affliction from all types of cancer is only going to increase. As the population ages, the societal and economic burden of cancer is projected to grow, creating a pressing need for more effective, affordable, and safe therapies.

Pharmaceutical companies have responded to this demand by investing heavily in oncology drug development. The oncology segment consistently generates higher revenues than many other therapeutic areas, making cancer treatment both a critical public health focus and a highly lucrative market¹. Small molecule drugs have been the backbone of cancer therapy for decades, with many individual drugs approved and prescribed for the treatment of multiple cancer types. With cancer as a major health concern and revenue generator, most pharmaceutical companies are investing more into their pipelines to bring to market new cancer drug molecules.

These therapies range from older, well-established molecules to recently developed agents designed to improve efficacy or reduce toxicity. Table 1 provides examples of drugs approved for various cancer types.

Small-molecule cancer therapies have transformed oncology, allowing clinicians to treat a wide array of malignancies that previously had poor prognoses.³ However, despite their therapeutic benefits, these drugs suffer from inherent limitations.⁴ Chief among these is non-specificity: most small molecules target cellular processes common to all dividing cells, such as DNA replication or protein synthesis. While this mechanism inhibits tumor growth, it simultaneously damages healthy cells, particularly those with high turnover rates like bone marrow cells, gastrointestinal epithelial cells, and hair follicles. This non-selectivity leads to cytotoxic side effects ranging from mild nausea and fatigue to life-threatening myelosuppression, cardiotoxicity, or organ damage. Patients undergoing treatment often require extensive monitoring, dose adjustments, and supportive care to manage these toxicities. Moreover, the adverse effects frequently necessitate interruptions or discontinuation of therapy, which can compromise treatment outcomes.

In many cases, combination therapies are employed to improve efficacy. While these regimens can increase tumor suppression, they also compound toxicity, further stressing patients and healthcare systems.⁵ The administration of these drugs is often complex, requiring intravenous delivery in hospital or clinic settings, frequent lab tests, and close monitoring by oncology specialists. Collectively, these factors contribute to high treatment costs and a substantial burden on patients, both financially and psychologically.⁶ While small-molecule therapies remain indispensable, their limitations create a compelling need to explore alternatives that maintain efficacy while reducing toxicity and cost.

Familiar Generics for Cancer Treatment

To overcome the limitations of conventional cancer therapies, researchers and pharmaceutical companies are investigating a range of alternative strategies. These include biologics, monoclonal antibodies, immune checkpoint inhibitors, cell-based therapies, and targeted therapies aimed at specific genetic or molecular features of tumors.⁷ Each approach has its advantages, including improved specificity and reduced systemic toxicity. However, they often come with higher costs and complex manufacturing requirements.

Among these alternatives, repurposing existing generic drugs for cancer therapy has emerged as a particularly promising strategy. Generic drugs have well-established safety profiles, known pharmacokinetics, and clear dosing regimens, which substantially reduce development time and regulatory risk.⁸ By leveraging these properties, researchers can explore their potential anticancer effects more rapidly and cost-effectively than developing entirely new molecules. Table 2 shows some of the most common generic drugs (eg, propranolol,^9,10,11 ketoconazole,²⁰ statins,^22,23) on the market for many years that are being used to treat other diseases. Clinical trials are currently investigating whether these familiar drugs can enhance cancer treatment outcomes, either alone or in combination with existing therapies. Early studies suggest that some generics may interfere with tumor metabolism, angiogenesis, or immune evasion, providing a mechanistic basis for their anticancer effects.

The use of generic drugs for cancer treatment can serve two purposes: as adjuvant therapy, complementing existing cancer drugs to improve efficacy, or as standalone treatments for certain tumor types.⁸ Beyond improving therapeutic outcomes, these approaches have the potential to reduce cytotoxic side effects, lower overall treatment costs, and decrease patient burden by enabling oral administration and reducing the need for frequent hospital visits.

Metformin, a Common Generic, in Oncology

Metformin, a first-line therapy for Type II diabetes, illustrates the potential of drug repurposing in oncology. The drug has been used for more than 25 years to manage insulin resistance, and its safety and pharmacokinetics are understood well. Recent research has identified a potential role for metformin in cancer treatment, particularly in tumors that exhibit altered metabolic pathways. Not only will understanding the principle mechanism help in the cancer treatment,^12,13 the drug can also be positioned as a novel treatment for a host of other disorders if found effective. Clinical studies are exploring its use both as a standalone therapy and in combination with conventional chemotherapies.

The broader implications of metformin research extend beyond oncology. If effective, metformin could reduce the need for hospital-based administration, decrease patient stress, and lower treatment costs while maintaining or improving clinical outcomes.¹³ It also exemplifies a new paradigm in which familiar, safe medications are leveraged for novel therapeutic purposes. Switching to the generics listed in Table 2, for example, could lower patient stress compared with taking standard cancer therapies, as these medications can be taken orally and clinician visits can be reduced.

Strategic Opportunity for Pharmaceutical Execs

Repurposing familiar generics presents a compelling strategic opportunity²⁵ for pharmaceutical companies, particularly those with vertically integrated operations encompassing drug manufacturing, clinical development, and marketing. Generics^26,27 can be tailored with little to no new development for cancer therapy, significantly reducing development timelines, lowering financial risk, and improving the risk-to-reward ratio for oncology applications. By incorporating these generics into existing cancer pipelines, companies can quickly initiate targeted clinical trials to evaluate efficacy and optimize dosing, with minimal additional development required. Successful trials could allow these drugs to be marketed either as standalone cancer therapies or as adjuvants to enhance the effects of current treatments, leveraging already approved dosage forms for immediate use.

Beyond speed to market, repurposing generics offers opportunities for portfolio diversification, enabling companies to expand their therapeutic reach across multiple cancer types and patient populations. Regulatory pathways also exist to grant market exclusivity for new indications, providing an added incentive to invest while maintaining affordability for patients.

Collectively, these factors make a generics-based strategy both commercially and clinically attractive, offering companies a low-risk, high-impact approach to strengthen oncology pipelines, reduce development costs, and improve patient outcomes.⁸ By strategically integrating these well-tolerated drugs into cancer treatment programs, pharmaceutical firms can capitalize on existing resources, accelerate innovation, and deliver safer, more accessible therapies to patients in need.

A Promising Outlook

The repurposing of familiar generic drugs offers a promising avenue to expand cancer treatment options, improve patient outcomes, and reduce healthcare costs.⁸ By leveraging drugs with well-established safety profiles, pharmaceutical companies can accelerate development, lower financial risk, and deliver innovative therapies more efficiently. Generics such as metformin, propranolol, ketoconazole, and statins demonstrate that existing medications can be strategically redirected to oncology, either as monotherapies or in combination with conventional drugs. Successful clinical trials could result in new clinical indications, regulatory exclusivity, and market differentiation, providing a competitive advantage.

Moreover, the exploration of generics underscores a broader shift in oncology drug development, emphasizing patient-centric care, reduced toxicity, and cost-effectiveness.²⁸ While Table 2 provides a snapshot of the most studied generics, many other familiar drugs may hold untapped potential. Expanding research in this area can strengthen existing oncology pipelines, improve quality of life for patients, offer an attractive investment strategy for pharmaceutical companies of all sizes, and provide an ethical pathway to transform cancer therapy.

References

1. Gaudiaut, T. (2026). Cancer drugs drive nearly one-fifth of pharma sales. Statista. https://www.statista.com/chart/35651/distribution-of-global-pharma-revenue-by-drug-type/

2. Food and Drug Administration. Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (Orange Book). Updated May 7, 2026. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfmhttps://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm

3. Zhong, L., Li, Y., Xiong, L., et al., (2021). Small molecules in targeted cancer therapy: Advances, challenges, and future perspectives. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 6(1), 201. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-021-00572

4. Teixeira, S., Carvalho, MA., and Castanheira, EMS. (2022). Functionalized liposome and albumin-based systems as carriers for poorly water-soluble anticancer drugs: An updated review. Biomedicines, 10(2), 486. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10020486

5. Jardim, D. L., Gagliato, D. M., Nikanjam, M., et al., (2020). Efficacy and safety of anticancer drug combinations: A meta-analysis of randomized trials with a focus on immunotherapeutics and gene-targeted compounds. OncoImmunology, 9(1), 1710052. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2019.1710052

6. Carrera, P. M., Kantarjian, H. M., and Blinder, V. S. (2018). The financial burden and distress of patients with cancer: Understanding and stepping-up action on the financial toxicity of cancer treatment. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21443

7. Hanahan, D. (2022). Hallmarks of cancer: New dimensions. Cancer Discovery, 12(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1059

8. Pantziarka, P., Verbaanderd, C., Sukhatme, V., et al., (2018). ReDO_DB: The repurposing drugs in oncology database. ecancer, 12, 886. https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2018.886

9. Albinana V, Heras KVG, Serrano-Heras, G, et al., (2015). Propranolol reduces viability and induces apoptosis in hemangioblastoma cells from von Hippel-Lindau patients. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 10, 118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26394686/

10. Gong L, Lei Y, Tan X, et al., (2019). Propranolol selectively inhibits cervical cancer cell growth by suppressing the cGMP/PKG pathway. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 111, 1243-1248. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30841438/

11. Peixoto R, Pereira ML, Oliveira M, (2020). Beta-blockers and Cancer: Where are we? Pharmaceuticals. 13, 105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7345088/

12. Pernicova I, Korbonits M, (2014). Metformin-mode of action and clinical implications for diabetes and cancer. Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 10, 143-156. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24393785/

13. Foretz M, Guigas B, Bertrand L, et al., (2014). Metformin: From Mechanisms of Action to Therapies. Cell Metabolism. 20, 953-966. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25456737/

14. Bajpai M, Seril DN, Gurp JV, et al., (2019). Effect of Long-term Mesalamine Therapy on Cancer-Associated Gene Expression in Colonic Mucosa of Patients with Ulcerative Colitis. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 64, 740-750. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30478770/

15. Cobbs CS, (2014). Does valgaciclovir have a role in glioblastoma therapy? Neuro-Oncology. 16(3), 330-1 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3922528/

16. A Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy of Valganciclovir in Glioblastoma Patients (VIGAS2), NCT04116411, (2019). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04116411.

17. Hampson L, Maranga IO, Masinde M, et al., (2016). A single-arm, proof-of-concept trial of Lopimune (Lopinavir/Ritonavir) as a treatment for HPV-related pre-invasive cervical disease. PLoS One. 11(1):e0147917. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26824902/

18. Sakalis, V, Sfiggas, V, Vouros, I, et al., (2018). Combination of solifenacin with tamsulosin reduces prostate volume and vascularity as opposed to tamsulosin monotherapy in patients with benign prostate enlargement and overactive bladder symptoms: Results from a randomized pilot study. International Journal of Urology. 25, 737-745. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30008188/

19. Kosilov KV, Loparev SA, Ivanovskaya MA, et al., (2016). Kosilova LV, Effectiveness of Solifenacin and Trospium for Managing of Severe Symptoms of Overactive Bladder in Patients With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. American Journal of Men’s Health. 10(2):157-163. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26186951/

20. Agnihotri S, Mansouri S, Burrell K, et al., (2019). Ketoconazole and Posaconazole Selectively Target HK2-expressing Glioblastoma Cells. Clinical Cancer Research. 25, 844-855. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30322879/

21. Zhao LU, Zhao Y, Schwarz B, et al., (2016). Verapamil inhibits tumor progression of chemotherapy resistant pancreatic cancer side population cells. International Journal of Oncology. 49, 99-110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27177126/

22. Hassanabad AF, (2019). Current perspectives on statins as potential anti-cancer therapeutics: clinical outcomes and underlying molecular mechanisms. Translational Lung Cancer Research. 8, 692-699.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6835101/

23. Alexandrova R, Dinev D, Glavcheva M, et al., (2019). Briefly about Anticancer Properties of Statins. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research. 17, 12655-12659. https://biomedres.us/fulltexts/BJSTR.MS.ID.002975.php

24. Wang Qi, Lu P, Wang T, et al., (2020). Sitagliptin affects gastric cancer cells proliferation by suppressing Melanoma-associated antigen-A3 expression through Yes-associated protein inactivation. Cancer Medicine. 9, 3816-3828. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32227453/

25. Huang J, (2020). Can drug repositioning work as a systematical business model? ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 11, 1074-1075. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.0c00122

26. Pantziarka, P., Verbaanderd, C., Sukhatme, V., et al., (2022). Antidiabetics, anthelmintics, statins, and beta-blockers as co-adjuvant drugs in cancer therapy. Cancers, 14(19), 4701. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14194701

27. Zhang, Y., Guan, M., Zheng, Z., et al., (2025). Metformin for the treatment of breast cancer: A scoping review of randomized clinical trials. BMC Cancer, 25, Article 14468. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14468-3

28. Schnipper, L. E., Davidson, N. E., Wollins, D. S., et al., (2015). American Society of Clinical Oncology statement: A conceptual framework to assess the value of cancer treatment options. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(23), 2563–2577. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.61.6706