Certainly, basic biochemistry would suggest that starving glucose-dependent cancer cells of their one fuel source should render them more vulnerable and make them more easily killed by things that will kill them. And as long as they don't 'learn' to use another fuel, that works well. Some of them, however, do learn to utilize other fuels over time. For an evolutionary take on cancer treatment, this talk by Dr. Dawn Lemanne is really interesting and offers more fuel for thought.

We will never be on first base until we investigate the impact of processed stuff we label as food.

"the lack of human trial data means there is not currently evidence to support the direct claim that metabolic therapies can improve cancer outcomes."

There is a Turkish hospital doing exactly this and publishing their results. Several small studies, which are used as "marketing" I  believe. With that in mind, their results in vivo are interesting. They have read their Warburg, Seyfried, D'Agostini, Feinman I guess. The adjunct measures include ketogenic diet, hyberbaric treatment, artificial glucose lowering berofe "usual care" treatment, no sauna but local heat treatment, some oral and infusion additives... So they have changed quite a few variables at the same time. Targeting glucose metabolism is big part of this.

https://chemothermia.com/news-research/lung-cancer-results-published/

So I do not know how watertight this is, but they try (and charge) and test and publish. Judge yourself...
JR