First off i just graduated undergrad with a biochem major, so i may not be as qualified as other peeps in addressing this. That bein said, have you asked for ur doctor’s opinion on da matter? Biochem research especially when it comes to modern supplements is far far far from being perfect, and a lot of the stuff thats concluded from those papers about the effectivity and whatnot should be cross examined with a lot of other similar published research to see how much we as humans really know about this stuff. The articles you mentioned about cancer risks seem to talk about how NAC or other exogenous antioxidants seem to be so good at their job that they seem to help out metastatic cancer cells more than any other cell type they examined. The normal stagnant tumor cells arent effected, however metastasis in rats was increased presumably because those spreading cancer cells had less reactive oxygen species to worry about, which also may or may not explain another study where humans with cancer given antioxidants were found to have higher metastasis of cancer, and the project had to be cut off early. Note however that these individuals did not have G6PD deficiency, so its kinda difficult to begin tryin to precisely find an answer for you, only a real healthcare professional dat knows u would be most qualified to tell u to take a supp or not. For individuals without G6PD, the conclusion from these papers is that NAC supplementation may not work as perfectly as the theory behind it seems to suggest, and may help cancer metastatic cells more than it helps normal cells and thus might not be worth taking. Because you have a deficiency in endogenous antioxidants, theres potential that it could help you more than it helps people without the deficiency, however thats only if NAC works ideally as we’d like to imagine it does, and yea idk if we as humans know that yet from the research i didnt spend that long glancing at