Deciphering and targeting oncogenic pathways through integrated approaches and amino acid metabolism in hematologic malignancies.

Introduction

Blood cancers or hematologic malignancies are an extremely diverse set of cancers that affect one or more of the blood, bone marrow, or lymphatic system. Different hematopoietic cell types give birth to leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma-related disorders, each of which has its biological characteristics, clinical signs, and therapeutic difficulties [ 1 ]. In recent decades, unprecedented advances in molecular biology, genetics, and immunotherapy have transformed diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Traditional chemotherapy and radiation therapy, still the cornerstones of treatment, have slowly and steadily been alternated with more modern techniques of medicine that, in combination with genomic knowledge and gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR, are targeting oncogenic drivers with extraordinary precision [ 2 ]. Leukaemia is classified as a cancer of the blood and bone marrow, characterized by an elevated production of white blood cells. More commonly known as acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid, acute lymphoblastic, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia are only a few specific classifications of this type of disease, which in general can be classified as acute or chronic. Underlying genetic and molecular abnormalities in leukaemia can differ between subtypes, influencing therapy responses and patient outcomes [ 3 ]. For example, the knockout of the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene resulting from the translocation of the Philadelphia chromosome is a classic example of CML, which is targeted for treatment by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) like imatinib. Mutations in FLT3, NPM1, and IDH1/2 are also fundamental for the pathogenesis of AML and, thus, entail the subsequent choice of targeted therapeutic intervention [ 4 ].

Haematologic malignancies provide as a comprehensive platform for the amalgamation of genetics and precision medicine in the application of individualized therapeutic strategies [ 5 ]. The advancement of high-throughput sequencing technology has facilitated the identification of new oncogenic mutations, fusion genes, and epigenetic changes that drive haematologic malignancies [ 6 ]. These insights facilitated the development of targeted medicines that specifically inhibit cancer-related biochemical pathways while minimizing off-target effects. The recent advent of the genome-editing tools CRISPR-Cas9 provides an unprecedented opportunity to correct pathogenic mutations, restore immune cell function, and design gene therapies with curative potential. Immunotherapy has turned out to be the new ground-breaking approach in the field of blood cancer treatment, where the innate immune defense mechanisms are revved up to identify and terminate malignant cells. CAR The rehabilitation of CAR T-cells represents a remarkable advancement in adoptive cell therapy, demonstrating exceptional effectiveness in relapsed and refractory leukaemias and lymphomas [ 7 ]. Engineered T cells that express CARs target surface antigens, i.e., CD19 in B-cell malignancies, thus inducing lasting remissions in patients who have been otherwise offered no options for salvage. Furthermore, immune checkpoint drugs that obstruct inhibitory receptors such as PD-1 and CTLA-4 have demonstrated initial potential in enhancing anticancer immune responses in several haematologic malignancies [ 8 ].

Despite breakthroughs in potential therapeutic alternatives, multiple challenges persist in achieving effective and lasting treatment for blood malignancies. The clonal development and immune evasion mechanisms of tumours facilitate disease progression and treatment resistance. Conversely, because to the possible off-target consequences associated with gene editing, these technologies require rigorous review and improvement prior to extensive clinical implementation; also, ethical issues must be addressed [ 9 ]. Therefore, through innovation, combination therapy, next-generation CAR-T cells, and epigenetic modulators are being investigated to deal with these challenges and enhance patient outcomes. The field of blood cancer therapy is rapidly changing owing to recent breakthroughs in precision medicine, genomics, and gene editing [ 10 ]. The integration of diverse molecular diagnostics and targeted therapies with immunotherapy has transformed treatment paradigms, offering renewed hope to patients with haematologic malignancies [ 11 ]. As researchers continue to clarify the complexities of blood cancer biology, there exists a promising prospect for the development of more effective, personalized, and even curative therapeutic approaches [ 12 ]. Treatment for hematologic malignancies has undergone a major transformation through the incorporation of precision medicine, and, as a result, the whole therapeutic landscape for blood cancers has been changed [ 13 ]. Precision medicine leverages advances in genomics, gene editing technologies, including CRISPR, and targeted immunotherapies to deliver highly individualized interventions against cancer that limit collateral damage and maximize therapeutic gain [ 14 ]. Unlike chemotherapy and radiation, which are replete with collateral toxicities that damage healthy tissues, precision medicine empowers clinicians to design treatment plans tailored for each individual patient based upon molecular and genetic characteristics of the abnormal cell growth [ 15 ]. This shift has enhanced survival probabilities and created opportunities for innovative therapeutics aimed at directly inhibiting oncogenic pathways, stimulating immune responses, and modulating disease progression at the genetic level [ 16 ].

These haematological disorders encompass a diverse array of cancers affecting the bone marrow, blood, and lymphatic system. The uncontrolled proliferation of atypical blood cells defines these tumours; particular genetic abnormalities or epigenetic modifications frequently propel this phenomenon [ 17 ]. This consideration of the molecular and genetic basis of these malignancies has, over the past two decades, been harnessed toward more effective treatment strategies. The understanding of disease pathophysiology through the discovery of driver mutations, abnormal signalling pathways, and immune evasion mechanisms should facilitate the development of targeted medicines that inhibit oncogenic processes. The combination of genetic profiling, biomarker discovery, and new therapeutic modalities has significantly enhanced the capacity for precise diagnosis, classification, and treatment of blood malignancies within the realm of precision medicine [ 18 ]. A significant advancement in precision medicine for haematologic malignancies is the recent emergence of high-throughput genome sequencing technologies. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has transformed cancer genomics by allowing comprehensive analyses of genetic mutations, structural variations, and epigenetic alterations associated with malignancy development [ 19 ]. Clinicians may now categorize patients with unique genetic anomalies into discrete molecular categories, so informing therapy decisions and predicting responses to targeted treatments. For instance, the presence of the Philadelphia chromosome, a hallmark translocation in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), has introduced the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as imatinib specifically targeting the BCR-ABL fusion protein. Similarly, mutations in genes FLT3, IDH1/2, and TP53 in acute myeloid leukemia have driven the development of molecularly targeted agents selectively inhibiting aberrant signaling pathways for better treatments with reduced toxicity [ 20 ].

The development of CRISPR gene editing technology marks another breakthrough in precision therapy for haematologic malignancies. CRISPR technology empowers scientists and medical professionals to rectify deleterious mutations, inhibit oncogene drivers, and meticulously adjust the immune response to identify and eradicate melanoma through precise DNA sequence modifications [ 21 ]. Ex vivo editing of immune cells and hematopoietic stem cells to enhance their anti-cancer activity is one of the numerous therapeutic gene possibilities for blood cancers afforded by this powerful gene-editing technology. For example, CRISPR technology has been used to modify CAR T cells to enhance their specificity and persistence toward malignant cells while downgrading immune evasion mechanisms employed by tumors [ 22 ]. CRISPR-mediated gene editing enhances the effectiveness of immunotherapy for refractory and recurrent haematologic malignancies by modifying T cells to circumvent immunological checkpoints or remove inhibitory receptors [ 23 ]. Immunotherapeutics, a cornerstone of precision medicine, is acclaimed for revolutionizing the management of blood malignancies by properly targeting and eliminating malignant cells through the body’s immune system. CAR-T therapy, immune check point inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies and bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) show remarkable responses in the treatment of leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myelomas. Specifically, CAR-T represents a significant breakthrough in the treatment of B-cell malignancies, such as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL).CAR-T therapy has long been the final option for patients who have not responded to traditional treatments, utilizing genetically engineered T-cells to produce synthetic receptors that identify antigens unique to tumours, resulting in enduring remissions [ 24 ]. The interplay between precision medicine and immunotherapeutic strategies can yield synergistic effects that bolster tumor destruction while ameliorating immune-related toxicity [ 25 ].

Aside from directly targeting the oncogenic drivers, precision medicine has also accelerated the design of novel diagnostic tools and biomarker-driven treatment approaches. Liquid biopsy exemplifies a non-invasive method for identifying circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA), hence offering real-time insights into treatment response, minimal residual disease (MRD), and disease progression [ 26 ]. The capability to see molecular alterations using liquid biopsy in hematological malignancies has facilitated early relapse detection, dynamic therapy adaptation, and identification of resistance mechanisms. Single-cell sequencing technologies have profoundly elucidated aspects of tumor heterogeneity and clonal development, providing further avenues for therapeutic interventions and personalized treatment regimens [ 27 ]. Targeted therapies have huge potential in precision medicine, yet, several obstacles continue to hinder their integration into clinical practice for haematologic malignancies. The development of resistance to targeted medicines is a significant challenge, sometimes resulting from clonal evolution, secondary mutations, and compensatory signalling pathways. Resistance mutations such as T315I in BCR-ABL can eliminate the efficacy of TKIs, which have otherwise significantly enhancedthe survival of CML patients, hence necessitating the creation of next-generation inhibitors [ 28 ].

Resistance to CAR-T cell therapy may develop in patients, necessitating the exploration of novel medicines for sustainable and effective treatment. Combination therapy, rational drug design, and adaptive treatment strategies to counteract resistance mechanisms are key focal points in precision medicine research [ 29 ]. Access and affordability are significant impediments to the realization of precision medicine, especially in low- and middle-income nations. Advanced genomic profiling, gene editing technologies, and immunotherapies are frequently associated with substantial costs and need highly specialized infrastructures and knowledge [ 30 ]. These activities will foster collaborative research endeavors, economical diagnostic tools, and scalable therapy strategies to address these disparities. The prospective advantages of precise medicine for patients’ lives lie within these confines. Future initiatives will advance artificial intelligence and machine learning to enhance precision oncology, hence improving the efficiency of genetic data processing, biomarker identification, and therapy optimization. Long-term consequences and any off-target effects from CRISPR modifications require proper scrutiny and regulatory oversight to ensure patient safety, informed consent, and just provision of novel therapies for the improper advancement of precision medicine in hematologic malignancies [ 31 ].

The amalgamation of genomics, gene editing, and immunotherapy has shown to be highly beneficial in precision medicine for haematological malignancies, offering personalized therapeutics. Identifying the patient-specific genetic alterations and subsequently screen the genetic modifications by CRISPR and immune-based strategies revolutionize therapeutic results with relatively lesser toxicity [ 32 ]. As research investigates the intricate features of haematologic malignancies, the future holds significant promise for advancements in precision medicine to target medicines, mitigate resistance, and customize treatment strategies. Surmounting challenges and achieving global access to precision medicine may transform standards of care for blood cancer, potentially enhancing survival rates and quality of life [ 33 ]. Blood cancer comprises leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, among other malignancies, which are considered among the most challenging to treat. Conventional treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation improve survival rates, however, they often entail significant side effects and have limited long-term efficacy [ 34 ]. Precision medicine, grounded on genomics and gene editing technologies such as CRISPR, has fundamentally transformed blood cancer therapy by facilitating focused strategies that reduce side effects while enhancing therapeutic efficacy. Such enabling features allow researchers and clinicians to precisely identify oncogenic mutations, tailor treatments to individual patients, and create new immunotherapeutic strategies that harness the immune system of the patient to combat malignancies [ 35 ]. Extensive sequencing initiatives have resulted in substantial findings, including insights into driver mutations and genomic modifications that contribute to disease initiation and progression. Mutations in TP53, FLT3, and JAK2 have been thoroughly investigated in leukaemia, offering significant insights into carcinogenesis and wound healing. Whole-genome and transcriptomic analysis can furthermore classify subtypes of blood cancers, hence facilitating the development of personalized therapeutic protocols [ 36 ]. The combination of bioinformatics and artificial intelligence is facilitating expedited identification of novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets, therefore establishing a precise and refined approach to therapy. Genetic modification techniques CRISPR assumes a prominent role as a potent technique for gene insertion. CRISPR allows precise gene knockouts, insertions, or modifications to correct disease-causing mutations or disrupt oncogenic pathways, reversing changes in drug-resistance gene expression, reinstating chemotherapy sensitivity. CRISPR technology has provided a breakthrough for engineered immune cells, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, which enhance the capacity of the body to diagnose and demolish cancer cells. The promise of gene editing in immunotherapy is exemplified in successful CAR-T cell therapies for the refractory B-cell malignancies [ 37 ]. The use of the immune system for the precise elimination of cancerous blood cells has transformed the whole approach to blood cancer treatment. The remarkable success achieved so far through monoclonal antibodies, immune checkpoint blockers, and adoptive cell transfer treatments has been quite transcendental [ 38 ].

All successes were achieved by integrating genetic insights into the creation of personalized immunotherapies, such as neoantigen-targeted vaccinations and modified T cell therapies. This would open up new avenues by which precision medicine can hold out hope for patients suffering from relapsed or treatment-resistant blood cancers [ 39 ]. Despite advancements, some challenges warrant attention, including the challenge of off-target consequences in gene editing, immune evasion by cancer cells, and the substantial expense of personalized medicines. In addition, it offers optimism when combined with novel genomic profiling technologies, advanced gene editing, and state-of-the-art immunotherapy, which are poised to transform blood cancer treatment through increasingly effective, less toxic, and highly personalized therapeutic approaches in the future [ 40 ]. The integration of innovative technology is expected to enhance blood cancer therapy, ushering in a new age in oncology. The emergence of precision medicine, genomics, and gene editing tools like CRISPR has transformed blood cancer therapy, enabling a more targeted approach to oncogenic gene alterations and enhancing therapeutic outcomes [ 41 ]. Recent advances in precision oncology, particularly concerning mutation identification through genomics and CRISPR-based interventions for gene correction, will all play a major role in understanding how this novel unit depends on employing innovative and cutting-edge techniques. This essay considers the widespread belief that innovative therapeutic routes will lead to vividly improved blood cancer survival and treatment efficiency [ 42 ].

Literature review

Blood cancer

Hematologic malignancy is also known as blood cancer. The discovery of blood cancers goes back millennia, since early writings described what we know today as leukemia. In the 19th century, advancements in science clarified the nature of these disorders [ 43 ]. In 1845, Rudolf Virchow initially used the word leukaemia to describe an aberrant proliferation of white blood cells, a seminal contribution that laid the groundwork for subsequent investigations into the pathogenesis of haematologic malignancies, including leukaemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. Advances brought about by the use of bone marrow biopsies, cytogenetic studies, and molecular studies have Improved classification and diagnosis with respect to blood cancers throughout the 20th century [ 44 ]. The era of chemotherapy between the early and mid-1940s introduced the first successful treatments, with significant improvement in survival.

History, global burden

Advancements in targeted medicines, monoclonal antibodies, and stem cell Transplantations over the late 20th and early 21 st centuries have significantly transformed therapy, enhancing survival and clinical outcomes [ 45 ]. Haematologic malignancies constitute a prevalent Public Health issue globally, with diverse incidence rates across various locations and populations. According to statistics, about 1.24 million new cases worldwide are diagnosed every year, accounting for about 6% of all cancer cases. Haematologic malignancies often manifest as leukaemia (in both children and adults), lymphoma (including Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin variants), and multiple myeloma (predominantly in the elderly). The prevalence of blood cancer varies from place to place because it shows much higher incidence in North America, Europe, and Australia than in places such as Africa and Southeast Asia [ 46 ].

Future projections

Leukaemia is more prevalent in youngsters from industrialized nations compared to other forms, but lymphoma and multiple myeloma are more common in older adults. Differences in genetic predisposition, environmental factors, healthcare access, and diagnostic capabilities contribute to aforementioned discrepancies [ 47 ]. The incidence of blood cancer is anticipated to rise significantly worldwide by 2050 due to factors such as population ageing, Heightened exposure to environmental carcinogens, and advancements in diagnostic technologies, among others. Current projections indicate that the yearly incidence of blood cancer cases may rise to over 2.5 million by 2050, double the current statistics [ 48 ]. The growing elderly population is pivotal for this rise, as certain blood malignancies, including multiple myeloma and some leukaemias, are more prevalent in older adults. Other contributing factors may be lifestyle, including increased exposure to chemicals, radiation, and viral infection, enhances the incidence rates. Due to the swift advancements in genome sequencing and molecular diagnostics, an increase in incidence reports is anticipated [ 49 ].

The rising prevalence of haematologic cancers underscores the urgent need to explore innovative therapeutic modalities, including precision medicine, genomics, and gene-editing technologies like CRISPR [ 50 ]. In the end, these may prove transformational in blood cancer therapy by identifying agents to target oncogenic mutations, increasing the specificity and lessening the toxicity of treatment, and improving patient outcomes. Meticulous medicine allows therapeutic advancement tailored to the individual genetic profile, optimizing treatment efficacy and reducing unwanted effects. Genomics has also revealed important mutations in blood cancer cells, which will lead to the discovery of targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukemia or B-cell receptor inhibitors for lymphomas [ 51 ]. The use of CRISPR gene-editing technology is anticipated to result in advancements in gene correction at the DNA level, perhaps offering a curative solution for individuals afflicted with resistant or recurrent blood malignancies [ 52 ].

Projections indicate that the prevalence of blood cancer is expected to rise globally by 2050. The expected handling of this burden by global healthcare systems is a significant challenge. To alleviate the burden of haematologic malignancies, early diagnosis must be coupled with the assurance of fair access to modern diagnostics and therapeutics, with ongoing innovation in novel pretreatment techniques [ 53 ]. Public health initiatives aim to enhance awareness, promote genetic screening programs, and advance research in immunotherapies, gene editing, and precision medicine [ 54 ]. Collaborative endeavors among governments, academic institutions, and pharmaceutical corporations are crucial for the success of this initiative [ 55 ]. Haematologic malignancies constitute a major worldwide contributor to cancer-related mortality. This group includes leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, with leukemia being the most common [ 56 ]. Blood malignancies are increasingly prevalent globally, with rising prevalence attributed to several factors, including environmental exposure, genetics, and Lifestyle choices. Leukaemia serves as an example, with yearly incidence exceeding 474,500 cases. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma thereafter imposes a demographic burden; nevertheless, certain subtypes have a preponderance in infancy, while others are more prevalent in the old population [ 57 ].

Advances in blood cancer diagnosis

Blood cancers arise from multiple interacting etiological factors, with genetic as well as environmental triggers playing a significant role. Chromosomal abnormalities influencing prognosis include translocation in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and mutations in the TP53 and FLT3 genes. Environmental factors such as radiation, benzene, and some chemotherapy agents are well-established risk factors [ 58 ]. Viral infections are significant contributors to oncogenesis, such as EBV in lymphoma and HTLV-1. A familial history of hematologic malignancies would increase the likelihood of illness manifestation, underscoring the significance of genetic alterations in cancer susceptibility [ 59 ]. Blood cancer disrupts normal hematopoiesis, resulting in severe systemic consequences. Leukemia, a cancer that results in immunological dysfunction and heightened susceptibility to infections, induces anemia and thrombocytopenia owing to bone marrow failure, causing fatigue, bleeding, and bruising. Lymphomas develop from lymphatic tissues and manifest with swollen lymph nodes, night sweats, and weight loss. Multiple myeloma is characterized by the malignancy of plasma cells and causes bone pain, hypercalcemia, and renal insufficiency due to the excess production of monoclonal protein. Blood cancers are aggressive and notably challenging to cure due to their very systemic nature [ 60 ].

Treatment

Advancements in therapeutic techniques have revolutionized the treatment of blood cancer, significantly enhancing survival rates. Chemotherapy is still essential for eliminating cancerous cells, and it’s frequently combined with personalized therapies. Targeted therapies, such as the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib, have transformed the treatment of CML by specifically inhibiting the BCR-ABL fusion protein [ 25 ]. Rituximab and other monoclonal antibodies enhance immune-mediated cytotoxicity by targeting CD20-expressing B-cell lymphomas. Relapsed or resistant blood malignancies have responded significant responsiveness to immunotherapy, especially chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment [ 61 ]. Patients with B-cell malignancies have seen substantial remission rates due to CAR-T treatment, which modifies T cells to recognize certain tumor antigens. CRISPR and other gene editing technologies have great potential for treating hematologic malignancies. CRISPR provides a precision medicine approach by improving immune cell function or repairing oncogenic mutations [ 62 ].

Precision medicine

Advancements in diagnostics increasingly facilitate the early diagnosis of hematologic malignancies, hence enhancing prognosis. Instances in which flow cytometry, next-generation sequencing (NGS), and molecular diagnostics elucidate intricate diagnoses encompass the accurate categorization of hematopoietic malignancies. Utilizing polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and NGS enables clinicians to assess therapy efficacy and predict relapses [ 63 ]. Liquid biopsy, an innovative approach, has provided ground breaking insights into the detection of ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) in blood samples, indicating disease progression in real-time and without being invasive [ 64 ]. These innovations are designed for a personalized, individualized medicine approach, ensuring that each patient receives the appropriate therapy. Significant challenges persist in blood cancer management. Drug resistance, disease recurrence, and treatment-related toxicities persistently impact patient outcomes [ 65 ]. The exploration of potential methods for improvement and therapeutic reversal of resistance is an active area of study. The imminent future of blood cancer treatment is precision medicine, which aims for highly tailored approaches that enhance therapeutic outcomes while minimizing adverse effects [ 66 ].

Molecular landscape of blood cancers

Blood cancers, encompassing leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, emerge from intricate interactions of genetic mutations, epigenetic alterations, and oncogenic signaling pathways. They interrupt normal hematopoiesis by modifying significant regulatory genes and gene products that can govern cell proliferation, differentiation, or apoptosis [ 67 ]. Thus, comprehending the genetic alterations and oncogenic drivers of these conditions is essential for the advancement of precision medicine and targeted therapeutics. Generally, the two types of leukemia-acutes and chronic- exhibit the greatest heterogeneity regarding genetic alterations [ 68 ]. Mutations in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) involving FLT3, NPM1, and DNMT3A induce anomalous signaling and impede differentiation of myeloid progenitors. Moreover, chromosomal translocations like t(15;17) in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) form the fusion gene PML-RARA, blocking retinoic acid receptor signaling and interrupting myeloid maturation [ 69 ]. Translocations like t(9;22) lead to the constitutive activation of the tyrosine kinase activity of the BCR-ABL1 fusion, resulting in unchecked proliferation in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Other important mutations in ALL include changes in IKZF1, CDKN2A/B, and PAX5, which are essential for B-cell differentiation and tumor suppression [ 70 ]. The driving force in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene arising from t(9;22), or Philadelphia chromosome, which causes dysregulated tyrosine kinase activity and over production of mature myeloid cells [ 71 ].

Hodgkin lymphoma

In Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), the Reed-Sternberg cells harbor mutations in JAK2, STAT6, and B2M indicating deregulated cytokine signaling and immune evasion. Non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) form a heterogeneous group of malignancies with varying genetic alterations depending on the subtype [ 72 ]. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the most common NHL, is characterized by frequent mutations in MYC, BCL2, and BCL6, which lead to unregulated cell proliferation and resistance to apoptosis [ 73 ].

Follicular lymphoma

Follicular lymphoma is caused by t(14;18) translocation, resulting inBCL2 overexpression, an anti-apoptotic protein that gives a survival advantage to malignant B cells. Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) harbors t(11;14) translocation, leading to overexpression of CCND1 and subsequently dysregulated cell cycle progression [ 74 ]. Multiple myeloma (MM) is another plasma cell malignancy, defined by various genomic aberrations that lead to a progressive disease state and drug resistance [ 75 ]. Chromosomal aberrations, such as t(4;14) and t(14;16), facilitate the deregulation of the oncogenes FGFR3 and MAF, hence promoting the proliferation of malignant plasma cells. Mutations in KRAS, NRAS, and TP53 synergistically enhance oncogenic signaling pathway activation and tumor suppression mechanism impairment to drive tumor progression [ 76 ]. The bone marrow microenvironment is crucial in supporting myeloma cell facilitated by interactions with stromal cells and cytokine signaling, primarily through IL-6, a key factor in myeloma pathogenesis [ 77 ].

Alteration by methylation

The molecular landscape of blood malignancies is altered by methylation, histone changes, and non-coding RNA dysregulation. The gene silencing and uncontrolled proliferation due to hypermethylation of a tumor suppressor gene like CDKN2A and MLH1 are mostly observed in leukemia and lymphoma. Histone modifications, particularly the deregulation of EZH2 and KMT2D, are associated with aberrant chromatin structure and transcriptional regulation in various hematologic malignancies [ 78 ]. Besides that, non-coding RNAs such as microRNAs, including miR-155 and miR-17-92, are pivotal in modulating several oncogenic pathways and immune evasion. NGS and multi-omics approaches have emerged, ushering in additional insights into the genetic intricacies underlying blood cancers. After the loss of first-generation medications, genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data have improved therapy options for diseases such as CML, B-cell lymphomas, and Hodgkin lymphomas by identifying novel biomarkers and therapeutic targets [ 79 ]. CRISPR gene editing is also being explored to correct mutations and to enhance the immune system-activated therapies like CAR-T cells that have shown tremendous promise in relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. With greater insight into the molecular landscape of blood cancers, developing personalized treatment strategies based on the genetic and epigenetic makeup of each patient will lead us to more rewarding and long-lasting beneficial interferences [ 80 ].

Epigenetic modifications and their role in blood cancer progression

Leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma are blood malignancies profoundly affected by epigenetic changes. Dysregulated epigenetic pathways contribute to neoplastic transformation, treatment resistance, and disease recurrence in hematologic malignancies. In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), aberrant hypermethylation inhibits tumor suppressor genes such as CDKN2A, leading to unregulated proliferation. Conversely, in some blood malignancies, global hypomethylation activates oncogenes and induces genomic instability. The significance of methylation in hematologic malignancies is underscored by common occurrence of mutations in DNA methyltransferases, including DNMT3A and TET2, in myelodysplastic syndromes and AML [ 81 ].

Role of histone alternation

Histone alterations play a crucial role in the development of blood cancer by influencing chromatin accessibility and transcriptional activity. Chromatin open or closed state is determined by histone acetylation which is regulated by histone acetyltransferases (HATs) and histone deacetylases (HDACs). In much leukemia, abnormal HDAC activity causes excessive deacetylation of tumor suppressor genes, leading to transcriptional inactivation. This transcriptional inactivation leads to epigenetic silencing of genes, potentially leading to the development and/or progression of cancer and/or medication resistance [ 82 ]. Additional prevalent instances of non-mutational alterations that epigenetically repress genes encompass histone methylation. All types of histone methylation (H3K9, H3K4, H3K27, etc.) are facilitated by histone methyltransferases (HMTs) and demethylases (HDMs) and can adversely influence critical oncogenic signaling pathways. EZH2, a histone methyltransferase that selectively methylates H3K27, and is often overexpressed in lymphomas, where it represses pro-apoptotic and differentiation genes [ 83 ]. The newly identified non-coding RNAs, specifically microRNAs (miRNAs), and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), recognized as important regulators of epigenetic control in blood cancers. miRNAs regulate post-transcriptional gene expression by either degrading mRNA or limiting translation. Dysregulations seen in miRNAs such as miR-155 and miR-29 are prevalent in leukemia and lymphomas, disrupting pathways primarily associated with proliferation, apoptosis, and immune evasion [ 84 ].

Role in blood cancer progression

Besides, lncRNAs interfere with chromatin structure and gene expression through interaction with transcription factors and epigenetic regulators. The oncogenic signaling pathways have been studied regarding enhancement by lncRNA, MALAT1, in progression of multiple myeloma [ 85 ]. Currently, there is research focused on treatments targeting non-coding RNA, with some demonstrating previously encouraging results in preclinical trials. A significant problem in blood cancer treatment is therapeutic resistance, frequently driven by epigenetic plasticity. Relapse in disease is due to exclusive subpopulations, the leukemic stem cells, that have unique epigenetic profile, allowing them to evade chemotherapy and other types of therapies [ 86 ]. Thus, the combined interest in epigenetic therapy along with conventional treatments to improve clinical outcomes has increased. An example of this is the combination of DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (azacitidine, decitabine) and immune checkpoint blockers showing an enhanced response in cases of AML and myelodysplastic syndromes [ 87 ]. The concurrent suppression of HDAC and BCL-2 exhibited potential synergistic efficacy in resistant leukemia models. Precision medicine and gene editing technologies, particularly CRISPR, have revolutionized the application of such epigenetic modifications in blood cancers [ 88 ]. These CRISPR-based screens have also identified new epigenetic regulators whose functions are major in leukemic survival, thus paving the way for new therapeutic targets. Another innovative epigenome editing approach is the use of dCas9-fused epigenetic enzymes to precisely modulate gene expression in cancer cells, providing a very directed approach to undo aberrant epigenetic changes [ 89 ].

The upcoming events in blood cancer treatment converge on epigenetics, immunotherapy, and gene editing. Tumor microenvironmental signals shape the epigenetic landscape, with the potential to expand anti-tumor immunity through targeting epigenetic regulators within immune cells. CAR T cell treatments have revolutionized the therapy paradigm for haematologic malignancies, and further enhancements in therapeutic effectiveness and durability may be realised through the integration of epigenetic modification techniques [ 62 ]. The function of epigenetic alterations in the development and progression of blood malignancies encompasses several facets, including gene expression, therapeutic response, and immune evasion. Innovative precision-oriented transformative strategies utilizing epigenetic inhibitors, RNA-based therapies, and epigenetic genome editing approaches will further propel the advancement of precision medicine in haematologic malignancies. Ongoing research aimed at elucidating the interplay between the epigenome, immunological oncobiology, and genetic alterations will persist in producing novel treatment solutions for patients with blood cancer [ 90 ].

Emerging biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis

Recent advances in emerging biomarkers have accelerated early diagnosis and prognosis, facilitating the development of tiered therapy strategies. Recent research has identified many indicators related to the molecular foundation of haematologic malignancies for their diagnosis, as well as for forecasting progression and treatment response. Genetic mutations, epigenetic modifications, protein expression patterns may constitute significant categories of biomarkers that are transforming the clinical landscape [ 63 ]. A prospective biomarker for blood cancer that may now be advanced is circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Non-invasive liquid biopsy methods detect genetic alterations in hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. With ctDNA, we could monitor the progression of the disease, identify minimal residual disease (MRD), and evaluate treatment response [ 91 ]. Mutational profiling of genes such asTP53, FLT3, and DNMT3A in ctDNA has been conducted, significantly enhancing the comprehension of tumour heterogeneity and the risk of recurrence. In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), certain gene mutations are key diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. NPM1 mutations are associated with favorable prognosis, whereas FLT3-ITD mutations point toward poor prognosis and resistance to standard therapies (Table 1 ) [ 92 ]. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations also influence metabolic pathways and epigenetic control, serving as new targets for precision medicine. Meanwhile, second-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have cautiously entered the realm of detecting these genetic anomalies, hence enhancing risk classification with more precision for personalized treatment strategies [ 93 ].

Epigenetic alterations

Epigenetic alterations, particularly in patterns of DNA methylation, are crucial in hematologic malignancies. This atypical methylation of tumor suppressor genes including CDKN2A and SOCS1, contribute to leukemogenesis and disease progression. Hyper-DNA methylation of the DAPK1 promoter correlates with poor prognosis in (CLL), enhancing the prospect of using epigenetic biomarkers to guide therapy choices. The emergence of demethylating drugs such as azacitidine and decitabine has broadened scope of treatment strategies targeting the epigenetic profile [ 94 ]. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have recently emerged as crucial regulators of gene expression, prompting significant investigation into their potential application as blood-based diagnostics for leukaemia and lymphoma. The distinct expression patterns of specific miRNAs have been documented in various hematologic malignancies, with individual miRNAs acting as indicators of disease subtype and progression. For example, miR-155, is upregulated in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and correlates with aggressive behavior of the disease. Decreased expression of miR-15a and miR-16 in CLL correlates with increased tumor presence. In this context, miRNA assays show promise for application in clinical situations for early diagnosis and therapy evaluation [ 95 ].

Identification of surface markers

Immunophenotyping by flow cytometry has greatly facilitated the identification of surface markers for malignant cells from normal ones. A prevalent marker among users is CD33 expression, which signifies myeloid leukaemia, alongside the often utilized CD19 and CD20 expressions in B-cell malignancies. Additionally, recognized immunophenotypic markers such as CD123, acute myeloid leukemia, and CD200 in CLL are being further investigated for their prospective diagnostic and prognostic value. The integration of immunophenotypic profiling with genomic and transcriptomic analyses enhances precision of disease classification and risk assessment [ 96 ]. The tumor microenvironment is progressively being used as an immune-derived biomarker owing to its significant role in various processes. Soluble PD-L1 levels have been defined as possible prognostic markers in Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma, elucidating immune evasion mechanisms [ 97 ]. Elevated concentration of these two proinflammatory cytokines is often present in patients with severe disease and those exhibiting resistant to chemotherapy. Increased understanding of how malignant cells interact with the immune system may facilitate the development of novel immunotherapeutic techniques [ 98 ]. Progress in metabolomics has revealed metabolic biomarkers in blood cancer-associated patients. Alterations in different biochemical features of energy metabolism, amino acid pathways, and Lipid biosynthesis have been described among patients with leukemia and lymphoma. Presence of elevated oncometabolites, such as the 2-hydroxyglutarate found in IDH-mutated AML, establishes a metabolic profile for disease monitoring and therapeutic targeting. Integration of metabolomics and multi-omics will advance biomarker discovery and facilitate tailored therapies [ 99 ].

Detection of minimal residual disease tool

Detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) has gained importance as a prognostic tool in hematologic malignancies and sensitive MRD detection techniques include digital PCR and NGS-based MRD assays to translate residual leukemic cell inference below the detectable threshold [ 100 ]. The elevated likelihood of recurrence in MRD-positivity post-therapy indicates the necessity for increased treatment or allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Integration of MRD status into treatment protocols enhances risk-adjusted therapy approaches. Furthermore, advancements in proteomics have led to the discovery of new protein-based biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of blood cancer [ 101 ]. Myeloma patients often have elevated beta-2 macroglobulin levels, while patients with aggressive lymphomas demonstrated higher LDH levels. The latest advancement in using specific proteins in therapeutic targeting such as BCL-2 in CLL and BTK in mantle cell lymphoma, has transformed therapy management strategies. Exosome biomarkers continue to signify the forthcoming advancements in hematologic malignancies. Exosomes, tiny extracellular vesicles secreted by cancer cells, transport nucleic acids and proteins that mirror tumor behavior [ 102 ]. Exosomal RNA and proteins allow researchers to comprehend disease progression and resistance mechanisms. However, elevated levels of exosome miR-150 and miR-451 are indicative of a poorer prognosis in leukemia patients, which highlights these molecules as possible noninvasive biomarkers for monitoring clinical status [ 103 ].

Artificial intelligence (AI) in blood cancer

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning are revolutionizing blood cancer diagnostics in biomarker identification. The algorithms driven by AI analyze multi-omics data to uncover novel biomarker signatures with excellent prediction accuracy. While deep learning models trained on genomic, transcriptomic, and imaging datasets facilitate early detection and prognostication of blood cancers, integrating AI with precision medicine is expected to fast-track the transformation of biomarkers into clinical applications [ 104 ]. Genetic mutations, epigenetic alterations, miRNAs, immunophenotypic markers, and metabolic signatures provide insights into disease biology [ 105 ]. NGS, liquid biopsy, and AI-based analytics are enhancing biomarker identification, leading to improved early detection, risk stratification, and personalized treatment for hematologic malignancies, ultimately improving patient outcomes [ 106 ].

Cell signaling pathways in blood cancer progression

PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway – targeting metabolic regulation in cancer cells

Cell signaling is crucial for cellular processes, with aberration being a hallmark in cancers, including blood cancers. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, a well-studied pathway during oncogenesis, is essential for metabolic regulation, cellular growth, and survival. In blood cancer therapy, targeting this pathway opens up new avenues for oncogenic gene modulation and immunotherapeutic strategies through precision medicine, genomics, and gene-editing technologies like CRISPR. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway reacts to external stimuli, including growth factors and immunological modulators, via activation by receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), cytokine receptors, and integrins [ 107 ]. Once the ligand binds, receptor autophosphorylation takes place and delivers the signal to p110 in the recruitment of phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3KPhosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) is changed by PI3K into phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-triphosphate (PIP3), a crucial second messenger that is thought to serve as a binding site for proteins that have pleckstr in homology (PH) domains, such as AKT [ 108 ]. As a serine/threonine kinase, AKT inhibits apoptosis by phosphorylating downstream targets such glycogen synthase kinase 3 beta (GSK3β) and the pro-apoptotic BCL-2 family member BAD. Simultaneously, it stimulates cell proliferation, glucose metabolism, and survival [ 109 ] (Fig. 1 ).

mTOR effectors

The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a downstream effector and a key element of the AKT signaling pathway, consisting of two distinct complexes, the mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling pathway and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2). The mTORC1 pathway controls protein synthesis, ribosomal biogenesis, and autophagy by activating p70S6 kinase (S6K1) and inhibiting eukaryotic translation initiation factor-4E-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1). Conversely, mTORC2 phosphorylates AKT, thereby facilitating cytoskeleton organization and promoting cell survival, thus imparting pro-oncogenic functions [ 110 ]. In blood malignancies, unregulated proliferation, drug resistance, and immune evasion are attributable to PI3K/AKT/mTOR axis constitutive activation driven by genetic mutations, PTEN loss, or aberrant receptor signaling. Precision medicine utilizes genetic profiling to detect all changes along this route, enabling strategically targeted therapeutic intervention. Small-molecule inhibitors, including PI3K inhibitors (idelalisib, duvelisib) (Table 1 ), AKT inhibitors (capivasertib, ipatasertib), and mTOR inhibitors (rapamycin, everolimus), have been evaluated in preclinical and clinical trials in blood cancers. Combination strategies are being investigated to improve therapeutic efficacy, given the redundancy of pathways and feedback activation associated with these inhibitors, alongside immunotherapies such as monoclonal antibodies and CAR T-cell therapy [ 111 ] (Fig. 2 ).

Gene-editing techniques

Gene-editing techniques provide significant opportunity to address oncogenic drivers within the PI3K/AKT/mTOR axis, especially the CRISPR technology. CRISPR facilitates the alteration of gene components within the system, enabling the targeted elimination of mutant PI3K isoforms, gain-of-function AKT mutations, or hyperactive mTOR variants can be performed in blood cancer cells. CRISPR could also be used to bring the expression back of tumor-suppressor genes like PTEN that would negatively regulate the pathway, thus bringing down the survival and proliferation potential of cancer cells. Meanwhile, immune therapeutic interventions are being refined by enhancing PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling to bolster strengthen T-cell persistence and cytotoxic functions, particularly in relation to CAR-T cell therapy [ 112 ]. Selectively counteracting PI3Kδ, which is highly expressed in hematopoietic cells, holds promise for enhancing CAR-T cell therapies for the treatment of B-cell malignancies. The targeted inhibition of PI3Kδ by agents like duvelisib enhances T-cell activation and mitigates their depletion, resulting in sustained anti-tumor responses. Furthermore, modulating mTOR activity in CAR-T cells enhances their metabolic fitness for the eradication of hematological malignancies [ 113 ]. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway and immune checkpoint molecules, PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 operative in immune evasion from the tumor. Cancer cells utilize this pathway to upregulate PD-L1 expression, hence suppressing T-cell function. Investigators propose collaborating with immune checkpoint inhibitors and PI3K/mTOR inhibitors to deactivate this suppression and then reinstate anti-cancer immunity [ 114 ]. The combination of various omics approaches, like single-cell RNA sequencing and proteomics can further illuminate our understanding of heterogeneity in PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling in blood cancers. The high-throughput technologies assist in identifying new druggable targets and resistance mechanisms and designating them for the development of next-generation precision medicine initiatives. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway shines as a key node in blood cancer cell signaling and therapeutic targeting through precision medicine, genomics, and gene editing have much promise [ 115 ]. The goal of researchers is to use CRISPR-based gene editing, targeted inhibitors, and immunotherapeutic interventions together to induce durable remissions and improved survival for patients with hematologic malignancies. The impending prosperous age will transform the whole paradigm of managing blood malignancies through individualized and highly effective treatment techniques [ 116 ] (Fig. 3 ).

JAK/STAT signaling – role in hematopoiesis and malignancy

The JAK/STAT pathway plays an important role in hematological, particularly blood cancers. It regulates cellular functions like proliferation, differentiation, survival, and immune response. Aberrations in this pathway contribute to the development of leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloproliferative disorders. The pathway creates by cytokine interaction with a specific cell, activating Janus kinases (JAKs) [ 117 ]. These JAKs then act as docking sites for STATs, phosphorylating intracellular domains of cytokine receptors. Phosphorylation causes JAKs to dimerize, getting into the nucleus, and control gene expression and cellular destiny [ 118 ]. Hematopoiesis under normal conditions has shown that this signaling is strictly controlled to guarantee the appropriate synthesis of blood cells. EPO stimulates the differentiation of erythroid cells via activated JAK2, while TPO activates JAK2 and elicits the differentiation of megakaryocytes with JAK1 and JAK2 activation concerning the neutrophil production. The failure of this route results in unregulated multiplication of hematopoietic stem cells, which is characteristic of a number of hematologic malignancies. Most mutations affecting JAK2, especially JAK2 V617F, have been linked to myeloproliferative neoplasms, such as polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and myelofibrosis. This mutation results in heightened activity of JAK2, rendering it perpetually active and hence facilitating continuous signaling through STATs that influences cell development. STAT3 and STAT5 mutations have been identified as potential causes of leukemogenesis, enhancing survival and proliferation in ALL and CML, respectively [ 119 ].

Among the major contributory factors for hematological malignancies, several forms of leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloproliferative syndromes have their aberrations in the pathway [ 120 ]. The activation of the pathway, rendering cytokine or growth factor binding to certain specific receptors, results in JAK activation, whereas phosphorylation of the intracellular domains of those cytokine receptors to form docking sites for STATs after they are activated is realized through phosphorylation by JAKs. The next steps include phosphorylation, dimerization, and translocation into the nucleus of these proteins, regulating gene expression [ 121 ]. Appropriate balance maintains that erythroid differentiation by the EPO activates JAK2, whereas megakaryocyte development is EPO-dependent, causing JAK2 activation from TPO, whereas G-CSF works through various JAKs- JAK1 and JAK2 [ 122 ]. On the contrary, this mis regulation causes uncontrolled proliferation from hematopoietic stem cells, a typical property of several hematologic malignancies. Gain of function in the mutation leads to the permanent activation of JAK2, resulting in an induced and constant activation state of STAT signaling and ultimately uncontrolled growth. Likewise, mutations in STAT3 and STAT5 are known to be implicated in leukemogenesis by enhancing the survival and proliferation of cells in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) [ 123 ].

EPO activates JAK2, directing red cell differentiation; TPO activates JAK2, resulting in megakaryocytes; and G-CSF operates through both JAK1 and JAK2, producing neutrophilic effects. However, dysregulation of that gives rise to the proliferation of uncontrolled hematopoietic stem cells, which are typical of many of the hematologic malignancies [ 124 ]. The most frequently observed JAK2 mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are those with the V617F change. Various types of MPNs are associated with such mutations, including polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, and myelofibrosis [ 125 ]. This mutation results in a gain of function of the JAK2 gene and leads to the continuous activation of the gene without any activation of the CANONICAL signaling cascade from STAT, and also a noninduced activation state of STAT signaling, which leads to continuous cell growth. In the same way, mutations in STAT3 and STAT5 are known to be involved in leukemogenesis, causing the increased survival and proliferation of cells in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) [ 126 ] (Fig. 4 ).

Progress in mature generation genomics facilitates the identification of novel mutations in JAK/STAT pathways, which may be incorporated into individualized therapeutic strategies based on genetic profiles. With next-generation sequencing (NGS), it is possible to identify massively that mutation-related evidence of oncogenic mutations could allow for more effective physical targeting of the aberrant signaling networks. Nevertheless, JAK/STAT may cause immune evasion by up-regulation of immune checkpoint molecules such as PD-L1; therefore, these can be considered for combination therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors to achieve a fully functional anti-tumor immune response [ 127 ].Currently, targeting the JAK/STAT pathway is emerging as a new and promising approach in blood cancer therapies, made even more important through precision medicine. Small molecule inhibitors such as ruxolitinib and fedratinib act in a JAK2-mutated myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) context by inhibiting hyperactive signaling through JAKs, reducing abnormal hematopoiesis and symptomatic disease [ 128 ]. Progress in mature generation genomics facilitates the identification of novel mutations in JAK/STAT pathways, which may be incorporated into individualized therapeutic strategies based on genetic profiles. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) enables the identification of extensive mutation-related evidence of oncogenic alterations, facilitating more efficient targeting of aberrant signaling networks [ 129 ]. Immunotherapy has cast a new light on the treatment of blood cancers in this aspect through the JAK/STAT pathway. For example, IL-2 and IFNs are cytokines activating JAK/STAT signaling by induction of T-cell growth and NK-cell activity that are recognized to be crucial for anti-tumor immune responses. The development of CAR-T cell treatment represents a significant advancement in immunotherapy, utilizing the JAK/STAT pathway to enhance the persistence and cytotoxicity of modified T cells targeting malignant cells. CAR-T treatment involves the genetic modification of T cells to express receptor structures designed to target particular tumor antigens for the precise eradication of hematological malignancies [ 129 ].

Notch signaling – dysregulation in leukemia and lymphoma

Cell signaling has been very critical in the pathogenesis of blood cancers, including leukemia and lymphoma, facilitating oncogenesis by promoting malignant transformation, uncontrolled proliferation, and resistance to apoptosis. Among the various cancers, hematological malignancies made Notch signaling a major player that sees to the normal hematopoiesis involved in leukemogenesis when dysregulated [ 130 ]. Understanding the complexities of such a target like Notch, its inappropriate activation in blood cancers, and putative utilization as a therapeutic target, enhances the important aspects of precision medicine and gene-editing modalities such as CRISPR. Notch signaling is an evolutionarily preserved cell communication pathway-the Notch pathway-concerned with regulating cell fate decisions, differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis through the interplays between Notch receptors (Notch1-Notch4) and their ligands: Delta-like (DLL1, DLL3, DLL4) and Jagged (Jagged1, Jagged2) [ 131 ]. The classic Notch pathway activation involves the interaction of a ligand cell with a Notch receptor in a neighboring cell, inducing a cascade of proteolytic cleavages by ADAM proteases and the γ-secretase complex [ 132 ]. In this cleavage, the Notch Intracellular Domain (NICD) is then liberated and translocate to the nucleus, where it interacts with the transcriptional regulator RBP-J and co-activators to drive the expression of target genes involved in cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation [ 133 ].

The modulation of Notch signaling, which is important to proper hematopoiesis, is under stringent control to maintain homeostasis within the hematopoietic stem cell niche [ 134 ]. Nonetheless, the disruption of Notch signaling constitutes a pathogenic occurrence in the majority of hematological malignancies, particularly T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (T-ALLs). The activating mutations in the NOTCH1 gene have been revealed in more than 50% of the cases [ 135 ]. Many of these mutations result in the truncation of the PEST domain (proline, glutamic acid, serine, threonine), often causing NICD breakdown under normal conditions [ 136 ]. Thus, PEST truncation results in indefinite nuclear retention and continuous transcriptional activation of Notch target genes ranging from MYC, HES1, to DELTEX1. Persistent activation of Notch in T-ALL provides self-renewal conditions that, instead of allowing differentiation, enable it to survive; thus, being the dominant oncogenic factor [ 137 ]. In contrast, the manifestation of Notch signaling during B-cell malignancies like chronic lymphocytic leukemia and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is more context-dependent. Loss-of-function mutations, typically affecting aspects of Notch signaling, such as E3 ubiquitin ligase FBXW7 responsible for NICD degradation, are frequently highlighted in CLL. This eliminates Notch activation; yet, it may also have tumor suppressive characteristics under certain situations. CLL is among the examples where loss of function is associated with malignancy associated [ 138 ]. Generally, mutagenesis of NOTCH1 and NOTCH2 undergoes several routes towards B-cell transformation by interference in and modulation of B-cell receptor (BCR) signaling while bolstering survival for the tumor cell in diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. Furthermore, Notch signaling interacts with NF-κB and PI3K/AKT pathways to maintain its malignant character [ 139 ].

Notch signaling has been considered a potential target for therapy with regard to the role it plays in the pathogenesis of blood cancers. γ-secretase inhibitors (GSIs), which obstruct the production of NICD, have demonstrated potential in preclinical and early clinical studies of T-ALL and other Notch-driven malignancies [ 140 ]. Investigated strategies for enhancing specificity and reducing adverse effects encompass monoclonal antibodies targeting Notch receptors or ligands, as well as small-molecule inhibitors that obstruct the interaction between NICD and RBP-J [ 141 ]. Recent advances in precision medicine and gene-editing technologies, especially CRISPR, have almost opened up new avenues toward the modulation of Notch signaling in blood cancers. Accurate rectifications of gain-of-function NOTCH1 mutations in T-ALL using CRISPR-based gene editing or selective knock out of oncogenic Notch pathway constituents in B-cell malignancies are feasible [ 142 ]. Synthetic biology techniques are also being developed to engineer CAR-T cells linked with Notch signaling so that their therapeutic potency can be enhanced against leukemic cells. Consequently, the integration of genomic-level targeted medicines with gene editing appears to foster growing optimism for a transformative approach to treating blood malignancies through the manipulation of Notch signaling [ 143 ].

MAPK/ERK pathway – role in proliferation and targeted therapies

The MAPK/ERK pathway is a chief signaling cascade for a number of important cellular processes, particularly blood cancer development, proliferation, and survival. This route is typically closely monitored under physiological settings; however, in cancer situations such as leukemia and lymphoma, this regulation is often disrupted. It serves as an important vector for oncogenic transformation, transmitting extracellular signals from membrane receptors to an array of intracellular effectors, inducing gene transcription, and modifying cellular behavior accordingly [ 144 ]. This signal transduction pathway becomes activated upon growth factors or cytokines engaging receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), inducing their autophosphorylation and recruiting adaptor proteins such as GRB2 and SOS to RAS [ 145 ]. RAS is then activated, leading to downstream RAF kinases, ARAF, BRAF, or CRAF. Activated RAF then phosphorylates and activates MEK1/2. MEK1/2 then phosphorylates ERK1/2 and promotes ERK nuclear translocation. Within the nucleus, ERK phosphorylates various transcription factors, including ELK1 and c-MYC, thereby stimulating cell cycle progression and the expression of anti-apoptotic genes [ 146 ].

Targeting the MAPK/ERK pathway in precision medicine has been recognized as a possible treatment for hematologic malignancies. Mutations mostly in RAS gene heterodimeric forms such as NRAS and KRAS are common in acute myeloid leukemia- complicating unregulated cellular proliferation-associated resistance to standard therapies [ 76 ]. Mutations of RAF, especially BRAF have been associated with some hematologic malignancies. A variety of small molecule inhibitors targeting this cascade have been discovered, including the MEK inhibitors trametinib and binimetinib, which impede the activation of ERK and thus disrupt aberrant downstream oncogenic signaling [ 147 ]. However, resistance has occurred in most cases due to compensative pathway activation or by feedback loops combination methods, MEK inhibitors with additional specific agents, such as PI3K or JAK inhibitors, will be investigated less than now to overcome resistance development and increase efficacy [ 148 ].

A sequence of genetic findings has facilitated the identification of various mutations and anomalies impacting the MAPK/ERK pathway, hence improving patient classification and treatment selection [ 149 ]. With next-generation sequencing and single-cell transcriptomics, researchers are gradually uncovering clonal heterogeneity in haematologic malignancies and the distinct signalling abnormalities present in subpopulations of malignant cells [ 150 ]. This has led to the development of personalized treatment regimens according to specific mutational profiles. CRISPR-based genome editing has enhanced the precision of manipulating oncogenic drivers in this pathway. For instance, with CRISPR, hematopoietic stem cells targeted for blood cancer can be treated by knocking out of mutant alleles or correcting oncogenic mutations, perhaps resulting in a cure [ 151 ]. The combination of immunotherapies with MAPK/ERK-targeted therapies has yielded encouraging results. ERK signaling modulates immune evasion mechanisms by regulating the expression of immune checkpoint molecules like PD-L1. Inhibition of this pathway restores anti-tumor immunity, bringing blood cancers within reach of immune checkpoint blockade therapy [ 80 ]. CAR T-cell therapy has recently gained attention for the treatment of hematologic malignancies, and this treatment is improving further through CRISPR-based gene editing aimed at rendering it effective against MAPK/ERK-driven cancers. CAR T cells will be designed to possess unexpected potency by silencing inhibitory genes or including synthetic circuits that diminish oncogenic signalling, enabling them to eliminate previously resistant leukaemia and lymphoma cells [ 152 ] (Fig. 5 ).

Despite these developments, the full utilization and exploitation of MAPK/ERK in therapeutic uses has proven challenging. Drug resistance, possible off-target effects of genome editing, and dynamic interplay of tumor microenvironments with the host need constant optimization of therapeutic strategies [ 153 ]. The combinatorial potentials offered by all of these, particularly precision medicine CRISPR-based gene editing, and immunotherapy, are indeed very promising in hematological cancer treatment. Future study will perfect these strategies for effective health benefits with low toxicity, resulting in extremely effective and personalized blood disease treatments [ 154 ].

The role of MAPK/ERK signaling in hematologic malignancies

Deregulation of the MAPK/ERK pathway occurs frequently in haematologic malignancies, and it contributes directly to their pathophysiology. Mutations in RAS (NRAS, KRAS), BRAF (V600E), or MEK1/MEK2, as well as aberrant expression or mutations in upstream receptors, enable sustained signaling independent of external growth signals [ 155 ]. This results in enhanced cellular proliferation and resistance to apoptosis, thereby promoting disease progression. For instance, NRAS mutations are frequently encountered in acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) up to 30% of cases and are associated with aggressive disease and poor prognosis [ 149 ]. Mutations in BRAF, predominantly the V600E variant, are a hallmark in Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL) and a small subset of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL). The constitutive activity stemming from these mutations drives a strong and sustained MAPK/ERK signaling output, which underpins the growth and resistance to standard chemotherapeutic regimes [ 156 ]. Many hematologic malignancies exhibit abnormalities in upstream RTKs (such as FLT3 in AML or KIT in Mast Cell Disease), which further activate this cascade and contribute to their pathogenesis. Furthermore, signals from their microenvironment, including growth factors and cytokines, can potentiate MAPK/ERK activity, adding layer of complexity to disease progression [ 117 ].

Targeted therapeutic strategies against MAPK/ERK signaling

Because of its central role in driving hematologic malignancies, the MAPK/ERK pathway has become a major target for therapeutic intervention. Several strategies to inhibit this cascade are currently under investigation or in clinical use. MEK Inhibitors (MEKi). Agents such as trametinib, cobimetinib, and binimetinib directly inhibit MEK1/MEK2 activity, thereby reducing the transmission of signals toward ERK [ 157 ]. This approach has shown activity in melanoma and many hematologic disorders, especially in cases with BRAF or RAS mutations. However, resistance mechanisms frequently emerge due to secondary mutations or upregulation of alternative signaling routes. BRAF Inhibitors (BRAFi) selective inhibitors, including vemurafenib and dabrafenib, target the mutated BRAF V600E directly, yielding dramatic responses in HCL and melanoma [ 153 ]. Nevertheless, resistance typically develops due to reactivation of MAPK signaling or secondary mutations in MEK or RAS. RAS Inhibitors: Targeting RAS directly has been a longstanding challenge due to its high binding affinity for GTP. However, covalent inhibitors of mutant KRAS G12C (such as Sotorasib and Adagrasib) have recently demonstrated potent activity in solid tumors and are currently under investigation for their potential applications in hematologic disorders [ 158 ]. Combination therapeutic approaches to maximize efficacy and delay resistance, combinations of MEK and BRAF inhibitors are frequently used (such as Dabrafenib plus Trametinib) in melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. Furthermore, adding PI3K, BTK, or CDK inhibitors alongside MAPK/ERK pathway components is a growing area of investigation in hematologic malignancies [ 159 ].

Future directions and clinical impact

Targeted inhibition of the MAPK/ERK pathway holds great promise for improving the outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies. Comprehensive genomic profiling can aid in identifying patients whose disease is driven by abnormalities within this signaling cascade, thereby guiding the application of tailored therapeutic strategies. Understanding mechanisms of resistance, metabolic reprogramming, and crosstalk with other signaling cascades (such as PI3K/AKT or JAK/STAT) will enable the design of combination therapies with greater and more durable responses [ 160 ]. Lastly, ongoing research into MEK and ERK allosteric inhibitors, PROTACs (Proteolysis-targeting chimeras), and RAS-specific drugs promises to enable even more sophisticated and potent interventions in the future. The ultimate aim is not only to prolong survival but to achieve a state of disease eradication with minimal side effects, turning aggressive hematologic disorders into manageable or even curable conditions [ 161 ].

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in blood cancer research

GWAS have become a key technique for identifying blood cancer genetic variants. Genetic data from large populations are examined to identify SNPs statistically associated with different susceptibilities to diseases. Blood cancers include a number of diseases-transformation of cells in the blood, such as leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma-that, being complex traits, experience varied influence by genetic and environmental interactions, hence GWAS are deemed crucial in deciphering their genetic architecture [ 162 ]. Their increasing importance has invigorated the discipline to adopt advancements in genomic technology and optimize their use alongside advanced statistical techniques to discover new genetic risk factors, enhance illness categorization, and explore diverse therapeutic targets. GWAS employs several significant SNPs examined on high-throughput genotyping technologies to ensure genome-wide coverage [ 163 ]. The research begins with the choice of case-and-control cohorts, wherein individuals under observation are compared with healthy controls. Genome-wide SNP genotyping is accomplished by microarrays or next-generation sequencing methods, yielding a substantial collection of genetic variation information [ 164 ]. The association between these SNPs and the risk of developing blood cancers is then tested statistically, usually using logistic regression while adjusting for factors such as population stratification, age, sex, and other confounding factors. For GWAS, one of the cornerstones of the project is quality control, which ensures that genotyped SNPs fulfil rigorous cut-off criteria regarding call rates, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and minor allele frequencies [ 165 ].

Population stratification is the primary issue encountered in GWAS, characterized by genetic variations among individuals that indicate ancestry rather than a correlation with disease [ 166 ]. Principal component analysis (PCA) or mixed-model approaches rectify these biases, resulting in a more precise correlation of SNPs to diseases. The significance threshold in GWAS research is adjusted for multiple tests through the Bonferroni correction or false discovery rate (FDR) study, ensuring that only robust relationships are classified as significant [ 167 ]. Upon identifying significant SNPs, various functional annotation tools like ENCODE, GTEx, and expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) analysis-can be employed to associate genetic variants with alterations in gene expression in blood cancer cells, thereby elucidating their biological relevance [ 168 ]. Quite a few GWAS have identified susceptibility loci with respect to blood cancers. An exemplary case is acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), In which recent SNPs identified, ARID5B, IKZF1, and GATA3, are associated with lymphoid development and leukemogenesis. GWAS in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) have identified SNPs in the HLA region and linked with mediators IRF4 and BCL2, regulating immune response and apoptosis, respectively [ 169 ]. Similarly, multiple myeloma GWAS investigations have pinpointed risk variants at loci such as 16q23 (WWOX) and 3p22 (ULK4), indicating genetic pathways linked to plasma cell dysregulation and interactions with the bone marrow microenvironment [ 169 ].

A prominent advantage of GWAS in the field of blood cancer research is that it reinforces precision medicine. GWAS results shifting towards functional genetics and transcriptomics facilitate the identification of critical biological pathways that propel disease development. This results in the creation of tailored medicines like monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule inhibitors aimed targeting oncogenic signaling pathways. In addition, GWAS findings enhance risk stratification models, thus enabling personalized treatment approaches based on an individual’s genetic make-up [ 170 ]. Patients having high-risk SNPs would then qualify for enhanced therapies or early treatments, while patients with protective genetic variants may get more conservative treatment strategy. However, GWAS research on blood cancers exhibit several constrains [ 171 ]. Most GWAS have been predominantly performed on European populations, limiting generalizability among different ethnic groups. Extending GWAS to underrepresented populations is necessary to reveal population-segregated risk variants and to redress health disparities in blood cancer outcomes [ 172 ]. Moreover, the foundation of GWAS is just to discover SNPs linked to conditions, without elucidating the causative processes of any trait, which must be confirmed by functional investigations utilizing CRISPR-based gene editing, single-cell sequencing, and organoid models [ 173 ]. Future directions in GWAS in blood cancer are likely to include the development of polygenic risk scores (PRS), which will amalgamate the influences of several SNPs to enhance disease risk prediction. Machine learning algorithms are integrated with GWAS data in search of complex genetic interactions, hence enhancing predictive models [ 174 ]. Then, multi-omics approaches simultaneously drawing on GWAS and epigenomics, metabolomics, and proteomics are expected to offer a more comprehensive understanding of blood cancer pathogenesis. GWAS studies have advanced blood cancer research by identifying genetic variations associated with disease susceptibility, improving risk projections, and facilitating precision medicine approaches. Future enhancement of genomic technology and improvement of computational methods will keep refining GWAS findings into novel therapeutic avenues and personalized treatment approaches in hematologic malignancies [ 175 ].

Identified susceptibility loci for hematologic malignancies

Genetic susceptibility loci have been identified for various hematologic malignancies, reinforcing the genetic foundation blood cancers. Numerous GWAS have found various loci associated with heightened risks for various hematologic malignancies. Variations in many genes associated with cell cycle regulation, DNA repair, immune function, and hematopoiesis have been linked to disease risk [ 1 ]. For example, SNPs at loci 5q, 6p, 7q, and 9p have been linked with ALL and CLL. In particular, the gene for the transcriptional regulator ARID5B has been consistently associated with ALL susceptibility, especially in childhood cases [ 176 ]. Others include genes like IKZF1, which encodes a zinc-finger transcription factor involved in lymphoid differentiation and has been implicated in leukemogenesis. In the case of lymphoma, susceptibility loci in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region on chromosome 6 have been found to be strongly associated with the etiology of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Genetic variations in the BCL2, BCL6, and MYC oncogenes have also been implicated with an increased risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) [ 48 ].

The rs2736100 variant of the TERT gene, which encodes telomerase reverse transcriptase, has been found to be associated with increased susceptibility to many hematologic malignancies including myeloma and myelodysplastic syndromes. For multiple myeloma, there are GWAS studies loci in risk genes such as CCND1, CDKN2A/B, and TNFRSF17, etc., which play important roles in cell cycle control and immune signaling [ 177 ]. Variants in the 14q32 region have been linked to the risk of developing myeloma, as they affect the immunoglobulin heavy chain locus (IGH). Another association is through the rs4487645 SNP in the PSORS1C1 gene that is connected to the risk of plasma cell disorders [ 178 ]. Other polymorphisms in DNA repair genes XRCC1, XRCC3, and RAD51 exhibit clear association with genetic susceptibility to these hematologic neoplasms. Deficiencies in DNA repair pathways lead to generating genomic instability, and hence, predispose to malignancy transformation in hematopoietic cells [ 179 ]. Further, epigenetic modifications like DNA methylation and histones also mediate susceptibility to hematological malignancies. These variations in genes involved in the regulation of epigenetic modification such as DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1 can increase risk. These findings demonstrate the intricate interplay between genetic and environmental factors in hematologic malignancies, which might facilitate personalized medicine strategies for early identification and treatment [ 180 ].

Functional validation of GWAS-identified genes in blood cancers

The identification of several risk-associated genetic loci has transformed the conventional understanding of blood malignancies and their genetic vulnerability. Nonetheless, the biological significance of most of these loci remains uncertain without functional validation [ 181 ]. Advancing functional genomics investigations like CRISPR, RNA interference (RNAi), and gene expression analysis will be crucial in the accurate functional validation of GWAS-identified genes in hematological malignancies. This could be translated finally into applied medicine, resulting in improved tailored treatment that enhance patients outcome. Many GWAS have successfully mapped genetic variants to blood cancers, implicating the genes into hematopoiesis, immune regulation, and the oncogenic transformation process [ 182 ]. The polymorphism in the ARID5B gene has been associated with ALL, suggesting its involvement in leukemogenesis. Functional studies have demonstrated that ARID5B affects lymphoid lineage commitment through knockdown experiments which have indicated its influence on cell proliferation and differentiation. Likewise, the IKZF1 gene, which encodes the transcription factor Ikaros, was identified as a significant contributor to the pathogenesis of ALL. CRISPR-mediated deletion of IKZF1 produces differentiated B-cell progenitors, hence confirming its involvement in leukemogenesis [ 183 ].

The multistep process of myeloma was elucidated by GWAS, highlighting the significance of the 17p13.1 region, which transcribes the tumor suppressor gene TP53. Functional studies confirm that the TP53mutation of lead to chemotherapy resistance and fast disease progression. In myeloma, TP53 loss of function allows for increased survival and proliferation of cells in an induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) system in xenograft experiments, therefore underscoring the need for targeting TP53-controlled pathways to improve treatment effectiveness [ 184 ]. GWAS has located risk loci in genes such as BCL2 and MYC, which regulate control apoptosis and cell cycle progression. Functional validation experiments utilizing CRISPR have demonstrated the relevance of these genetic changes in lymphomagenesis [ 185 ].SNP variations have been shown to BCL2 overexpression preventing apoptosis thereby allowing unrestrained cellular proliferation in B-cell lymphoma. This data has resulted in the creation of tailored BCL2 inhibitors, such as venetoclax, demonstrating the translational potential of GWAS. The functioning of genes identified by GWAS is better characterized by the synergy of single-cell RNA sequencing and epigenomic profiling [ 186 ]. With these techniques, it is possible to investigate the gene regulatory networks and chromatin accessibility that occur in blood cancer cells. ATAC-seq investigations have demonstrated that risk-associated variations in the GATA2 gene influence enhancer activity, hence altering hematopoietic stem cell development, while reporter assays and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) provided experimental confirmation of these variants’ impact on gene expression [ 187 ].

Challenges persist in functionally validating GWAS results in hematological malignancies, despite these advancing insights. Risk loci often reside within the non-coding regions, confounding the identification of a causative gene. State-of-the-art CRISPR tools such as CRISPRa and CRISPRi provide a robust method for analyzing pertinent enhancer-promoter interactions and the associated regulatory processes. With the addition of multi-omics approaches like proteomics and metabolomics, a really comprehensive understanding could be obtained on how genetic variations intervene in cancer biology [ 188 ]. The integration of functional validation studies into routine clinical practice is imperative to impact precision medicine strategies. Pharmacogenomic studies have shown that genetic variants in drug-metabolizing enzymes TPMT and NUDT15 influence chemotherapy response in leukemia. The functional assays demonstrated that certain polymorphisms alter enzyme activity, thereby affecting drug toxicity and therapeutic effectiveness. This knowledge led to the development of genotype-guided dosage strategies to reduce side effects and maximize therapeutic benefits. These GWAS findings facilitated the development of immunotherapies, including CAR T-cell therapy [ 189 ]. Genetic determinants of immune response identification have enhanced the genetic engineering of CAR-T cells for hematologic malignancies. For example, GWAS data suggest that HLA variants may influence the response of patients to immunotherapy [ 190 ]. Functional studies confirm that specific HLA haplotypes alter antigen presentation and immune recognition and form the basis for individual patient treatment selection. An essential step in advocating for the functional validation of GWAS-identified genes is the translation of genetic discoveries into clinical practice. Recent developments in genome editing methods such as CRISPR, single-cell transcriptomics, and epigenetic profiling are promising approaches to interrogate mechanisms of susceptibility into blood cancers [ 191 ]. By integrating functional genomics and precision medicine, can facilitate the development of treatments that enhance patient outcomes in hematologic oncology. Future directions should concentrate on leveraging these approaches to close the gap between genetic association studies and therapeutic innovation eventually, leading to a better management of blood cancers through personalized treatment strategies [ 192 ].

Translating GWAS findings into clinical practice

GWAS have revolutionized our understanding of genetic predisposition to many diseases. By spotting certain genetic variants associated with specific conditions, GWAS have elucidated possible disease mechanisms, therapeutic targets, and strategies for personalized medicine. Yet, the translation of such discoveries into viable clinical applications is fraught with challenges: one of which includes functional interpretation of genetic variants, replication of such results, or clinical application of such findings [ 193 ]. From the perspective of using GWAS findings in clinical practice, a crucial step is identifying causative variants and comprehending their biological function. Most GWAS discoveries cite disease-related SNPs that are linked to a given disease condition and are not readily associated with certain pathologies. Many SNPs often reside in non coding areas of the genome and are not readily associated with certain pathologies. Integrative functional genomics can help bridge this gap by identifying the genes and pathways influenced by these variants, including expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) mapping, chromatin interaction studies, and CRISPR-based genome editing [ 194 ].

Another important consideration in translating GWAS findings is replication and validation across diverse populations. Many of the earliest GWAS were conducted on European populations, thus limiting their applicability to other ethnic groups. The current enhancement of GWAS to encompass varied populations has augmented the accuracy and relevance of genetic risk prediction. Polygenic risk scores (PRS), which aggregate the effects of multiple genetic variants, have emerged as a promising tool to measure an individual’s genetic susceptibility to diseases such as coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer [ 195 ]. Nonetheless, the predictive efficacy of PRS significantly differs among groups; hence, there is a necessity for comprehensive datasets and population-specific risk models. Inclusion of GWAS findings in clinical guidelines will require further integration with the involvement of researchers, clinicians, and regulatory agencies [ 196 ]. Although certain genetic markers, such as BRCA1/2 mutations associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk, have been effectively integrated into clinical practice, other GWAS variations remain underutilized in their clinical use. Through large biobanks, namely the UK Biobank and All of Us Research Program, it is now possible to incorporate genetic data with electronic health records to conduct immediate validation for GWAS findings. Additional confirmation of the efficacy of genetic-based interventions may be achievable through clinical studies that categorize individuals according to their genetic risk profiles [ 197 ].

Pharmacogenomics is a straightforward application of GWAS findings into the clinic. Among those being added to prescribing guidelines were genetic variants influencing drug metabolism, such as CYP2C19 in clopidogrel response, and HLA-B*57:01 variant associated with hypersensitivity to abacavir. These exemplify how individualized therapy may be enhanced, concurrently minimizing adverse medication effects and optimizing therapeutic results based on GWAS findings. Notwithstanding these advancements, several challenges jeopardize the optimal translation of GWAS findings into clinical practice. Risk prediction is confounded by the interplay between genetic characteristics and numerous environmental influences, since most prevalent diseases are linked to lifestyle, food, and other non-genetic determinants. Second is ethical and privacy challenges associated with communicating risk from genetic factors because of the sharing aspect and the possibility of discrimination [ 198 ]. Therefore, clear guidance on genetic counseling and risk communication becomes important for informed decisions by both patients and clinicians, made possible by the use of clinical genetics. Advances in the future with multi-omics approaches such as transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics will further enhance the clinical appropriateness of GWAS findings by providing a broader view of disease mechanisms beyond genetic factors alone. Increasingly, machine learning and artificial intelligence will be involved in the analysis of complex genetic datasets while refining risk prediction and novel therapeutic targets [ 199 ]. The effective translation of GWAS findings into clinical practice necessitates interdisciplinary cooperation, integration of extensive data, and a commitment to the equitable and ethical application of genetic discoveries in medicine as research evolves [ 200 ].

Critical Analysis: Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) in Blood Cancer Research

Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) have emerged as a pivotal tool in unraveling the genetic architecture of hematologic malignancies, enabling the identification of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and susceptibility loci. These studies have provided crucial insights into oncogenic pathways, immune regulation, and metabolic reprogramming relevant to leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma. For instance, GWAS has linked variants in IKZF1 , BCL2L11 , and TP53 pathways with disease risk and prognosis, offering potential therapeutic targets. However, despite their contributions, GWAS face significant limitations in clinical Translation. First, most GWAS-identified variants confer modest risk, and their functional consequences remain unclear without integration into functional genomics and epigenomics frameworks. Second, the majority of existing datasets are biased toward populations of European ancestry, restricting the generalizability of findings and risking therapeutic disparities in ethnically diverse patient cohorts. Third, GWAS primarily detects common variants, often missing rare but high-impact mutations that could drive disease in specific subgroups. Furthermore, in the context of precision medicine, GWAS findings must be integrated with transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic data to construct actionable patient-specific treatment strategies. Linking GWAS loci to CRISPR-based functional validation pipelines could accelerate the identification of driver mutations amenable to targeted therapy. Additionally, GWAS insights into Immune regulation and metabolic dependencies could refine immunotherapy design and amino acid-targeted interventions. To maximize impact, future GWAS in blood cancer should adopt multi-ethnic, large-scale, longitudinal designs, coupled with AI-driven integrative analytics, ensuring that discoveries Translate into equitable and effective therapeutic innovations. 2 (9).

CRISPR and other gene editing technologies in blood cancer therapy

Gene editing technologies, especially CRISPR, revolutionized the field of molecular biology by providing precise tools to researchers for altering the genetic code of cells. These developments are actively utilized in the treatment of numerous illnesses, including hematological malignancies [ 201 ]. Hematologic malignancies typically result from mutations in genes regulating cell proliferation and differentiation; hence, the concept of accurately targeting and altering these genes presents significant therapeutic potential.

Mechanisms of CRISPR-Mediated gene editing

CRISPR is cutting-edge gene-editing tool shaped by the view of its natural defense mechanism in bacteria. In bacteria, CRISPR systems serve as the adaptive immune response created against viral infection while storing segments of viral DNA within CRISPR sequences, enabling recognition and neutralization during subsequent infections [ 202 ]. Cas9 is the protein that recognizes and cleaves at specific genomic sites using these memory sequences (which are called guide RNAs).In terms of gene editing, scientists design synthetic guide RNAs that target a specific location in the genome of a cell to direct the activity of the Cas9 protein [ 203 ]. Upon the binding of the guide RNA to the corresponding DNA sequence, the Cas9 protein induces a double-strand break at the designated target location. The break, in turn, activates the natural DNA repair processes within the cell, which can be exploited to accomplish the desired genetic alteration. They basically operate along two major routes in their repair response [ 204 ].

Non-homologous end joining (NHEJ)

A faulty repair mechanism that often results in insertions or deletions (indels) at the break site, potentially disrupting gene function. This is advantageous for creating gene knockouts [ 205 ].

Homology-directed repair (HDR)

A more precise repair mechanism can be employed by providing a DNA template with the appropriate sequence to facilitate correct Indel, or alteration of genes [ 206 ]. HDR is important for more complicated genetic changes, including rectifying point mutations or inserting therapeutic genes. Thus, these repair mechanisms may be exploited to utilize CRISPR in editing the DNA of cancer cells, correcting mutations that drive malignant transformations, or engineering immune cells to enhance their ability to home in on and kill cancer cells [ 207 ].

Targeting oncogenic mutations with CRISPR

Blood cancers or hematologic malignancies are the consequences of mutation or alterations in critical pathways controlling hematopoiesis, apoptosis, or immune surveillance [ 208 ]. Due to the potential involvement of tumor suppressor genes, oncogenes, or DNA repair genes, cell signaling, or immune modulation, CRISPR may provide different ways for treating blood cancers by targeting and editing these mutations [ 95 ].

Knockout of oncogenes

Oncogenes are altered or overexpressed forms of normal genes that facilitate the growth of cancer cells. In many blood cancers, such as leukemias, mutations in oncogenes like BCR-ABL1 in chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) or JAK2 in myeloproliferative disorders drive tumorigenesis [ 209 ]. CRISPR can knock out these oncogenes, thus inhibiting the growth of cancer cells. For instance, CML is characterized by the presence of a BCR-ABL1 fusion gene in approximately 95% of patients that is generated by a chromosomal Translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 (Philadelphia chromosome) [ 210 ]. CRISPR could target the BCR-ABL1 gene fusion and generate double-strand breaks that would cause loss of the fusion protein and restoration of normal blood cells. This may signify a potential remedy for people unresponsive to conventional tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as imatinib [ 211 ].

Correction of tumor suppressor gene mutations

Blood malignancies are often characterized by the absence or inactivation of tumor suppressor genes, which regulate normal cell cycle [ 212 ]. The mutation of the TP53 gene exemplifies this occurrence in several tumors, including hematological malignancies. As a result of mutation or deletion of TP53, the significant gene regulating cell cycle and apoptosis, it leads to uncontrolled proliferation of mutated blood cells. TP53 mutations may be rectified with CRISPR in hematopoietic stem cells obtained from a patient’s hematopoietic system or other impacted cells [ 213 ]. Tumor suppressor genes decrease cancer cell growth and sensitize them to chemotherapy and radiation treatment, which commonly fail in individuals with TP53 mutations [ 214 ].

Immunoediting of T-cells

Besides directly targeting cancer cells, CRISPR principally enhances the immune responses of the body to blood cancers. CAR-T therapy, which genetically engineers patients’ T-cells to target cancer-specific antigens, is promising for leukemia and lymphoma [ 215 ]. CRISPR editing increases T-cell function, exhaustion, and tumor-specific identification. CRISPR can knock down the PD-1 receptor, which reduces T-cell function, improving CAR-T cancer cell detection and killing [ 216 ]. CRISPR technology can further optimize T-cell receptor (TCR) specificity or engineer T-cells to target multiple cancer-associated antigens, consequently surmounting tumor heterogeneity and avoiding recurrence [ 217 ].

Gene correction for inherited blood disorders

CRISPR treats genetically inherited blood disorders that predispose to cancer as well as cell cancer. Both sickle cell disease and thalassemia include red blood cell abnormalities. CRISPR can be utilized to manage and perhaps treat ailments by rectifying mutations in the HBB gene [ 218 ]. While it remains distinct from pure malignancies, both exhibit associations with an increased prevalence of leukemia due to inflammatory processes and irregularities in blood cell synthesis. Consequently, rectifying genetic abnormalities responsible for these illnesses may reduce cancer risk and enhance overall health with such treatment strategies [ 219 ].

Other emerging gene editing technologies

Although CRISPR is the most well-known tool for gene editing, there are several other technologies being developed or improved that may provide complementary benefits. Like Cas9, Cas12 is another member of the CRISPR-associated proteins capable of inducing double-stranded breaks, although it possesses distinct site-specific targeting requirements and generates staggered cuts [ 220 ]. It has certain advantages in applications requiring different types of DNA edits. Targeting RNA rather than DNA enables transitory and reversible editing, which may be advantageous in circumstances where therapeutic gene editing is beneficial for addressing tumor immune evasion [ 221 ].

Base editing: Base editors enable the conversion of one DNA base pair to another without inducing double-strand breaks. This technique may yield more precise fixes with less likelihood of unintended mutations. CRISPR and other related technologies, including gene editing technologies, exemplify a revolution in the treatment of blood malignancies, achieving hitherto unattainable outcomes in therapy [ 222 ]. Accurate targeting of mutational events in oncogenes, recovery of tumor suppressor genes, and enhancement of immune response all have significant potential for more effective and enduring customized therapy of blood malignancies. Though challenges remain-in terms of delivery, off-target effects, and ethical concerns-the trend of developing gene editing tools suggests the future of gene therapy may be in treating blood malignancies for the greatest enhanced patient survival [ 223 ].

Immunotherapy in blood cancers: precision approaches

In the past decade, immunotherapy has revolutionized the cancer treatment, offering renewed optimism for patients with refractory tumors, particularly blood cancers. Immunotherapy fundamentally involves utilizing the immune system to battle progressive cancer by either generating an immune response or augmenting the capacity of immune cells to identify and eliminate specific cancer cells [ 224 ]. Immunotherapeutics for blood cancers have emerged as a very promising avenue of research, with CAR-T cell therapy and checkpoint inhibitors standing tall among the most prominent. These precision medicines target and modify the immune system’s cancer cell detection and destruction [ 225 ]. Among the most transformative advances, Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has emerged as a flagship approach. CAR-T therapy involves the genetic modification of a patient’s T cells to express synthetic receptors that recognize specific antigens on the surface of cancer cells, such as CD19 in B-cell malignancies [ 226 ]. Once reinfused, these engineered T cells proliferate, persist, and exert potent cytotoxic effects, often leading to deep and durable remissions in patients who have exhausted conventional treatment options. Despite its remarkable efficacy, CAR-T therapy is associated with challenges, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxicity, and the potential for antigen escape, prompting ongoing research to refine its safety and broaden its applicability to other targets beyond CD19 and BCMA [ 227 ].

CAR-T cell therapy: engineering immune cells to target cancer

Among the most innovative immunotherapy treatments recently created is CAR-T therapy, particularly for hematological cancers such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, CLL, and ALL. The genetic alteration of a patient’s T-cells to enable them to selectively target and eliminate cancer cells is known as CAR-T therapy [ 228 ].

Mechanism of CAR-T cell therapy T-cells are initially extracted from the patient’s blood during CAR-T treatment. The CAR, a synthetic receptor that enables T-cells to identify particular tumor-associated antigens on cancer cell surfaces, is subsequently produced by these cells following in vitro modification. The CAR molecule consists of an intracellular signaling domain that activates the T-cell upon binding to its antigen, a transmembrane domain that anchors the receptor in the T-cell membrane, and an extracellular domain that binds its target antigen on the tumor cell [ 62 ].Following the engineering procedure, CAR-T cells are further grown in the lab before being reinfused into the patients. The capacity of these modified T-cells to recognize and bind to tumor cells expressing the targeted specific antigen induces T-cell activation, proliferation, and cytotoxic activity [ 29 ]. The CAR-T cells are specifically engineered to kill cancer cells by secreting granzymes and perforin, which causes the targeted cells to undergo apoptosis. The CAR-T cell therapy for blood cancers commonly, targets the CD19 protein, which is a cell surface antigen found on B-cells. It is also present on most B-cell malignancies like B-cell ALL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [ 8 ].

Challenges and limitations of CAR-T therapy CAR-T cell therapy may have proved its point well, especially for blood cancers, it is not devoid of drawbacks. Firstly, there is the matter of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which is a condition arising from the exaggerated inflammatory response caused by the CAR-T activation, when knockout CAR-T cells release elevated levels of cytokines into the bloodstream [ 229 ]. The associated symptoms of CRS include fever, hypotension, organ dysfunction, and in rare situations, it may lead to life-threatening consequences. Management of CRS entails careful monitoring and administration of immune-suppressants like tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist. A further problem is the recurrence of malignancies resulting from antigen escape [ 230 ]. Despite being engineered to target specific tumor antigens, malignant cells may undergo evolution resulting in the loss of expression of that antigen, rendering them impervious to the cytotoxic effects of CAR T-cells. Antigen-negative tumors cells tend to survive induce a recurrent disease in certain individuals with B-cell malignancies, and have also been identified in other similar patients. Further, the CAR-T cell manufacturing process is labor-intensive, costly, and time-consuming, requiring personalized treatment for each individual. Together, the high-cost CAR-T therapies and the complexity of the treatment processes make it a very tangible barrier to access and application [ 231 ].

Checkpoint inhibitors: modulating immune response Checkpoint inhibitors, yet another remarkable revolutionary class of immunotherapy, serve to modify the immune recognition toward and/or attack on tumor cells. These therapies inhibit immune checkpoint molecules-the proteins acting as brakes on immune responses-enabling immune attack on tumors to be stronger and more durable [ 232 ]. The most important checkpoint inhibitors target PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 pathways, which are crucial for regulating immunological tolerance and preventing autoimmunity [ 233 ].

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors

The regulation of immune activity against tumor cells on the PD-1-PD-L1 axis is one of the most essential machinery for tumor immune evasion. PD-1, an immune checkpoint receptor that is expressed on activated T-cells, binds its ligand, PD-L1, which is often upregulated on tumor cells [ 234 ]. The PD-1-PD-L1 interaction generates an inhibitory signal in T-cells, therefore suppressing immune activity and enabling tumor evasion of immune surveillance. The PD-1-PD-L1 inhibitors have demonstrated significant clinical effectiveness in blood malignancies, especially in Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are two PD-1 inhibitors now approved for the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma and certain other hematological malignancies. By blocking the interaction of PD-1 with PD-L1, these inhibitors rejuvenate exhausted T-cells, allowing recognition and destruction of tumor cells [ 235 ]. In addition, PD-1 inhibitors have also been tested in treating myeloma and leukemia, however their effectiveness remains under investigation. PD-1 inhibitors are frequently combined with other treatments like chemotherapy or CAR-T cell therapy to boost the overall immune response and improve their efficacy [ 236 ].

CTLA-4 inhibitors

CTLA-4 is the other immune checkpoint receptor that controls the activity of T-cells. UnlikePD-1, which prevents activated T-cells, CTLA-4 inhibits T-cells at an earlier stage of activation. When CTLA-4 is activated by its ligands, CD80 and CD86, inhibits T-cell proliferation and prevents excessive immune response activation [ 237 ].In malignant hematology, ipilimumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting CTLA-4, has been utilized to enhance T-cell activation and induce anti-tumor specificity. Although CTLA-4 antagonist has proven successful in solid tumors like melanoma, its application in hematological malignancies remains constrained. Currently investigating combination therapies using CTLA-4 and PD-1 inhibitors or other immunotherapies maximizes immune responses and improves patient outcomes [ 238 ].

Challenges of checkpoint Inhibition in blood cancers

Although these inhibitors have been effectively utilized in other tumors, their application in hematologic malignancies presents a distinct issue. Hyper progression, characterized by an accelerated rate of tumor advancement, has been seen particularly in patients undergoing treatment with such inhibitors, notably in individuals afflicted with aggressive lymphomas and leukemias. This may pertain to the reactivation of immunological tolerance mechanisms that might provoke a hyperimmune state, exacerbating the malignant process [ 11 ]. Another problem concerned with the treatment is the immune-related adverse events or irAEs, when the immune system erroneously targets normal tissues, potentially affecting any organ, such as the lungs, liver, or intestines, resulting in an inflammatory response. Some are insidious and may necessitate immune-suppression. This immunotherapy has profoundly transformed the therapeutic landscape for blood malignancies, since patients with relapsed or refractory illness can access new possibly curative alternatives [ 239 ]. Thus, CAR-T cell therapy reprograms the immune cells of the patients to target and kill cancer, with notable advancements seen in hematological malignancies. Consequently, checkpoint inhibitors, represented by PD-1 or PD-L1 and CTLA-4 blockers, complement the immune response, enabling the immune system to identify tumor cells for a more effective assault [ 240 ].However, it must also be indicated that both CAR T therapy and checkpoint inhibitors have limitations and difficulties, such as severe side effects, resistance mechanisms, and high treatment costs. Research efforts concentrating on combination treatments, novel checkpoint targets, and the optimization of CAR T cell design are anticipated to enhance the effectiveness and safety of immunotherapies in hematologic malignancies. Evolving precision approaches will increasingly offer hope toward the long-term survival and potential cure of individuals with previously resistant hematologic cancers [ 241 ].

Immunotherapy in blood cancers: targeted approaches and precision medicine

Immunotherapy is a novel approach in the treatment of malignancies, specifically blood cancers. Immunotherapy can develop a personalized precision strategy against malignant cells based on the individual’s immune response, enhancing therapeutic efficacy and minimizing off-target consequences [ 242 ]. Current and upcoming immunotherapies that are widely considered to be effective and promising include monoclonal antibodies, such as rituximab and daratumumab, bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTE’s), and NK cell-based therapies. Precision medicine will optimize immunotherapy responses by tailoring treatment based on the genetic and molecular features of the patient and tumor [ 58 ].

Monoclonal antibodies (Rituximab, Daratumumab) – targeting surface antigens

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-manufactured molecules that have been engineered to bind to specific antigens on the face of cancer cells. By targeting specific cell surface markers, mAbs can activate several immune mechanisms, including direct tumor cell killing, immune system activation, and inhibition of key signaling pathways. Rituximab and daratumumab are examples of monoclonal antibodies widely used in the treatment of blood cancers [ 243 ].

Rituximab – targeting CD20 in B-cell malignancies

Rituximab is perhaps one of the most effective and successful monoclonal antibodies central to treatments for malignant diseases like NHL, CLL, and autoimmunity. It targets a cell-surface protein-CD20, which is expressed on most B-cells, including malignant B-cells in blood cancers. After binding of rituximab to CD20, immunological processes are triggered [ 244 ].

Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC)

The binding of the Fc portion of rituximab to Fc receptors on immune cells (such as NK cells) allows the killer cells to recognize and kill tumor cells that are targeted by the antibody [ 245 ].

Complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC)

The binding of rituximab to CD20 activates the complement system, which initiates a cascade resulting in membrane attack complex formation, causing disruption of the tumor cell membrane and cell death [ 246 ].

Direct apoptosis

Rituximab directly triggers apoptosis pathways in malignant B-cells and this causes their death. Nevertheless, despite the evident efficacy shown by rituximab, resistance has developed, primarily due to the downregulation or mutation of CD20, which hinders the appropriate binding of the monoclonal antibodies. This has resulted in the development of next-generation anti-CD20 mAbs, with obinutuzumab as an example, which exhibited enhanced binding affinity and better effectiveness (Table 1 ) [ 247 ].

Daratumumab – Targeting CD38 in multiple myeloma

Daratumumab is a unique monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 glycoproteins that are highly expressed on the surface of plasma cells, either normal or neurotic, including malignant plasma cells in multiple myeloma (MM). CD38 is associated with immune regulation and cell adhesion. The expression of CD38 on myeloma cells plays a role in promoting tumor growth and immune evasion [ 248 ].

Inhibition of tumor proliferation

Daratumumab also mediates the survival and adherence of myeloma cells with the bone marrow microenvironment thereby, inhibiting tumor growth and metastasis. Daratumumab is an effective medication in the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, especially when combined with other drugs, such as proteasome inhibitors (Table 1 ) or immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) (Table 1 ) [ 249 ].These therapies will complement treatment with monoclonal antibodies like rituximab or daratumumab, which indirectly target cancer cells by engaging immune cells, with the next-generation approach of bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) and NK-based therapies that directly activate T-cells and NK cells to target cancer [ 250 ].

Bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs)

BiTEs are recombinant antibodies that coordinate the binding of a T-lymphocyte and tumor cell since they recognize different targets. The mechanism of dual binding thus ensures that T-cells are brought virtually next to tumor cells, activating them to attack the tumour cells [ 251 ]. A leading example of BiTE is Blinatumomab that works by directing CD19 on B-cell malignancies and CD3 on T-cells, resulting in T-cells actually recognizing and killing CD19-positive tumor cells, i.e., those in B-cell ALL [ 252 ].

BiTEs offer several advantages

Increased specificity : BiTEs attach to a tumor antigen directly, using T-cells as effector cells, thus decreasing the off-target effects frequently seen with antibodies. T-cell activation, BiTEs activate T-cells to mount effective immune responses that can even outlive the end of the BiTE treatment, thus possibly leading to long-term remission [ 253 ].

Recruitment of effector cells: Unlike monoclonal antibodies, which rely on other immune effectors, BiTEs activate and exploit the patient’s T-cells to eliminate cancer cells. Limitations of the BiTE include CRS-cytokine release syndrome-because of extensive T-cell activation. CRS occurs due to the rapid release of the pro-inflammatory cytokines, producing flu-like symptoms, massive drop in blood pressure, and organ dysfunction. This prompted further study into optimizing BiTE therapy for specificity and reduced unwanted effects[ 254 ]

NK cell-based therapies

NK cells are unique immune cells engaged in recognizing and attacking a cancer cell, without requiring previous sensitization. In contrast with T-cells, NK cells migrate directly to cells with downregulated major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules, and an appropriate mechanism for doing so is the avoidance of immune detection by tumors. NK therapies are the activities of autologous or allogeneic NK cells being expanded and activated to turbocharge their cytotoxic activities [ 255 ]. In addition, CAR, which is similar to CAR-T cells, is modified to express a specific tumor antigen, such as CAR-NK cells. CAR-NK therapy has been demonstrated in some blood cancers-such as AML and non-Hodgkin lymphoma-and CAR-T cells in such cases are beneficial, including a lower incidence of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and milder cytokine release syndrome [ 256 ]. The development of curved stem cells in NK therapy promises patients greater therapeutic options in immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments where NK cells may operate more directly to more efficiently destroy tumors. Precision medicine is likely to become a real smash in the practice of immunotherapy. It is a process that precision medicine would optimize by first analyzing the tumor genetics and molecular profile of apoptosis, and then selecting the most optimal immunotherapeutic treatment for that patient [ 257 ].

Genetic and molecular profiling

Oncologists can use procedures like as whole-exome sequencing, RNA sequencing, and NGS to distinguish mutations, gene expression profiles, and other biomarkers that may indicate a likelihood of therapeutic response [ 258 ]. PD-L1 expression on tumor cells is key biomarkers for assessing response to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors like pembrolizumab or nivolumab. For blood cancers, minimal residual disease (MRD) testing using liquid biopsy or bone marrow aspirates can assess the efficiency of immunotherapy in eradicating tumor cells at the molecular level, which aids in predicting relapse and further adjusting treatment strategies [ 259 ].

Personalized combination therapies

Precision medicine also contributes to identifying the best combinations of immunotherapy agents to bring maximum efficacy. Merging inhibitors with either CAR-T cell therapy or bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) can help overcome the tumor resistance mechanisms while adding synergistic benefits. Biomarker-driven trials play a significant role in identifying the best combinations that work for specific subgroups of patients with an increased chance of positive clinical outcomes [ 260 ]. Precision medicine helps in sequencing and timing of these therapies to avoid overlapping toxicities, such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and to maximize synergistic effects. For example, administering checkpoint blockade after CAR-T infusion may improve expansion and persistence of the modified T cells without exacerbating initial treatment-related inflammation [ 242 ]. Similarly, combining BiTEs with immune modulators or cytokines such as IL-15 can promote T-cell activation and proliferation in a controlled manner. A crucial component of this approach is biomarker-driven trial design [ 251 ]. Biomarkers ranging from specific gene mutations and antigen expression patterns to immune cell infiltration signatures allow stratification of patients into subgroups most likely to benefit from a given combination. For instance, high PD-L1 expression or certain mutational landscapes may predict responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors in combination with CAR-T therapy. Minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring and real-time immune profiling can also guide adaptive treatment adjustments, further personalizing therapy [ 261 ].

Immune system profiling

This individualization of therapy has relevance for improving the immune response in immunotherapy. Clinical assessment of T-cell depletion, immune checkpoint expression, and tumor microenvironment composition will allow the customization of immunotherapies that optimally upregulate the immune response against cancer [ 262 ]. Using this information, patients who are more likely to respond to treatment, like checkpoint inhibitors or CAR-T therapy, can be chosen, potentially saving others from unnecessary side effects. Modern methods for treating blood cancers with high specificity that improve the immune system’s capacity to eliminate cancerous cells include monoclonal antibodies, bispecific T-cell engagers, and NK cell-based therapies [ 263 ]. Rituximab and daratumumab have been pioneers in targeting CD20 and CD38 surface antigens, respectively, in blood cancers. Bispecific T-cell engagers and NK cell-based therapies present new strategies to optimize immune system function [ 264 ]. As these approaches are advanced, they promise to harbor the development of the most efficient and personalized yet less toxic therapies for blood cancer patients [ 26 ].

Genomics-driven drug discovery and personalized treatment strategies

Genomics has transformed drug discovery, enabling medicines with great target capacity against a wide range of disorders. Its real blessing has been the promise of early detection, prognosis, and personalized treatments according to genetics [ 265 ]. Most recently, genomic research has found identifiable genetic alterations that drive human cancers into entry points for precision treatments-from the premise that cancer per se is a disease or disorder but rather a collection of highly heterogeneous disorders with different genetic and molecular aberrations. Genomic engineering can design targeted therapies that will work on an individual patient’s specific mutations or alterations and thereby yield more efficacious and less toxic outcomes than “traditional” therapy [ 266 ].

Recent advances in targeted treatment

Targeted medicines have emerged as a key component of cancer treatment today. Such therapy is directed at specific molecules involved in growth, survival, and spread processes of cancer cells; it has been designed as a very precise, less toxic, and less conventional alternative. There have been several landmark advances in targeted therapies over the past few years, particularly in blood cancers [ 267 ].

BCR-ABL inhibitors: A milestone in leukemia treatment

The identification of the Philadelphia chromosome was a major towards developing tailored treatments for CML. A fusion gene known as BCR-ABL is created when segments from chromosomes 9 and 22 are exchanged, resulting in the Philadelphia chromosome, a genetic anomaly [ 268 ]. It encodes a tyrosine kinase enzyme that promotes the uncontrolled proliferation of CML cells. The introduction of BCR-ABL inhibitors-such as Imatinib (Gleevec)-portrayed turning point in CML treatment. Imatinib targets the BCR-ABL protein, inhibiting its function so that the proliferation of CML cells is halted [ 269 ]. Treatment shifted from cytotoxic chemotherapy to a more personalized, genetically targeted treatment. Second-generation BCR-ABL inhibitors, like dasatinib (sprycel) and nilotinib (tasigna), have been developed to target the resistance mechanisms that emerge during frontline treatment. Such advancements have improved survival and quality of life for CML patients. More recently, third-generation BCR-ABL inhibitors, such as ponatinib (iclusig), have provided additional treatment options in patients resistant to all other prior drugs, especially in patients with the T315I mutation, which confers resistance to most other BCR-ABL inhibitors [ 270 ]. The success of BCR-ABL inhibitors has transformed CML from a once-fatal leukemia into a manageable chronic condition for many patients, with near-normal life expectancy. Moreover, ongoing research focuses on treatment-free remission strategies, dose optimization, and combination regimens to further improve safety and long-term outcomes. This paradigm shift has also inspired the development of similar targeted therapies in other hematologic malignancies, underscoring the enduring impact of BCR-ABL inhibitors in blood cancer treatment [ 268 ].

BTK inhibitors: targeting Bruton’s tyrosine kinase

All B-cell malignancies, like CLL and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), are a major component of the survival and proliferation signaling pathways in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK). This ripped the canvas for the application of BTK inhibitors in the treatment of CLL and MCL, especially with relapsed or refractory disease. The first FDA-approved BTK inhibitor, Ibrutinib (Imbruvica), assuredly has improved the outcome of patients with CLL/MCL and other B-cell malignancies [ 271 ]. Ibrutinib irreversibly binds to BTK and prevents its activation and hence inhibiting signaling pathways that otherwise lead to cancer cell survival. Later development of second-generation BTK inhibitors, such as Acalbrutinib (Calquence) and Zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), sought improved selectivity and reduced adverse effects like atrial fibrillation seen with Ibrutinib. In this regard, it becomes more significant for personalized therapy wherein genomic profiling of the individual patient’s tumors will aid in choosing the most suitable BTK inhibitors among others pertinent to their particular genetic and molecular aberrations (Table 1 ) [ 272 ].

IDH inhibitors: targeting metabolic pathways in leukemia

IDH enzymes play a critical function in cellular metabolism, converting isocitrate into alpha-ketoglutarate. Mutations in IDH1 and IDH2 have been normally observed in several cancers including AML. They conferred the ability to generate an oncometabolite, 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG), that inhibits normal cellular differentiation and thus fosters the induction of malignancy [ 273 ]. A breakpoint in targeting AML is exemplified by the development of IDH inhibitors - Enasidenib (Idhifa) for IDH2 mutations and Ivosidenib (Tibsovo) for IDH1 mutations. These inhibitors work by blocking mutant IDH enzymes, which reduces 2-HG levels and restores normal differentiation in haematopoietic cells. According to clinical trials, the inhibition of IDH has proved very effective in extending survival and inducing remission in patients with IDH-mutated AML [ 274 ].

The role of AI and machine learning in precision drug discovery

AI and ML are recent powerful additions to drug discovery on a genomics basis. AI/ML algorithms targeting the analysis of large sets of genetic, molecular, and clinical data can unmask patterns that hide from the human eye, thereby predicting drug effectiveness and identifying new therapeutic targets [ 275 ].

Drug discovery and target identification

AI and machine learning have revolutionized early-stage drug discovery, which is rapid identification and deployment of potential drug targets. Traditional methods of target identification usually involve time-consuming and labor-intensive experimental techniques. In contrast, AI and ML models use very large datasets from genomic sequencing, protein-protein interaction databases, and clinical trials to predict which molecules are most likely to be involved in disease processes [ 276 ]. This significantly accelerates the drug development pipeline, allowing medications to be designed that target specific molecular pathways known to be changed in cancer. For example, deep learning algorithms can be trained to predict how a mutation in a gene or protein affects its function and contributes to cancer. Such models can then suggest novel compounds that may interfere with the mutated targets, leading to more targeted personalized therapy [ 277 ].

Predicting drug efficacy and toxicity

After identifying possible medication candidates, efficacy and toxicity are predicted using AI and/or ML algorithms.AI models can derive information from preclinical studies, clinical trials, and patient genomics to give predictions about drug behavior in a defined population [ 278 ]. The models could potentially predict the therapeutic efficacy of the drug alongside adverse side effects, simulating drug-molecule interactions. This perspective relates to oncology, where patients may have severe adverse effects due to chemotherapy or some other medical intervention. AI in drug development would enhance the likelihood of finding a truly working compound, with lesser chances of toxicity, causing development of therapies that are more efficacious and safer [ 279 ].

Precision medicine and personalized treatment plans

Non-coding RNAs are becoming important regulators of epigenetic control in blood cancers, especially long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs). Through the degradation of mRNA or the inhibition of translation, miRNAs serve as post-transcriptional regulators of gene expression [ 280 ]. Leukemia and lymphoma often exhibit dysregulation of miRNAs, including miR-155 and miR-29, which impacts pathways linked to immune evasion, apoptosis, and proliferation. Conversely, LncRNAs interact with transcription factors and epigenetic regulators to alter chromatin structure and gene expression [ 281 ]. LncRNA MALAT1 has been linked to the advancement of multiple myeloma because it enhances oncogenic signalling pathways. RNA-based therapies have shown promise in preclinical studies, and the therapeutic potential of targeting these non-coding RNAs is currently being investigated [ 282 ]. Epigenetic therapy represents a transformative avenue in precision medicine, aiming to reverse aberrant gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. In hematologic malignancies, dysregulation of DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA activity contributes significantly to oncogenesis, therapy resistance, and immune escape. Agents such as DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (e.g., azacitidine, decitabine) and histone deacetylase inhibitors (e.g., vorinostat, panobinostat) have already demonstrated clinical benefits in myelodysplastic syndromes, certain leukemias, and lymphomas [ 283 ].

Despite these advances, epigenetic therapy faces notable challenges. First, its effects are often non-specific, leading to the reactivation of both tumor-suppressor and potentially oncogenic genes, which can limit therapeutic precision. Second, responses are frequently transient, with relapse driven by residual malignant clones or adaptive reprogramming of the epigenome [ 284 ]. Third, the interplay between epigenetic regulators and the tumor microenvironment is complex; restoring normal epigenetic patterns may not fully reverse the malignant phenotype without concurrent targeting of signaling and metabolic pathways. The emerging role of non-coding RNAs—particularly miRNAs and lncRNAs—adds another layer of therapeutic opportunity and complexity. While RNA-based therapeutics targeting MALAT1 or miR-155 show promise in preclinical models, delivery, stability, and off-target effects remain major translational hurdles. Furthermore, patient-specific epigenetic landscapes necessitate robust biomarker-guided approaches to avoid ineffective or toxic treatments [ 285 ]. Future epigenetic therapy in blood cancers will likely involve combinatorial regimens—integrating small-molecule epigenetic modulators with CRISPR-based epigenome editing, immunotherapies, or metabolic interventions—to achieve durable remissions and overcome resistance. AI-driven epigenomic profiling could further refine patient selection and dosing strategies, enhancing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing adverse effects [ 286 ].

Biomarker-driven clinical trials in blood cancer therapy

Biological molecules known as biomarkers can reveal whether a disease is present, how it is progressing, or how effective a treatment is. Biomarkers are frequently employed in cancer to forecast the disease’s aggressiveness, track treatment response, and direct therapeutic choices [ 287 ]. Clinical trials driven by biomarkers have emerged as a crucial element of blood cancer treatment in recent years. To ensure that patients receive the best possible treatment based on their genetic and molecular profiles, these trials concentrate on finding and confirming particular biomarkers that can be used to customize treatment plans.

Liquid biopsies and minimal residual disease monitoring

Liquid biopsy, for example, refers to the analysis of blood samples for detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Liquid biopsies have become an important part of focusing on biomarker-driven trials. Liquid biopsy could provide non-invasive temporal assessments of genetic alterations occurring within tumours, as well as insight into real-time therapy responses and, most likely, early relapse identification. Minimal residual disease in blood cancers may not be easily seen by conventional imaging. It can use strong tools from liquid biopsies for evaluation of cancer residues left behind resistant to treatment. Incorporating genomic analysis with liquid biopsy studies: Can potentially identify those patients who are most reachable in terms of benefit toward certain therapies, thereby also identifying patients who can seek alternative solutions due to resistance mechanisms.

Genomic profiling and targeted trial design

The use of genomic profiling in clinical trials is becoming more common, allowing study designs to be tailored to shifting genetic mutation-induced variations in cancer cells. Examples of blood cancers applying this concept include the recognition of mutations in patients who might respond better to targeted therapy than conventional therapy, such as identification of BCR-ABL in patients with CML or IDH mutations in AML.

This further stratifies clinical trials by assigning patients to either the same experimental treatment or the same comparison depending on the genomic profile of their tumours rather than their diagnosis category. This not only increases the likelihood of successful treatment, but also exposes fewer patients to poor treatments, reducing the occurrence of undesirable side effects.

Overcoming drug resistance through genomic insights

Drug resistance is one of the significant problems in the treatment of cancers, including blood cancers. Resistance may be achieved by a number of mechanisms: mutations in the drug target, activation of alternate signaling pathways, or selection of drug-resistant sub clones in the tumor population. Genomic insight is essential in overcoming drug resistance. Researchers will sequence the genomes of resistant tumor cells to identify mutations and other alterations responsible for resistance. An example in point involves mutations in the BCR-ABL gene. Resistance in patients can result from mutations of relevant genes, such as the T315I mutation within the BCR-ABL gene because it makes imatinib and most other second-generation inhibitors ineffective. Identifying these mutations makes it possible to create third-generation inhibitors like ponatinib that work against resistant clones. In blood neoplasms, such as AML, for example, resistance to some treatments can also result from mutations in genes such as IDH1/2 or FLT3. Genomic profiling of resistant tumors could inform the design of new inhibitors or combinations that circumvent resistance mechanisms.

One such strategy is the combination therapy targeting all pathways concomitantly. By definition, there would be genomics-led drug discovery and administration-bent on changing the dynamics of cancer therapy, specifically blood cancers. Some examples include BCR-ABL inhibitors and the BTK inhibitors: the classic forms. The remarkable way in which these drugs are poised to enhance patient outcomes is demonstrated by their targeting of specific genetic abnormalities that drive cancer.AI and machine learning are enhancing the efficiency, speed, and precision of drug development and the personalization of treatment plans by improving the identification of therapeutic candidates.

Challenges and future perspectives

Challenges and future perspectives in Genomics-driven drug discovery and personalized treatment strategies

Since 2000 onwards, rapid developments in genomics and immunotherapy, coupled with gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR, have transformed cancer treatment with unprecedented possibilities for targeted and personalized therapies. However, great as the promise of these approaches is, there are multiple challenges that remain to be surmounted for them to realize their potential [ 288 ]. Moreover, as these technologies advance, a number of ethical considerations need to be addressed in order to facilitate their responsible and equitable use. This section will discuss the key limitations of current genomic and immunotherapeutic approaches; challenges in the gene-editing technologies, especially CRISPR; ethical dilemmas posed in precision medicine; and the future integration of multi-omics and AI in personalized therapies [ 289 ].

Limitations on current genomic and immunotherapeutic approaches

Regardless of the breakthroughs of genomic and immunotherapeutic approaches in cancer care, the limitations still exist, which actually impede the effective and wide accessibility of these approaches. Challenges include tumor heterogeneity, treatment options available to specific mutations, and immune-related adverse effects [ 290 ]. Although cancer immunotherapy has become prominent in mainstream oncology inducing complete and long-lasting tumor inhibition, only a fraction of patients receiving treatment respond and others relapse after an initial response. Different tumor types respond differently, and even in cancer types that respond, we still observe tumors that are unresponsive, suggesting the presence of resistance [ 291 ]. Hence, the development of intrinsic or acquired resistance is major challenge for the cancer immunotherapy field. Resistance to immunotherapy, including checkpoint inhibitors, CAR-T cell therapy, oncolytic viruses, and recombinant cytokines arises due to cancer cells employing several mechanisms to evade immuno-surveillance [ 292 ].

Tumor heterogeneity and complexity

The most crucial barrier for utilizing genomics and immunotherapy in treating cancer patients is the tumor heterogeneity. Tumours are not homogeneous; they consist of genetically diverse cells, each potentially exhibiting varied responses to treatment. This challenges the design of medicines that are effective against all cancer cells within a single tumour [ 293 ]. Even with precision therapies targeting specific genetic mutations, certain subpopulations of tumour cells may possess untargeted mutations, leading to relapses. BCR-ABL inhibitors have demonstrated remarkable efficacy for CML, and they are not very effective against a mutant resistant like T315I.Likewise, conditions such as NSCLC and melanoma may exhibit tailored therapy that, based on specific mutations, fail to encompass the whole range of genetic modifications involved in disease progression [ 294 ].

Limited target availability

The challenge of organizing such a vast number of mutations into actionable targets for investigational drugs stems from the apparent disparity in disease mutation diversity. The lack of genetic markers for certain malignancies, particularly uncommon and aggressive kinds, has hindered the development of targeted medicines. In cases where mutations can be demonstrated, relevant and effective pharmacological agents specifically targeting those alterations may not always be available [ 295 ]. For instance, IDH inhibitors have dramatically changed the lives of patients with mutations affecting IDH1 and IDH2, but they are ineffective in patients lacking such mutations. Similarly, BTK inhibitors may work in specific B-cell malignancies but may fail in others driven by a different molecular mechanism [ 296 ].

Immune-related adverse effects in immunotherapy

Immunotherapy utilizes the body’s immune system to recognize and eradicate malignant cells, establishing itself as one of the most efficacious cancer treatment strategies. However, the effectiveness of immune checkpoint inhibitors (PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors) and adoptive cell therapies, whether through CAR-T-T therapy or other means, is abnormal because they can result in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and inflammatory processes that harm healthy tissues like the liver, intestines, skin, and lungs [ 297 ]. These medicines have demonstrated considerable efficacy in situations such as melanoma, lung cancer, and hematologic malignancies, but are not universally applicable [ 298 ]. At the same time, their safety remains questionable. Research would require further understanding of the mechanisms underlying irAEs and more selective, safer immunotherapies to address their limitations [ 299 ].

Conquering loss of target effects and resistance mechanisms in CRISPR therapy

CRISPR/Cas9 latest technological breakthrough in gene editing-has enabled precise alterations of DNA in living organisms. Apart from that, research has also focused on CRISPR gene therapy to identify mutations and boost the immune system response against conventional attacks on tumor cells. Nevertheless, several barriers must be addressed so that CRISPR could be used effectively and safely in clinical practice [ 88 ].

Off-target effects

A primary concern with CRISPR technology is the potential for off-target impacts, which may mistakenly modify regions of the genome. These can cause detrimental genetic changes-including the activation of oncogenes and disruption of tumor suppressor genes, thereby resulting in the emergence of new malignancies or other unforeseen effects [ 300 ]. Improvements in the precision of CRISPRs, including CRISPR/Cas12 and base editing, have considerably reduced off-target effects, but the complete accuracy and specificity of gene-editing technologies still remain a major challenge. Research continues to refine the targeting mechanism of the CRISPR system, as well as to develop methods for assessing and minimizing off-target effects prior to clinical applications [ 301 ].

Resistance mechanisms in gene editing

Mitigating the CRISPR-based therapeutic application is another challenge. Tumors might adapt and evolve just as for other cancer treatments, resulting into resistant cells. To cite an example, CAR-T cells: tumor cells may downregulate or mutate the targeted antigens recognized by engineered T cells, making them less susceptible to elimination by these cells [ 116 ]. Gene-editing resistance mechanisms may activate compensatory pathways for ensuring cell survival against the genetic changes. Overcoming this requires establishing combined modalities to not only edit genes but also exploit other tumor weaknesses, eventually making it harder for resistance mechanisms to develop [ 302 ].

Ethics and precision medicine and gene editing

Precision medicine and gene-editing technologies are progressing, and there arises a need for ethical consideration to ensure that these potent instruments are harnessed in a responsible and equitable way [ 303 ].

Accessibility and equity

A crucial element of ethical consideration in precision medicine is the issue of accessibility to these improved medicines. Genomic sequencing and personalized therapies might be expensive, thus leaving patients in high-income countries or those who can afford to pay out-of-pocket as the select few who have access to the advanced treatment. Such circumstances invoke significant ethical obligations concerning health disparities, wherein patients from disadvantaged origins or underdeveloped regions are deprived of life-saving interventions [ 304 ]. One of the biggest challenges for policymakers and healthcare systems will be to ensure that every patient has access to precision medicine, irrespective of the conditions of his or her socioeconomic status or geographical location. Genetic research should be affordable, and the members of healthcare systems should strive to ensure fair access to therapies [ 305 ].

Privacy and genetic data security

The applicability of genomic data in customized treatment also introduces the potential for privacy violations. Genetic information is very personal and confidential, prompting inquiries over the methods of data storage, sharing, and utilization. Inadequate management of genetic data may result in discrimination by employers, insurance providers, or governmental entities [ 306 ]. Governments and institutions need to install effective data protection legislations to make sure genetic data is kept secure and used ethically. Informed consent should also be taken into consideration in any genomic research or clinical trial to ensure patients are fully aware of the utilization of their data and retain control over their genetic information [ 307 ].

Germline editing and Long-term consequences

Gene editing technologies like CRISPR raise some weighty ethical questions surrounding germline editing, that is, changes to DNA in embryos or reproductive cells which can be inherited by future generations. While, in principle, germline editing has the potential to cure hereditary disease, it also has significant hazards, such as unforeseen genetic repercussions that could harm not only the individual but future generations [ 308 ]. The possibility of altering human embryos to enhance characteristics such as intelligence, appearance, or athleticism raises concerns of social injustice, eugenics, and the long-term implications of genetic alteration. Thus, we will need to develop an international ethical consensus on germline editing at the very least as a safeguard against abuse, thereby ensuring that the technology is used only for therapeutic aims [ 309 ].

Future directions in integrating multi-omics and AI in personalized treatment

According to the author, the future of cancer therapy will include the development of personalized treatment plans based on the integration of multi-omics data, such as transcriptomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and genomics, as well as artificial intelligence (AI).This approach should allow a more thorough understanding of cancer biology and treatment response, surpassing traditionally genomics-based precision medicine [ 310 ].

Multi-omics approaches

While genomics can provide insights into the genetic mutations that cause cancer, capturing just one set of omics data may not provide a complete picture of the disease. Multi-omics is an integrated approach that collects data from different biological layers, including genetic, protein, RNA, and metabolic data, intending to create a clearer picture of the interactions occurring in the tumor microenvironment as it responds to treatment [ 311 ]. In blood cancers, such as AML, multi-omics approaches can shed light on biomarkers that may be invisible if only genomics was applied. This integrative approach- linking gene expression with proteomic and metabolic profiles- would allow development of new targets, prediction of new drug responses, and identification new patients as being most likely to benefit from any given treatment [ 312 ].

AI and machine learning for integrating Multi-omics data

The huge amount of data produced by multi-omics creates its opportunities and challenges. AI and machine learning algorithms are invariably required to recognize multiple patterns hidden in data created from various datasets that human researchers may not even attempt to seek [ 313 ]. AI models based on multi-omics profile-based large datasets allow the creation of predictive models that, when based on real-time evidence, support treatment decisions [ 314 ]. For example, deep learning algorithms can help understand how various omics layers interact and affect the outcome of a treatment. Such models assimilate data from a patient: genomic sequence, proteomic profile, along with the patient’s clinical history, and then recommend personalized treatment regimens that would bear a higher chance of success [ 315 ].

Real-time monitoring and adaptive treatment strategies

An exciting area in the future will be the use of AI and multi-omics to monitor real-time treatment responses. When patients are treated, genomic and omics data can continually be updated to show how the tumor evolves and responds to therapy [ 316 ]. This constant observing makes the approach more flexible and individualized by enabling the quick identification of resistance mechanisms and the implementation of treatment plans.Despite significant advancements in genomics for drug development and individualized treatment techniques, considerable progress has to be made [ 317 ].Among these challenges are tumor heterogeneity, narrow treatment options for a given mutation, immune-related adverse effects, and technical limitations of gene-editing technologies like CRISPR. With all these considerations, ethical issues, such as accessibility, privacy, and gene editing misuse, must be addressed to ensure responsible and equitable usage [ 318 ]. On a more positive note, the incorporation of multi-omics and AI would carry good news for personalized treatment schemes in the future. The combination of genomics with other biological data layers, which would then be analyzed via machine learning algorithms, will highlight more precise, adaptable, and effective therapies uniquely tailored to each patient [ 319 ]. The future of cancer treatment resides in the integration of various technologies into a unified approach, resulting in more precise, individualized care for each patient, hence enhancing outcomes and minimizing adverse effects [ 320 ]. Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a transformative force in optimizing epigenetic therapy for hematologic malignancies. By integrating high-throughput data from DNA methylation profiles, histone modification patterns, and chromatin accessibility assays, AI algorithms can detect subtle, dynamic changes in tumor epigenomes that may indicate therapeutic response or emerging resistance [ 321 ]. This real-time surveillance enables clinicians to adapt treatment regimens promptly, potentially improving remission rates and minimizing relapse. AI-driven diagnostics face several critical challenges. First, the predictive accuracy of AI models heavily depends on the quality, diversity, and scale of training datasets—current epigenetic datasets often lack representation from diverse genetic and ethnic backgrounds, limiting generalizability [ 322 ]. Second, integration of multi-omics data with clinical variables requires robust computational pipelines that can manage noise, batch effects, and inter-patient variability. Third, interpretability remains a hurdle; black-box AI models may identify predictive patterns without clear mechanistic explanations, complicating regulatory approval and clinician trust. Moreover, the rapid evolution of tumor epigenetics under treatment pressure demands continuous model retraining, raising concerns about data security, standardization, and healthcare infrastructure readiness. Addressing these challenges will be essential for AI to fulfill its potential as a real-time, adaptive decision-support system in epigenetic therapy for blood cancers [ 192 ].

Potential impact of precision medicine on blood cancer prognosis

Incorporation of precision medicine in the treatment of blood cancers will have significant effects on the prognosis and long-term survivorship of patients. Blood cancers were treated traditionally with chemotherapies and radiation, producing modalities that lacked specificity and were therefore associated with considerable side effects and limited effectiveness [ 323 ]. Conversely, precision medicine represents contemporary advancements by delivering treatments that specifically target the genetic and molecular determinants of malignancies, therefore minimizing harm to healthy cells. Such a modification not only increases treatment effectiveness but also lessens side effects, which significantly enhances quality of life [ 324 ]. CML can now be treated with BCR-ABL inhibitors, which provide long-term remission without the debilitating side effects of chemotherapy. CAR-T cell therapies have demonstrated long-lasting effects in hematologic malignancies like ALL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), providing optimism to patients who would otherwise have little hope because of their illness [ 325 ]. Patients can be more accurately classified into more effective populations based on the genomic profiling to identify actionable mutations in cells of blood cancers: irrespective of all this, physicians can select the most suitable therapy for each patient. A treatment option for patients with IDH mutations in AML includes IDH inhibitors, which represent a better alternative compared with conventional therapies [ 326 ]. As a result, this targeted therapy leads to improved response rates and overall survival. Therefore, by focusing on the specific genetic alterations driving blood cancers, precision medicine envisions a future in which not only are treatment regimens more effective but they also become increasingly individualized on the molecular pharmacogenetics of each patient’s disease. This increases the precision with which patients receive treatment, thereby reducing the prospect of trial-and-error therapies and enhancing outcomes [ 327 ].

Call for future research and clinical implementation

Despite the promising advancements in blood cancer treatment highlighted in this review, significant obstacles remain in translating these innovations into widespread clinical practice. Challenges such as off-target effects, drug resistance, and tumor heterogeneity continue to impede the efficacy of precision medicine [ 328 ]. Future studies should focus on overcoming these challenges by developing highly precise gene-editing strategies with minimal off-target effects, enhancing the efficacy of immunotherapy strategies through better tumor targeting, and discovering new biomarkers for treatment decision-making. It is crucial to address resistance mechanisms, either mediated by mutations or through immune evasion, so that long-term efficacy can be maintained [ 329 ]. The other key coming direction in research will be the incorporation of multi-omics and AI-driven models into clinical work. The integration of data from genomics, proteomics, and other omics layers with the help of machine learning algorithms will further enhance predictive accuracy toward personalized treatment strategies. This feature will facilitate real-time monitoring of therapy responses and assist adaptive tactics that can be adjusted according to alterations in the disease over time [ 330 ].

Clinical trials must be supplemented with a broader representation of different patient populations for therapies to prove effective across all demographic groups. It is equally essential that all genetic and immunotherapeutic treatments be accessible and inexpensive to all patients, regardless of geographic and financial obstacles. This will require healthcare policy reform and a greater investment in global healthcare infrastructures [ 331 ]. In short, much progress has been made so far in innovative blood cancer therapy through precision medicine and genomics and even through gene-editing technologies, but work must be done. Despite advancements in these technologies, it is imperative to address their limitations: how physicians and researchers may further improve the prognosis of patients with blood cancer by establishing more personalized, efficient, and, most all, accessible treatment options [ 332 ]. CAR-T cell therapy, while producing durable remissions in certain relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies, is not universally effective. Relapse due to antigen loss or modulation, poor CAR-T persistence, and manufacturing delays continue to limit its applicability [ 333 ]. Severe adverse effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) necessitate intensive monitoring and specialized treatment facilities, restricting access primarily to well-resourced centers [ 334 ]. Additionally, the current high cost of CAR-T manufacturing poses substantial barriers to global availability. Future research should prioritize improving the precision and safety of CRISPR through advanced base and prime editing systems with minimized off-target risks, alongside developing more efficient, targeted delivery platforms [ 335 ]. For CAR-T therapy, next-generation designs incorporating dual-antigen targeting, armored CAR constructs, and off-the-shelf allogeneic products may help overcome resistance and accessibility issues. Beyond technology refinement, multi-omics integration and AI-driven analytics can assist in patient selection, predict resistance, and enable real-time monitoring of therapy responses. Importantly, future clinical trials must recruit diverse patient populations to ensure broad applicability of these therapies [ 336 ]. Equitable access will require global healthcare investment, cost-reduction strategies, and infrastructure expansion. CRISPR and CAR-T therapies hold significant promise but should be approached with measured optimism. Addressing their current technical, clinical, and economic limitations is essential for these innovations to move from experimental breakthroughs to reliable, safe, and accessible treatment options for patients with blood cancers [ 337 ].

Amino acid metabolism in the treatment of leukemia (AML, ALL, CML)

Recent research has shown that the pathophysiology and development of several hematologic malignancies, such as AML, ALL, and CML, are significantly influenced by amino acid metabolism [ 338 ]. Malignant hematopoietic cells modify their metabolic pathways to sustain uncontrolled proliferation, resist apoptosis, establish a presence in microenvironments depleted of nutrients, and so on. Thus, targeting amino acid metabolism has emerged as a new avenue for therapeutic development when used in combination with precision medicine strategies, immunotherapy, as well as gene editing technology such as CRISPR [ 339 ]. Amino acids are not only building blocks for protein synthesis but also serve as critical substrates for nucleotide biosynthesis, redox homeostasis, and epigenetic regulation. For instance, AML cells demonstrate increased dependence on glutamine to fuel the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle and maintain NADPH production, supporting both bioenergetics and antioxidant defense. Similarly, asparagine depletion through L-asparaginase therapy remains a cornerstone in ALL treatment, as leukemic blasts are often unable to synthesize sufficient asparagine endogenously [ 340 ]. In CML, deregulated tyrosine kinase signaling has been shown to enhance amino acid transporter expression, promoting essential amino acid uptake to support rapid cell division. Targeting these dependencies disrupts cancer cell survival mechanisms while sparing most healthy cells, offering a promising therapeutic window. However, metabolic plasticity—where cancer cells switch to alternative fuel sources—remains a major hurdle to sustained efficacy, necessitating combination strategies with existing targeted therapies, immunotherapies, or chemotherapeutics [ 341 ].

Therapeutic strategies and future directions

Therapeutic targeting of amino acid metabolism in leukemia is increasingly being integrated with precision medicine, immunotherapy, and emerging gene-editing approaches such as CRISPR. In AML, inhibitors of glutaminase (GLS) have demonstrated preclinical efficacy, particularly when combined with agents that block compensatory metabolic pathways, such as fatty acid oxidation inhibitors. For ALL, novel formulations of L-asparaginase with reduced immunogenicity and extended half-life aim to improve therapeutic tolerance and minimize hypersensitivity reactions [ 201 ]. CML research is exploring interventions that disrupt branched-chain amino acid metabolism or arginine deprivation to weaken leukemic cell fitness, especially in cases resistant to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Moreover, CRISPR-based functional genomics screens have identified novel amino acid transporters and metabolic enzymes that are essential for leukemic cell survival, offering precise targets for drug development. Immunotherapeutic strategies, such as CAR-T cells, may also benefit from metabolic modulation, as optimizing amino acid availability can enhance T-cell persistence and cytotoxicity in hostile tumor microenvironments [ 208 ].

Importantly, targeting amino acid metabolism may also have epigenetic consequences, as several metabolites (e.g., α-ketoglutarate, S-adenosylmethionine) serve as cofactors for chromatin-modifying enzymes. This creates opportunities for combined metabolic-epigenetic therapy to reprogram malignant cells toward differentiation or apoptosis. Future research should focus on multi-omics profiling integrating metabolomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics to identify patient-specific metabolic vulnerabilities and design adaptive treatment regimens [ 342 ]. Real-time metabolic monitoring, potentially aided by AI-driven diagnostic platforms, could enable dynamic adjustments in therapy, minimizing toxicity and overcoming resistance. Nonetheless, careful attention must be paid to the risk of systemic amino acid depletion, which could impair immune function or affect normal hematopoiesis. Addressing these challenges will require innovative drug delivery systems, selective targeting of leukemic cell metabolism, and rigorous clinical trials to validate safety and efficacy across diverse patient populations. Ultimately, amino acid metabolism-targeted strategies hold significant promise as part of an integrative therapeutic framework in leukemia, complementing oncogenic pathway inhibition, precision medicine, immunotherapy, and gene-editing technologies [ 343 ].

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and amino acid dependency (Glutamine metabolism)

AML is a genetically diverse cancer that is distinguished by the myeloid precursor cells clonal proliferation. Metabolically leukemic blasts are different from the normal hematopoietic stem cells; they depend on amino acids in the form of increased consumption, such as glutamine, serine, and cysteine [ 344 ].Glutamine metabolism is central to the TCA-cycle support and maintenance of redox balance within AML cells. It is one of the highly upregulated enzymes in the disease, namely glutaminase (GLS), which converts glutamic acid from glutamine and contributes to the survival of leukemic cells [ 345 ]. Besides, studies show the efficacy of some pharmacological inhibitors like CB-839 (Telalginite) in many preclinical AML models and are undergoing clinical trials. Serine and glycine metabolism are responsible for nucleotide biosynthesis and redox homeostasis. They also have in the course of the serine synthesis pathway (SSP), wherein inhibition of the phosphoglycerate dehydrogenase (PHGDH), which is the first enzyme in SSP, was reported to potentially interfere with AML cell proliferation [ 346 ].In addition, cysteine is significant in both the biosynthesis of glutathione and the detoxification of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Cysteine use increased especially in AML cells identified via mutation in their IDH1/2 gene. Targeting cystine uptake by inhibiting system Xc- such as sulfasalazine has shown promise as having anti-leukemic properties. Moreover, such new research focuses on sensing of amino acids through mTORC1 as an activating factor of AML cell growth [ 347 ]. SLC1A5 impairment as glutamine transporters inhibits amino acid metabolite utilization since amino acid transporters are therapeutic targets and intracellular sensing competes with exogenous dependence for AML cell proliferation [ 348 ].

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL): exploiting amino acid auxotrophy

ALL, as leukemia of lymphoid precursors, particularly profits from targeting amino acid metabolism due to inherent metabolic vulnerabilities. Prominent example in this area is the use of asparaginase therapy in ALL pediatric patients. L-asparaginase exploits the inability of ALL cells to synthesize sufficient asparagine. Depletion of circulating asparagine through the enzyme induces the death of leukemic cells [ 341 ]. However, resistance to asparaginase may arise through upregulation of asparagine synthetase (ASNS), thus necessitating combination therapies that block compensation pathways. Recently, studies have shown that glutamine metabolism is also required for ALL progression. Glutamine deprivation renders part of mTOR inactive, subjecting ALL cells to cell cycle arrest and apoptosis. This suggests that combination of glutaminase and mTOR dual inhibition should synergistically boost anti-leukemic effects [ 349 ].Arginine metabolism also stands as another therapeutic target. Some subtypes of ALL are auxotrophic for arginine due to epigenetic silencing of argininosuccinate synthetase (ASS1). Both recombinant arginase and pegylated arginine deiminase are sufficient for arginine depletion and subsequent cell death induction in arginine-dependent leukemias. The uptake of amino acids is also regulated by the expression of specific amino acid transporters, such as LAT1 (SLC7A5), which is overexpressed in ALL. Blocking LAT1 impairs amino acid influx, reducing proliferation and inducing apoptosis [ 350 ].

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML): metabolic adaptations and amino acid utilization

The defining characteristic of CML is the unregulated expansion of myeloid cells induced by tyrosine kinases activated by the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) like dasatinib and imatinib have transformed the treatment of CML, but resistance and disease persistence are still issues [ 351 ]. Recent evidence suggests that metabolic modifications, particularly of amino acid metabolism, is instrumental in CML stem cell survival as well as therapy resistance [ 352 ].

Altered tyrosine and tryptophan metabolism in CML, beyond itself, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), a key enzyme within this pathway, is overexpressed in CML, and its expression further correlates with poor prognosis. Inhibiting IDO restores immune surveillance and enhances TKI efficacy. Enhanced kynurenine pathway catabolism of tryptophan, one of the key features of CML, changes its immune evasion and disease progression. The results show that, in CML, tryptophan catabolism through the kynurenine pathway is heightened, and this pathway is supposed to be closely related to immune evasion [ 353 ].TKI-resistant CML stem cells exhibit a metabolic switch that makes them more dependent on oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) fueled by glutamine. Such alterations in mitochondrial metabolism or the combination of TKIs with glutaminase inhibitors portray a promising strategy to eliminate CML stem cells. Methionine and one-carbon metabolism are also important in epigenetic and methylation regulation in CML [ 354 ]. Methionine deprivation or inhibition of methionine adenosyl transferase can affect gene expression and inhibit leukemic growth. Amino acid measures integrated with TKIs and/or immunotherapies may, in fact, counter drug resistance and target CML MRD. Leukemia subtypes, such as AML, ALL, and CML, are classically defined by metabolic alterations primarily in pathways involving amino acids. These altered pathways sustain tumor growth and also mediate immune evasion, therapeutic resistance, and survival under stress. Thus, targeting amino acid metabolism provides a strong rationale to augment therapies, especially CRISPR-based gene editing and immunotherapy [ 89 ].

The areas that will be addressed in the future include:

Signature amino acids detected in drug-resistant clones.

Development of combination therapies of metabolic inhibitors and gene editing tools.

Exploitation of omics technologies to unveil new metabolic liabilities [ 355 ].

Amino acids in hematologic malignancies: hodgkin, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and other blood cancers

Amino acid metabolism is a key factor determining hematological malignancy progression, immune alteration, and therapeutic resistance. Beyond leukemia, cancers displaying unique profile of amino acid metabolism that influence their pathogenesis and therapeutic response include as peripheral T-cell lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma. Therefore, thorough knowledge of amino acid metabolism not only helps in deciphering disease biology but also establishes new targets useful for metabolic reprogramming, immunotherapeutic sensitization, and combined precision therapy [ 356 ].

Tryptophan metabolism and immune modulation in hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Both HL and NHL exhibit significant disruptions in tryptophan catabolism, mainly Due to the action of the enzyme indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1). Tryptophan is transformed into kynurenine, a metabolite that affects immune responses, by this enzyme, which catalyzes the first metabolic step in the kynurenine pathway [ 357 ].IDO1 expression is commonly elevated in the tumor microenvironments (TMEs) of HL and aggressive types of NHL such as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma. Kynurenine accumulation activates aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which inhibits T-cell proliferation and promotes the development of regulatory T cells (Treg), thus creating an immunosuppressive environment [ 358 ].Clinical correlations advocate for high IDO1 activity as gradients related to poor outcomes and resistance in therapy. Resistance against tumor immunity reinvigoration by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is now being considered with potential combinations of tryptophan-kynurenine pathway modulation using agonists: IDO1 inhibitors or AhR antagonists (e.g. epacadostat). Notably, tryptophan depletion in the microenvironment activates GCN2 kinase in T cells, eventually leading to cell cycle arrest. This phenomenon is being exploited by tumor cells as an evasion mechanism against immune surveillance [ 359 ].

Arginine deprivation and lymphoma growth

One semi-essential amino acid that is known to be crucial for the production of nitric oxide is arginine, polyamines, and the activation of T-cells. Several Hematological tumors, including certain B-cell and T-cell lymphomas, exhibit arginine auxotrophy Due to the epigenetic silencing or deletion of the enzyme arginine succinate synthetase 1 (ASS1) [ 360 ].Preclinical efficacy has been observed in arginine depletion therapies with either recombinant pegylated arginase (PEG-Arg) or ADI-PEG20 (pegylated arginine deiminase) in DLBCL, NK/T-cell lymphoma and ALCL (anaplastic large cell lymphoma) [ 361 ]. The cytotoxicity of these medicines operates by restricting arginine availability to tumour cells while simultaneously enhancing anti-tumor immunity. MDSCs (myeloid-derived suppressor cells) in the lymphoma microenvironment produce arginase-1 (ARG1), potentially leading to localized arginine depletion, hence impairing the functionality of target T cells and suggesting mechanisms of immune evasion, particularly in Hodgkin lymphoma and T-cell lymphomas. Strategies utilizing dual targeting through arginine restriction combined with immune checkpoint inhibition or epigenetic modulators may effectively mitigate T-cell malfunction and restore robust immunological responses [ 362 ].

Addiction in aggressive lymphomas

Indeed, glutamine metabolism is a defining metabolic feature of many aggressive lymphomas. Tumor cells are glutamine-addicted due to their need for this amino acid in TCA cycle cataplerosis, redox control, nucleotide biosynthesis, and epigenetic regulation. In DLBCL, particularly ABC-type DLBCL, glutaminase (GLS1) is overexpressed to drive metabolic flux into the TCA cycle [ 363 ]. Inhibition of GLS1 by CB-839 reduces proliferation, causes mitochondrial stress, and increases the sensitivity of cell lines to BCL2 inhibitors such as venetoclax. The MYC oncogene that is often deregulated in Burkitt lymphoma and double-hit DLBCL upregulates glutamine transporters (e.g., SLC1A5) and glutaminase in a coordinated metabolic program that is significantly glutamine-dependent [ 364 ]. In T-cell lymphomas, α-ketoglutarate produced from glutamine facilitates histone demethylation and epigenetic reprogramming. Therefore, glutamine metabolism involves energetic and epigenetic pathways, which would consequently provide a dual therapeutic entry point [ 365 ].

Serine and one-carbon metabolism in lymphoid malignancies

The serine-glycine-one-carbon (SGOC) metabolic network is critical for growth in rapidly proliferating cells, allowing nucleotides to be synthesized, keeping redox balance, and supporting methylation reactions. In the HL and NHL, the rate-limiting enzyme in serine biosynthesis, PHGDH, is often upregulated. High PHGDH activity is associated with poor clinical outcomes in DLBCL [ 366 ].The one-carbon units from serine/glycine drive folate-mediated thymidylate and purine biosynthesis, both are essential for DNA replication by rapidly dividing lymphoid tumor cells. Methyl group donors originating from methionine and one-carbon metabolism also regulate histone and DNA methylation, hence affecting the oncogenes expression and immune evasion [ 367 ].

Cysteine and redox homeostasis in lymphoma

Cysteine is an important precursor to the master intracellular antioxidant glutathione (GSH). Lymphoma cells, especially those presenting a high proliferative index or overexpressing MYC, will generally exhibit increased oxidative stress within cells and will thereby depend on cysteine to maintain redox homeostasis [ 368 ].Factors facilitating the import of system Xc- (SLC7A11) into cysteine pools for glutathione production. Blocking the action of this antiporter will disrupt the balance of ROS so triggering ferroptosis, an iron-dependent mode of cell death, which presents a compelling therapeutic target. NRF2, a redox regulator, is most commonly upregulated in HL, enhances antioxidant defenses and induces drug resistance. Targeting cysteine metabolism through system Xc-inhibitors like erastin or ferroptosis inducers can help overcome such resistance [ 369 ].

Branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) and lymphoid tumor metabolism

Emerging studies indicate that BCAAs (leucine, isoleucine, valine) also have a role in the metabolism of lymphoid malignancies. Overexpression of branched-chain amino acid Transaminase 1 (BCAT1) is seen in DLBCL and mantle cell lymphoma and correlates with elevated mTORC1 signaling, enhanced protein synthesis, and increased proliferation. BCAAs serve as substrates for energy metabolism and regulate mTOR pathways critical for cell growth and survival in lymphomas [ 370 ].Targeting BCAA metabolism or inhibiting BCAT1 has shown promising results in decreasing tumor burden in experimental models of NHL. Lymphoid malignancies-from HL to NHL and rarer subtypes-demand that metabolism of amino acids be acknowledged as a fundamental component in tumorigenesis, immune evasion, epigenetic changes, and therapeutic resistance. The specific amino acid pathways utilized in this mini-domain of lymphoid tumors- glutamine dependency, tryptophan-mediated immunosuppression, arginine requirement, and redox control by cysteine- provide an exciting avenue for the development of innovative therapeutic strategies [ 371 ].

Amino acid metabolism in myeloma and leukemia (AML, ALL, CML): a molecular perspective for therapeutic innovation

Amino acid metabolism has become an important point of research in hematological malignancies, especially for multiple myeloma and subsets of leukemia. The high carcinogenic metabolic demand requires acute atmosphere sensing for proliferation, immune evasion, and chemo resistance. In multiple myeloma, the amino acid landscape is radically altered with a high glutaminolysis dependency and substantial reliance on other amino acids, such as arginine, cysteine, and serine [ 338 ]. Glutamine acts as a major nitrogen and carbon source for nucleotides, mTORC1 activation, and redox balance. The pronounced glutamine dependency of myeloma cells results in the upregulation of glutamine transporters, ASCT2 (SLC1A5) and LAT1 (SLC7A5), hence enhancing glutamine uptake and metabolism via glutaminase (GLS1), which converts glutamine into glutamate for entry into the TCA cycle. Glutaminase inhibition by CB-839 has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy for curbing myeloma cell proliferation and for synergizing with proteasome inhibitors like bortezomib [ 372 ].Cysteine uptake via the system Xc– (SLC7A11) and its significant role in glutathione biosynthesis confer resistance to oxidative stress and cytotoxic agents in myeloma. Modulating cysteine availability can induce ferroptosis, which is being explored as a potential therapeutic strategy for myeloma. Serine-glycine-one-carbon (SGOC) metabolism also prevents nucleotide biosynthesis and safeguards epigenetic integrity in MM. PHGDH and SHMT2, the enzymes involved in the de novo processes of serine generation and one-carbon transfer, are often overexpressed in high-risk myeloma [ 373 ]. Interestingly, the amino acid metabolism in the bone marrow microenvironment is also co-regulated by mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) with the capability to secrete or deplete specific amino acids in a manner that ensures survival of myeloma cells. Such micro environmental interactions add more complexity to treatment and strongly imply the need to target specific amino acid pathways as part of the combination regimen [ 374 ].

In leukemia, specific types of amino acid metabolism show diagnostic and therapeutic changes. In other words, glutamine metabolism is upregulated in acute myeloid leukemia, whereas leukemic stem cells (LSCs) mainly depend on glutaminolysis for obtaining energy and maintaining redox balance. Inhibitors of glutaminase have been shown to selectively inhibit oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), destabilize mitochondrial function, and induce apoptosis in AML LSCs without affecting the normal hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) [ 375 ]. Increased uptake of serine and glycine in AML is due to increased expression of PHGDH and SHMT2 genes, sustaining active de novo DNA synthesis and cell proliferation. Conversion of methionine to S-adenosylmethionine (SAM), a prominent methyl donor in biological systems-influences the methylation landscape of AML cells, contributing to the regulation of oncogene expression and effects on epigenetic dysregulation, a hallmark of AML pathogenesis [ 376 ]. Asparagine synthetase (ASNS) expression is generally low in ALL, mainly in T-cell subtypes, rendering the cells highly dependent on extracellular asparagine. This explains the clinical benefits of L-asparaginase, which depletes circulating asparagine and induces apoptosis selectively in ALL cells [ 377 ]. But ALL cells require arginine and branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) for their proliferation and to escape immune response. Branched-chain amino acid Transaminase 1 (BCAT1) is frequently overexpressed, correlating with mTOR activation and leukemic cell growth. In chronic myeloid leukemia, amino acid metabolism is tightly modulated by BCR-ABL1 oncogene, which enhances glutamine uptake and metabolism for rapid cell growth and resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as imatinib. CML, the metabolic pathway for tryptophan through IDO1 is upregulated and contributes to an immunosuppressive microenvironment by producing kynurenine, which suppresses T-cell reactions [ 378 ].

Targeting amino acid metabolism in leukemia presents dual therapeutic options as it exerts direct toxicity toward leukemic cells while also affecting the immunologic microenvironment surrounding tumors. It is now suggested that combining inhibitors of metabolic pathways with immunotherapeutic interventions (such as checkpoint blockade) would not only help overcome resistance but could also re-sensitize tumors to conventional therapies. Similarly, inhibition of either the methionine or tryptophan pathways reduces the expression of immune checkpoint ligands and restores T cell-mediated cytotoxicity [ 343 ]. Overall, these observations point to amino acid metabolism as an integrated network of signaling for oncogenic control, immune modulation, and epigenetic regulation in hematologic malignancies. Precision targeting of these pathways, possibly directed by metabolomic profiling, holds tremendous promise for changing the treatment paradigm of AML, ALL, CML, and myeloma [ 379 ] (Fig. 6 ).

How this review advances beyond previous literature

This review builds upon and extends the scope of previous literature by offering a uniquely comprehensive and integrative perspective on blood cancer therapy that combines four rapidly advancing therapeutic domains precision medicine, gene editing technologies (with a particular focus on CRISPR-Cas9), immunotherapy, and modulation of amino acid metabolism—within the specific context of hematologic malignancies. While earlier reviews have generally examined these strategies in isolation or have focused predominantly on one or two modalities (e.g., targeted kinase inhibition or CAR-T cell therapy), our work emphasizes the synergistic potential of concurrently addressing multiple oncogenic pathways and metabolic dependencies. We highlight recent translational and clinical findings that link pathway-specific genetic aberrations with therapeutic decision-making, while also detailing how emerging CRISPR-based interventions can be integrated into current treatment paradigms to overcome resistance mechanisms. Furthermore, this review advances the field by incorporating amino acid metabolism a relatively underexplored yet increasingly recognized metabolic vulnerability in blood cancers into the same therapeutic framework as molecular and immune-based interventions. In addition, we synthesize cross-disciplinary evidence from genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics to propose a precision-driven, patient-stratified approach, distinguishing our review from prior works that have not fully integrated multi-omics data into therapeutic strategy design. We also address recent developments in combination regimens that harness immune modulation, metabolic targeting, and pathway inhibition to achieve more durable responses, supported by emerging clinical trial data. By juxtaposing these diverse strategies and exploring their mechanistic intersections, we aim to provide a forward-looking roadmap for the next generation of hematologic cancer therapies, bridging the gap between isolated therapeutic advancements and holistic, patient-tailored interventions. This integrative angle spanning molecular targets, immune modulation, metabolic rewiring, and precision-guided delivery offers a novel, multidimensional synthesis not previously presented in the blood cancer therapy literature.

Critical Issues in Integrative Blood Cancer Therapy

Despite the promising integration of precision medicine, CRISPR-based gene editing, immunotherapy, and amino acid metabolism targeting, several futuristic challenges require urgent attention to ensure safe and effective translation into clinical practice. First, genome editing safety remains a priority off-target CRISPR effects, unintended genomic rearrangements, and long-term mutagenic risks demand refined delivery systems and real-time genomic monitoring [ 380 ]. Second, the tumor microenvironment (TME) continues to act as a dynamic barrier; future therapies must incorporate strategies to reprogram or bypass immunosuppressive niches, possibly through engineered immune cells with enhanced persistence and adaptability [ 381 ]. Third, therapy resistance is likely to evolve as cancer cells rewire metabolic and signaling pathways. Predictive AI-driven models integrating multi-omics data could enable early detection of resistance patterns and guide adaptive treatment regimens [ 310 ]. Fourth, metabolic heterogeneity among hematologic malignancies complicates amino acid targeting; personalized metabolic profiling may be required to avoid collateral toxicity in healthy hematopoietic cells [ 382 ]. Fifth, long-term immunotherapy outcomes remain uncertain CAR-T and checkpoint inhibitors can cause severe cytokine release syndromes or autoimmunity, necessitating better toxicity prediction algorithms. Sixth, data integration and privacy will be critical, as precision oncology relies on large-scale genomic datasets; secure, interoperable platforms are essential to foster collaborative research while protecting patient rights [ 383 ]. 2 (2).

Conclusion

The past ten years have seen great advances in precision medicine, genomics, and gene editing: the new ways of managing blood cancers have emerged. Targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and technologies such as CRISPR gene editing are now being used to provide precision treatment to cancers once thought impossible. Blood cancers have benefited greatly from these innovations, made possible by the conditions of generally well-defined genomic alterations and narrowly defined clear molecular targets. Key breakthroughs in the treatment of blood cancers have included an array of targeted agents directed at various genetic alterations responsible for the growth of the malignancy-BCR-ABL, BTK, and IDH inhibitors, among others.

The introduction of immunotherapies, such as CAR-T cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors, which offer patients a second, highly effective option, has marked another significant advancement in the treatment of blood cancer. By employing the immune system to specifically target and eradicate cancer cells, particularly in hematological malignancies, these treatments provide some patients with prolonged remission. CRISPR gene editing technology is another revolutionary technique through which it may be possible to fix genetic mutations at the source or increase an individual’s immune response to cancer.

Researchers are pursuing not just but also using CRISPR for targeting specific oncogenic genes, but also utilizing it to enhance the effectiveness of CAR-T cells so that they could be made more robust in the context of blood cancer. Advances like this are complemented by multi-omics approaches that constitute a system that integrates genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics data into a complex picture of genetic and molecular aspects of cancer. This practice, coupled with AI and machine learning, provides treatment strategies that are extremely personally tailored according to the unique genetic composition of each patient. In other words, this approach would be a shift from the one-size-fits-all model of cancer treatment towards truly personalized and dynamic therapeutic interventions. Moreover, insights into amino acid metabolic dependencies in hematologic malignancies offer novel vulnerabilities that can be exploited for therapeutic gain.

Collectively, these integrative approaches do not merely offer incremental improvements but have the potential to transform blood cancer from a fatal diagnosis to a manageable or even curable condition. However, translating these innovations into universally accessible clinical solutions demands a harmonized effort in biomarker discovery, regulatory frameworks, ethical gene editing, and overcoming resistance mechanisms. As research advances, a holistic model that combines genomic, immunologic, and metabolic data will be essential for achieving durable remissions and personalized curative outcomes. The future of blood cancer therapy lies not in isolated breakthroughs but in the synergy of science, technology, and clinical precision.

Author contributions

F.I, A.J, and S.M.S.M.B wrote the main manuscript text and prepared all Figures.

Funding

No funders.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study does not involve any clinical trial or animal models.Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

1. Taylor J, Xiao W, Abdel-Wahab O. Diagnosis and classification of hematologic malignancies on the basis of genetics. Blood. J Am Soc Hematol. 2017;130(4):410–23.

2. Yeh M-L, Lee T-I, Chen H-H, Chao T-Y. The influences of Chan-Chuang qi-gong therapy on complete blood cell counts in breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(2):149–55.

3. Arber DA, Hasserjian RP, Orazi A, Mathews V, Roberts AW, Schiffer CA, et al. Classification of myeloid neoplasms/acute leukemia: global perspectives and the international consensus classification approach. Am J Hematol. 2022;97(5):514.

4. Boucher L, Sorel N, Desterke C, Chollet M, Rozalska L, Gallego Hernanz MP, et al. Deciphering potential molecular signatures to differentiate acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with BCR::ABL1 from chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in blast crisis. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(20):15441.

5. Valent P, Orfao A, Kubicek S, Staber P, Haferlach T, Deininger M, et al. Precision medicine in hematology 2021: definitions, tools, perspectives, and open questions. Hemasphere. 2021;5(3):e536.

6. Lauzon-Young C, Silva A, Sadikovic B. Epigenomic insights and computational advances in hematologic malignancies. Mol Cytogenet. 2025;18(1):9.

7. Chakravarthi BV, Nepal S, Varambally S. Genomic and epigenomic alterations in cancer. Am J Pathol. 2016;186(7):1724–35.

8. Kochenderfer JN, Rosenberg SA. Treating B-cell cancer with T cells expressing anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptors. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013;10(5):267–76.

9. Messerschmidt JL, Bhattacharya P, Messerschmidt GL. Cancer clonal theory, immune escape, and their evolving roles in cancer multi-agent therapeutics. Curr Oncol Rep. 2017;19:1–11.

10. Caswell DR, Swanton C. The role of tumour heterogeneity and clonal cooperativity in metastasis, immune evasion and clinical outcome. BMC Med. 2017;15:1–9.

11. Marine J-C, Dawson S-J, Dawson MA. Non-genetic mechanisms of therapeutic resistance in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(12):743–56.

12. Cleanclay WD, Zakari S, Adigun TO, Ayeni TO, Nnaji PC, Nnenna AD, et al. Cancer Biology and Therapeutics: Navigating Recent Advances and Charting Future Directions. Trop J Nat Prod Res. 2023;7(12):5377–402.

13. Wästerlid T, Cavelier L, Haferlach C, Konopleva M, Fröhling S, Östling P, et al. Application of precision medicine in clinical routine in haematology—challenges and opportunities. J Intern Med. 2022;292(2):243–61.

14. Youssef E, Fletcher B, Palmer D. Enhancing precision in cancer treatment: the role of gene therapy and immune modulation in oncology. Front Med. 2025;11:1527600.

15. Dai X, Blancafort P, Wang P, Sgro A, Thompson EW, Ostrikov K. Innovative precision gene-editing tools in personalized cancer medicine. Adv Sci. 2020;7(12):1902552.

16. Mukherjee S. Genomics-guided immunotherapy for precision medicine in cancer. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2019;34(8):487–97.

17. Sonis S, Haddad R, Posner M, Watkins B, Fey E, Morgan T, et al. Gene expression changes in peripheral blood cells provide insight into the biological mechanisms associated with regimen-related toxicities in patients being treated for head and neck cancers. Oral Oncol. 2007;43(3):289–300.

18. Strahm B, Malkin D. Hereditary cancer predisposition in children: genetic basis and clinical implications. Int J Cancer. 2006;119(9):2001–6.

19. Alvarez MG, Besa PC. Molecular basis of cancer and clinical applications. Surg Clin North Am. 2000;80(2):443–57.

20. Adnan-Awad S, Kankainen M, Mustjoki S. Mutational landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia: more than a single oncogene leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2021;62(9):2064–78.

21. Bohl SR, Schmalbrock LK, Bauhuf I, Meyer T, Dolnik A, Szyska M, et al. Comprehensive CRISPR-Cas9 screens identify genetic determinants of drug responsiveness in multiple myeloma. Blood Adv. 2021;5(9):2391–402.

22. Ernst MP, Broeders M, Herrero-Hernandez P, Oussoren E, van der Ploeg AT, Pijnappel WP. Ready for repair? Gene editing enters the clinic for the treatment of human disease. Mol Therapy Methods Clin Dev. 2020;18:532–57.

23. Bolideei M, Barzigar R, Gahrouei RB, Mohebbi E, Haider KH, Paul S, et al. Applications of gene editing and nanotechnology in stem cell-based therapies for human diseases. Stem Cell Reviews Rep. 2025. 10.1007/s12015-025-10857-0.

24. Wang H, Kaur G, Sankin AI, Chen F, Guan F, Zang X. Immune checkpoint blockade and CAR-T cell therapy in hematologic malignancies. J Hematol Oncol. 2019;12:1–20.

25. Kaur R, Bhardwaj A, Gupta S. Cancer treatment therapies: traditional to modern approaches to combat cancers. Mol Biol Rep. 2023;50(11):9663–76.

26. Peng Y, Mei W, Ma K, Zeng C. Circulating tumor DNA and minimal residual disease (MRD) in solid tumors: current horizons and future perspectives. Front Oncol. 2021;11:763790.

27. Wu D-S, Shen J-Z, Yu A-F, Fu H-Y, Zhou H-R, Shen S-F. Epigallocatechin-3-gallate and trichostatin A synergistically inhibit human lymphoma cell proliferation through epigenetic modification of p16INK4a. Oncol Rep. 2013;30(6):2969–75.

28. Liu J, Zhang Y, Huang H, Lei X, Tang G, Cao X, et al. Recent advances in Bcr-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors for overriding T315I mutation. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2021;97(3):649–64.

29. Shah NN, Fry TJ. Mechanisms of resistance to CAR T cell therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(6):372–85.

30. Laurent C, Syrykh C, Hamon M, Adélaïde J, Guille A, Escudié F, et al. Resistance of B-cell lymphomas to CAR T-cell therapy is associated with genomic tumor changes which can result in transdifferentiation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2022;46(6):742–53.

31. Cheng J, Zhao L, Zhang Y, Qin Y, Guan Y, Zhang T, et al. Understanding the mechanisms of resistance to CAR T-cell therapy in malignancies. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1237.

32. Lattanzi W, Ripoli C, Greco V, Barba M, Iavarone F, Minucci A, et al. Basic and preclinical research for personalized medicine. J Pers Med. 2021;11(5):354.

33. Ravichandran S, Verma G. Advanced biotechnology-based therapeutics. Elsevier: Translational Biotechnology. Elsevier; 2021. 10.1016/B978-0-12-821972-0.00009-5.

34. Breen S, Kofoed S, Ritchie D, Dryden T, Maguire R, Kearney N, et al. Remote real-time monitoring for chemotherapy side-effects in patients with blood cancers. Collegian. 2017;24(6):541–9.

35. Chanchal DK, Chaudhary JS, Kumar P, Agnihotri N, Porwal P. CRISPR-based therapies: revolutionizing drug development and precision medicine. Curr Gene Ther. 2024;24(3):193–207.

36. Mardis ER. Insights from large-scale cancer genome sequencing. Annual Rev Cancer Biology. 2018;2(1):429–44.

37. Dara M, Dianatpour M, Azarpira N, Omidifar N. Convergence of CRISPR and artificial intelligence: a paradigm shift in biotechnology. Hum Gene. 2024. 10.1016/j.humgen.2024.201297.

38. Bhat AA, Nisar S, Mukherjee S, Saha N, Yarravarapu N, Lone SN, et al. Integration of CRISPR/Cas9 with artificial intelligence for improved cancer therapeutics. J Transl Med. 2022;20(1):534.

39. Blass E, Ott PA. Advances in the development of personalized neoantigen-based therapeutic cancer vaccines. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18(4):215–29.

40. Amiri M, Moaveni AK, Majidi Zolbin M, Shademan B, Nourazarian A. Optimizing cancer treatment: the synergistic potential of CAR-T cell therapy and CRISPR/Cas9. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1462697.

41. Mollanoori H, Shahraki H, Rahmati Y, Teimourian S. CRISPR/Cas9 and CAR-T cell, collaboration of two revolutionary technologies in cancer immunotherapy, an instruction for successful cancer treatment. Hum Immunol. 2018;79(12):876–82.

42. Dimitri A, Herbst F, Fraietta JA. Engineering the next-generation of CAR T-cells with CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing. Mol Cancer. 2022;21(1):78.

43. Taylor GP, Matsuoka M. Natural history of adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma and approaches to therapy. Oncogene. 2005;24(39):6047–57.

44. Tawde PP, Choudhari SG, Syed ZQ, Gaidhane A. Rudolf virchow: integrating medicine and social reform for public health. Cureus. 2024. 10.7759/cureus.68161.

45. DeVita VT Jr, Chu E. A history of cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2008;68(21):8643–53.

46. Zhang N, Wu J, Wang Q, Liang Y, Li X, Chen G, et al. Global burden of hematologic malignancies and evolution patterns over the past 30 years. Blood Cancer J. 2023;13(1):82.

47. Kaplan JA. Leukemia in children. Pediatr Rev. 2019;40(7):319–31.

48. Chen S, Cao Z, Prettner K, Kuhn M, Yang J, Jiao L, et al. Estimates and projections of the global economic cost of 29 cancers in 204 countries and territories from 2020 to 2050. JAMA Oncol. 2023;9(4):465–72.

49. Tenen DG, Hromas R, Licht JD, Zhang D-E. Transcription factors, normal myeloid development, and leukemia. Blood J Am Soc Hematol. 1997;90(2):489–519.

50. Fernández M, Madriñan V, Santiago P, Bermudez A. Assessing the feasibility and challenges of CRISPR-Cas9 for treating genetic disorders. J Adv Med Pharm Sci. 2024;3(2):60–70.

51. Kalia M. Biomarkers for personalized oncology: recent advances and future challenges. Metabolism. 2015;64(3):S16–21.

52. Wang S-W, Gao C, Zheng Y-M, Yi L, Lu J-C, Huang X-Y, et al. Current applications and future perspective of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in cancer. Mol Cancer. 2022;21(1):57.

53. Jabbour E, Kantarjian H. Chronic myeloid leukemia: 2025 update on diagnosis, therapy, and monitoring. Am J Hematol. 2024;99(11):2191–212.

54. Beckman MG, Hulihan MM, Byams VR, Oakley MA, Reyes N, Trimble S, et al. Public health surveillance of nonmalignant blood disorders. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(5):664–8.

55. Black GB, Boswell L, Harris J, Whitaker KL. What causes delays in diagnosing blood cancers? A rapid review of the evidence. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2023;24:e26.

56. Rodriguez-Abreu D, Bordoni A, Zucca E. Epidemiology of hematological malignancies. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:i3–8.

57. Boswell L, Harris J, Ip A, Russell J, Black GB, Whitaker KL. Assessing awareness of blood cancer symptoms and barriers to symptomatic presentation: measure development and results from a population survey in the UK. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):633.

58. Rosenquist R, Bernard E, Erkers T, Scott DW, Itzykson R, Rousselot P, et al. Novel precision medicine approaches and treatment strategies in hematological malignancies. J Intern Med. 2023;294(4):413–36.

59. Schiller JT, Lowy DR. Virus infection and human cancer: an overview. Viruses Hum Cancer: Basic Sci Clin Prev. 2013. 10.1007/978-3-642-38965-8.

60. Sankar V, Villa A. Hematologic diseases. Burket’s Oral Medicine. 2021:627 – 64.

61. Torka P, Barth M, Ferdman R, Hernandez-Ilizaliturri FJ. Mechanisms of resistance to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in lymphoid malignancies. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2019;14:426–38.

62. Sterner RC, Sterner RM. CAR-T cell therapy: current limitations and potential strategies. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(4):69.

63. Hanash SM, Baik CS, Kallioniemi O. Emerging molecular biomarkers—blood-based strategies to detect and monitor cancer. Nat Reviews Clin Oncol. 2011;8(3):142–50.

64. Kirschner MM, Schemionek M, Schubert C, Chatain N, Sontag S, Isfort S, et al. Dissecting genomic aberrations in myeloproliferative neoplasms by multiplex-PCR and next generation sequencing. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(4):e0123476.

65. Guibert N, Hu Y, Feeney N, Kuang Y, Plagnol V, Jones G, et al. Amplicon-based next-generation sequencing of plasma cell-free DNA for detection of driver and resistance mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(4):1049–55.

66. Shin SH, Bode AM, Dong Z. Precision medicine: the foundation of future cancer therapeutics. NPJ Precis Oncol. 2017;1(1):12.

67. Stulpinas A, Imbrasaitė A, Krestnikova N, Kalvelytė AV. Recent approaches encompassing the phenotypic cell heterogeneity for anticancer drug efficacy. Tumor Progression Metastasis. 2020:147.

68. Phan TG, Croucher PI. The dormant cancer cell life cycle. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(7):398–411.

69. Thakral D, Gupta R. Acute Myeloid Leukemia: an update. Hematopathology: advances in understanding. 2019:163 – 82.

70. Martelli A, Evangelisti C, Chappell W, Abrams SL, Bäsecke J, Stivala F, et al. Targeting the translational apparatus to improve leukemia therapy: roles of the PI3K/PTEN/Akt/mTOR pathway. Leukemia. 2011;25(7):1064–79.

71. Léglise M-C, Pluchon-riviére E, Calvez GL, Abgrall J-F, Berthou C, Autrand C, et al. Molecular diagnosis and follow up in myeloproliferative syndromes and acute leukemias: correlation between expression of fusion transcripts and disease progression in chronic myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 1996;21(3–4):187–99.

72. Bienz M, Ramdani S, Knecht H. Molecular pathogenesis of hodgkin lymphoma: past, present, future. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(18):6623.

73. Weniger MA, Küppers R. Molecular biology of Hodgkin lymphoma. Leukemia. 2021;35(4):968–81.

74. Meng X, Min Q, Wang J-Y. B cell lymphoma. B Cells in Immunity and Tolerance. 2020:161 – 81.

75. Khanlari M, Chapman JR. Follicular lymphoma: updates for pathologists. J Pathol Transl Med. 2022;56(1):1–15.

76. Dillon M, Lopez A, Lin E, Sales D, Perets R, Jain P. Progress on ras/MAPK signaling research and targeting in blood and solid cancers. Cancers. 2021;13(20):5059.

77. Krook MA, Reeser JW, Ernst G, Barker H, Wilberding M, Li G, et al. Fibroblast growth factor receptors in cancer: genetic alterations, diagnostics, therapeutic targets and mechanisms of resistance. Br J Cancer. 2021;124(5):880–92.

78. Liu M-K, Sun X-J, Gao X-D, Qian Y, Wang L, Zhao W-L. Methylation alterations and advance of treatment in lymphoma. Front Bioscience-Landmark. 2021;26(9):602–13.

79. Xiang J, Wu J. Feud or friend? The role of the miR-17-92 cluster in tumorigenesis. Curr Genomics. 2010;11(2):129–35.

80. Song Z, Tao Y, Liu Y, Li J. Advances in delivery systems for CRISPR/Cas-mediated cancer treatment: a focus on viral vectors and extracellular vesicles. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1444437.

81. Kanwal R, Gupta S. Epigenetic modifications in cancer. Clin Genet. 2012;81(4):303–11.

82. Halasa M, Adamczuk K, Adamczuk G, Afshan S, Stepulak A, Cybulski M, et al. Deacetylation of transcription factors in carcinogenesis. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(21):11810.

83. Gallinari P, Marco SD, Jones P, Pallaoro M, Steinkühler C. HDACs, histone deacetylation and gene transcription: from molecular biology to cancer therapeutics. Cell Res. 2007;17(3):195–211.

84. Dahariya S, Paddibhatla I, Kumar S, Raghuwanshi S, Pallepati A, Gutti RK. Long non-coding RNA: classification, biogenesis and functions in blood cells. Mol Immunol. 2019;112:82–92.

85. Shukla S, Meeran SM, Katiyar SK. Epigenetic regulation by selected dietary phytochemicals in cancer chemoprevention. Cancer Lett. 2014;355(1):9–17.

86. Kumar S, Gonzalez EA, Rameshwar P, Etchegaray J-P. Non-coding RNAs as mediators of epigenetic changes in malignancies. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(12):3657.

87. Dykes IM, Emanueli C. Transcriptional and post-transcriptional gene regulation by long non-coding RNA. Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2017;15(3):177–86.

88. Hou J, He Z, Liu T, Chen D, Wang B, Wen Q, et al. Evolution of molecular targeted cancer therapy: mechanisms of drug resistance and novel opportunities identified by CRISPR-Cas9 screening. Front Oncol. 2022;12:755053.

89. Mojtahedi H, Yazdanpanah N, Rezaei N. Chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells: targeting therapeutic implications. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021;12(1):603.

90. Mohanty R, Chowdhury CR, Arega S, Sen P, Ganguly P, Ganguly N. CAR T cell therapy: a new era for cancer treatment. Oncol Rep. 2019;42(6):2183–95.

91. Haber DA, Velculescu VE. Blood-based analyses of cancer: circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA. Cancer Discov. 2014;4(6):650–61.

92. Ali AM, Salih GF. Molecular and clinical significance of FLT3, NPM1, DNMT3A and TP53 mutations in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Mol Biol Rep. 2023;50(10):8035–48.

93. Persico P, Lorenzi E, Losurdo A, Dipasquale A, Di Muzio A, Navarria P, et al. Precision oncology in lower-grade gliomas: promises and pitfalls of therapeutic strategies targeting IDH-mutations. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(5):1125.

94. Blecua P, Martinez-Verbo L, Esteller M. The DNA methylation landscape of hematological malignancies: an update. Mol Oncol. 2020;14(8):1616–39.

95. Zhao A, Zhou H, Yang J, Li M, Niu T. Epigenetic regulation in hematopoiesis and its implications in the targeted therapy of hematologic malignancies. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2023;8(1):71.

96. Raponi S, Stefania De Propris M, Intoppa S, Laura Milani M, Vitale A, Elia L, et al. Flow cytometric study of potential target antigens (CD19, CD20, CD22, CD33) for antibody-based immunotherapy in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: analysis of 552 cases. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52(6):1098–107.

97. Ginaldi L, De Martinis M, Matutes E, Farahat N, Morilla R, Catovsky D. Levels of expression of CD19 and CD20 in chronic B cell leukaemias. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51(5):364–9.

98. Ehninger A, Kramer M, Röllig C, Thiede C, Bornhäuser M, Von Bonin M, et al. Distribution and levels of cell surface expression of CD33 and CD123 in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 2014;4(6):e218–e.

99. DiNardo CD, Ravandi F, Agresta S, Konopleva M, Takahashi K, Kadia T, et al. Characteristics, clinical outcome, and prognostic significance of IDH mutations in AML. Am J Hematol. 2015;90(8):732–6.

100. Flach J, Shumilov E, Joncourt R, Porret N, Novak U, Pabst T, et al. Current concepts and future directions for hemato-oncologic diagnostics. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2020;151:102977.

101. Sánchez R, Ayala R, Martínez-López J. Minimal residual disease monitoring with next-generation sequencing methodologies in hematological malignancies. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(11):2832.

102. Colmenares R, Álvarez N, Barrio S, Martínez-López J, Ayala R. The minimal residual disease using liquid biopsies in hematological malignancies. Cancers. 2022;14(5):1310.

103. He Y, Jiang X, Chen J. The role of miR-150 in normal and malignant hematopoiesis. Oncogene. 2014;33(30):3887–93.

104. Walter W, Pohlkamp C, Meggendorfer M, Nadarajah N, Kern W, Haferlach C, et al. Artificial intelligence in hematological diagnostics: game changer or gadget? Blood Rev. 2023;58:101019.

105. Iqbal MJ, Javed Z, Sadia H, Qureshi IA, Irshad A, Ahmed R, et al. Clinical applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in cancer diagnosis: looking into the future. Cancer Cell Int. 2021;21(1):270.

106. Payandeh M, Aeinfar M, Aeinfar V, Hayati M. A new method for diagnosis and predicting blood disorder and cancer using artificial intelligence (artificial neural networks). Int J Hematology-Oncology Stem Cell Res. 2009;3(4):25–33.

107. Wiese W, Barczuk J, Racinska O, Siwecka N, Rozpedek-Kaminska W, Slupianek A, et al. PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway in blood malignancies—new therapeutic possibilities. Cancers. 2023;15(21):5297.

108. Nepstad I, Hatfield KJ, Grønningsæter IS, Reikvam H. The PI3K-Akt-mTOR signaling pathway in human acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(8):2907.

109. Park S, Chapuis N, Tamburini J, Bardet V, Cornillet-Lefebvre P, Willems L, et al. Role of the PI3K/AKT and mTOR signaling pathways in acute myeloid leukemia. Haematologica. 2009;95(5):819.

110. Kawauchi K, Ogasawara T, Yasuyama M, Otsuka K, Yamada O. Regulation and importance of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway in hematologic malignancies. Anti-Cancer Agents Med Chem. 2009;9(9):1024–38.

111. You M, Xie Z, Zhang N, Zhang Y, Xiao D, Liu S, et al. Signaling pathways in cancer metabolism: mechanisms and therapeutic targets. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2023;8(1):196.

112. Singh DD, Verma R, Tripathi SK, Sahu R, Trivedi P, Yadav DK. Breast cancer transcriptional regulatory network reprogramming by using the CRISPR/Cas9 system: an oncogenetics perspective. Curr Top Med Chem. 2021;21(31):2800–13.

113. Hemmati S, Sinclair T, Tong M, Bartholdy B, Okabe RO, Ames K, et al. PI3K alpha and delta promote hematopoietic stem cell activation. JCI Insight. 2019;4(13):e125832.

114. Wang S, Liu C, Yang C, Jin Y, Cui Q, Wang D, et al. PI3K/AKT/mTOR and PD–1/CTLA–4/CD28 pathways as key targets of cancer immunotherapy. Oncol Lett. 2024;28(6):567.

115. Luke JJ, Flaherty KT, Ribas A, Long GV. Targeted agents and immunotherapies: optimizing outcomes in melanoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(8):463–82.

116. Chehelgerdi M, Chehelgerdi M, Khorramian-Ghahfarokhi M, Shafieizadeh M, Mahmoudi E, Eskandari F, et al. Comprehensive review of CRISPR-based gene editing: mechanisms, challenges, and applications in cancer therapy. Mol Cancer. 2024;23(1):9.

117. Vainchenker W, Constantinescu SN. JAK/STAT signaling in hematological malignancies. Oncogene. 2013;32(21):2601–13.

118. Lv Y, Qi J, Babon JJ, Cao L, Fan G, Lang J, et al. The JAK-STAT pathway: from structural biology to cytokine engineering. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2024;9(1):221.

119. Baśkiewicz-Masiuk M, Machaliński B. The role of the STAT5 proteins in the proliferation and apoptosis of the CML and AML cells. Eur J Haematol. 2004;72(6):420–9.

120. Rawlings JS, Rosler KM, Harrison DA. The JAK/STAT signaling pathway. J Cell Sci. 2004;117(8):1281–3.

121. Morris R, Kershaw NJ, Babon JJ. The molecular details of cytokine signaling via the JAK/STAT pathway. Protein Sci. 2018;27(12):1984–2009.

122. Pasquier F, Cabagnols X, Secardin L, Plo I, Vainchenker W. Myeloproliferative neoplasms: JAK2 signaling pathway as a central target for therapy. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014;14:S23–35.

123. Shi J, Yuan B, Hu W, Lodish H. JAK2 V617F stimulates proliferation of erythropoietin-dependent erythroid progenitors and delays their differentiation by activating Stat1 and other nonerythroid signaling pathways. Exp Hematol. 2016;44(11):1044–58. e5.

124. Kota J, Caceres N, Constantinescu SN. Aberrant signal transduction pathways in myeloproliferative neoplasms. Leukemia. 2008;22(10):1828–40.

125. Torres DG, Paes J, da Costa AG, Malheiro A, Silva GV, Mourão LPS, et al. JAK2 variant signaling: genetic, hematologic and immune implication in chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms. Biomolecules. 2022;12(2):291.

126. Tefferi A, Pardanani A. Myeloproliferative neoplasms: a contemporary review. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(1):97–105.

127. Al-Haideri M, Tondok SB, Safa SH, Maleki AH, Rostami S, Jalil AT, et al. CAR-T cell combination therapy: the next revolution in cancer treatment. Cancer Cell Int. 2022;22(1):365.

128. Rah B, Rather RA, Bhat GR, Baba AB, Mushtaq I, Farooq M, et al. JAK/STAT signaling: molecular targets, therapeutic opportunities, and limitations of targeted inhibitions in solid malignancies. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:821344.

129. Owen KL, Brockwell NK, Parker BS. Jak-stat signaling: a double-edged sword of immune regulation and cancer progression. Cancers. 2019;11(12):2002.

130. Gragnani L, Lorini S, Marri S, Zignego AL. Role of Notch receptors in hematologic malignancies. Cells. 2020;10(1):16.

131. Pancewicz J, Nicot C. Current views on the role of Notch signaling and the pathogenesis of human leukemia. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:1–7.

132. Suresh S, Irvine AE. The NOTCH signaling pathway in normal and malignant blood cell production. J Cell Commun Signal. 2015;9:5–13.

133. Grainger S, Traver D, Willert K. Wnt signaling in hematological malignancies. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2018;153:321–41.

134. Nemeth E, Tuttle MS, Powelson J, Vaughn MB, Donovan A, Ward DM, et al. Hepcidin regulates cellular iron efflux by binding to ferroportin and inducing its internalization. Science. 2004;306(5704):2090–3.

135. Paganin M, Ferrando A. Molecular pathogenesis and targeted therapies for NOTCH1 -induced T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood Rev. 2011;25(2):83–90.

136. Ranganath R, Nagashree NR. Role of programmed cell death in development. 2001.

137. Rechsteiner M, Rogers SW. PEST sequences and regulation by proteolysis. Trends Biochem Sci. 1996;21(7):267–71.

138. Close V, Close W, Kugler SJ, Reichenzeller M, Yosifov DY, Bloehdorn J, et al. FBXW7 mutations reduce binding of NOTCH1, leading to cleaved NOTCH1 accumulation and target gene activation in CLL. Blood. J Am Soc Hematol. 2019;133(8):830–9.

139. Arruga F, Vaisitti T, Deaglio S. The NOTCH pathway and its mutations in mature B cell malignancies. Front Oncol. 2018;8:550.

140. Zhou B, Lin W, Long Y, Yang Y, Zhang H, Wu K, et al. Notch signaling pathway: architecture, disease, and therapeutics. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):95.

141. Giaimo BD, Gagliani EK, Kovall RA, Borggrefe T. Transcription factor RBPJ as a molecular switch in regulating the Notch response. Notch Signal Embryol Cancer: Notch Signal Cancer. 2021:9–30.

142. Oliveira DV. Unraveling the role of NOTCH3 dysfunction in disease and for therapy development: a focus on cadasil. Karolinska Institutet (Sweden); 2021.

143. Tabaja N, Yuan Z, Oswald F, Kovall RA. Structure-function analysis of RBP-J-interacting and tubulin-associated (RITA) reveals regions critical for repression of Notch target genes. J Biol Chem. 2017;292(25):10549–63.

144. Guo Y-J, Pan W-W, Liu S-B, Shen Z-F, Xu Y, Hu. L-L. ERK/MAPK signalling pathway and tumorigenesis. Experimental Therapeutic Med. 2020;19(3):1997–2007.

145. Margolis B, Skolnik EY. Activation of Ras by receptor tyrosine kinases. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1994;5(6):1288–99.

146. Schlessinger J, Bar-Sagi D. Activation of Ras and other signaling pathways by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cold spring harbor symposia on quantitative biology. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1994. pp. 173–9.

147. Mercer KE, Pritchard CA. Raf proteins and cancer: B-Raf is identified as a mutational target. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA). 2003;1653(1):25–40.

148. Holderfield M, Deuker MM, McCormick F, McMahon M. Targeting RAF kinases for cancer therapy: BRAF-mutated melanoma and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14(7):455–67.

149. Burotto M, Chiou VL, Lee JM, Kohn EC. The MAPK pathway across different malignancies: a new perspective. Cancer. 2014;120(22):3446–56.

150. Hu Y, Shen F, Yang X, Han T, Long Z, Wen J, et al. Single-cell sequencing technology applied to epigenetics for the study of tumor heterogeneity. Clin Epigenetics. 2023;15(1):161.

151. Martinez-Lage M, Torres-Ruiz R, Puig-Serra P, Moreno-Gaona P, Martin MC, Moya FJ, et al. In vivo CRISPR/Cas9 targeting of fusion oncogenes for selective elimination of cancer cells. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5060.

152. Haslauer T, Greil R, Zaborsky N, Geisberger R. Car T-cell therapy in hematological malignancies. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(16):8996.

153. Braicu C, Buse M, Busuioc C, Drula R, Gulei D, Raduly L, et al. A comprehensive review on MAPK: a promising therapeutic target in cancer. Cancers. 2019;11(10):1618.

154. Park J-I. MAPK-ERK, pathway. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(11):9666.

155. Shukla A, Shukla V, Joshi SS. Regulation of MAPK signaling and implications in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. 2018;59(7):1565–73.

156. Vendramini E, Bomben R, Pozzo F, Bittolo T, Tissino E, Gattei V, et al. KRAS and RAS-MAPK pathway deregulation in mature B cell lymphoproliferative disorders. Cancers. 2022;14(3):666.

157. Tortora G, Bianco R, Daniele G, Ciardiello F, McCubrey JA, Ricciardi MR, et al. Overcoming resistance to molecularly targeted anticancer therapies: rational drug combinations based on EGFR and MAPK inhibition for solid tumours and haematologic malignancies. Drug Resist Updat. 2007;10(3):81–100.

158. Molina JR, Adjei AA. The ras/raf/mapk pathway. J Thorac Oncol. 2006;1(1):7–9.

159. Tran KA, Cheng MY, Mitra A, Ogawa H, Shi VY, Olney LP, et al. MEK inhibitors and their potential in the treatment of advanced melanoma: the advantages of combination therapy. Drug Des Development Therapy. 2015. 10.2147/DDDT.S93545.

160. Rauch R, Kiennemann A, Sauciuc A. Fischer-Tropsch synthesis to biofuels (BtL process). In: The role of catalysis for the sustainable production of bio-fuels and bio-chemicals. Elsevier; 2013. p. 397–443.

161. Lu X, Jin J, Wu Y, Liu X, Liang X, Lin J, et al. Progress in RAS-targeted therapeutic strategies: from small molecule inhibitors to proteolysis targeting chimeras. Med Res Rev. 2024;44(2):812–32.

162. Chami N, Lettre G. Lessons and implications from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) findings of blood cell phenotypes. Genes. 2014;5(1):51–64.

163. Marrero RJ, Lamba JK. Current landscape of genome-wide association studies in acute myeloid leukemia: a review. Cancers. 2023;15(14):3583.

164. Sud A, Kinnersley B, Houlston RS. Genome-wide association studies of cancer: current insights and future perspectives. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(11):692–704.

165. Timmermans S, Shostak S. Gene worlds. Health (San Francisco). 2016;20(1):33–48.

166. Hellwege JN, Keaton JM, Giri A, Gao X, Velez Edwards DR, Edwards TL. Population stratification in genetic association studies. Curr Protocols Hum Genet. 2017;95(1):1. 1–1. 3.

167. Zhang Y, Pan W. Principal component regression and linear mixed model in association analysis of structured samples: competitors or complements? Genet Epidemiol. 2015;39(3):149–55.

168. Martin M, Govaerts B. LiMM‐PCA: combining ASCA + and linear mixed models to analyse high‐dimensional designed data. J Chemom. 2020;34(6):e3232.

169. Cerhan JR, Berndt SI, Vijai J, Ghesquières H, McKay J, Wang SS, et al. Genome-wide association study identifies multiple susceptibility loci for diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Nat Genet. 2014;46(11):1233–8.

170. Ahmed Z, Zeeshan S, Mendhe D, Dong X. Human gene and disease associations for clinical-genomics and precision medicine research. Clin Transl Med. 2020;10(1):297–318.

171. Palmirotta R, Carella C, Silvestris E, Cives M, Stucci SL, Tucci M, et al. SNPs in predicting clinical efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy: walking through the quicksand. Oncotarget. 2018;9(38):25355.

172. Speicher MR, Geigl JB, Tomlinson IP. Effect of genome-wide association studies, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and high-speed sequencing technologies on predictive genetic counselling for cancer risk. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(9):890–8.

173. Schifreen RS, Storts DR, Buller AM. The challenge of using SNPs in the understanding and treatment of disease. Biotechniques. 2002;32(sup6):S14-21.

174. Andreassen C, Eriksen J, Jensen K, Hansen C, Sørensen B, Lassen P, et al. IMRT–biomarkers for dose escalation, dose de-escalation and personalized medicine in radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. Oral Oncol. 2018;86:91–9.

175. Weitzel JN, Blazer KR, MacDonald DJ, Culver JO, Offit K. Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: state of the art and future directions in the era of personalized medicine. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(5):327–59.

176. Song J, Shao H. SNP array in hematopoietic neoplasms: a review. Microarrays. 2015;5(1):1.

177. Dratwa M, Łacina P, Butrym A, Porzuczek D, Mazur G, Bogunia-Kubik K. Telomere length and h TERT genetic variants as potential prognostic markers in multiple myeloma. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):15792.

178. Avet-Loiseau H, Facon T, Grosbois B, Magrangeas F, Rapp M-J, Harousseau J-L, et al. Oncogenesis of multiple myeloma: 14q32 and 13q chromosomal abnormalities are not randomly distributed, but correlate with natural history, immunological features, and clinical presentation. Blood. 2002;99(6):2185–91.

179. Economopoulou P, Pappa V, Papageorgiou S, Dervenoulas J, Economopoulos T. Abnormalities of DNA repair mechanisms in common hematological malignancies. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52(4):567–82.

180. Dylawerska A, Barczak W, Wegner A, Golusinski W, Suchorska WM. Association of DNA repair genes polymorphisms and mutations with increased risk of head and neck cancer: a review. Med Oncol. 2017;34:1–8.

181. Verma M. Genome-wide association studies and epigenome-wide association studies go together in cancer control. Future Oncol. 2016;12(13):1645–64.

182. Blighe K, DeDionisio L, Christie K, Chawes B, Shareef S, Kakouli-Duarte T, et al. Gene editing in the context of an increasingly complex genome. BMC Genomics. 2018;19:1–20.

183. Zhao X, Qian M, Goodings C, Zhang Y, Yang W, Wang P, et al. Molecular mechanisms of ARID5B-mediated genetic susceptibility to acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114(9):1287–95.

184. Greim H, Kaden DA, Larson RA, Palermo CM, Rice JM, Ross D, et al. The bone marrow niche, stem cells, and leukemia: impact of drugs, chemicals, and the environment. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1310(1):7–31.

185. Hsu L-I, Chokkalingam AP, Briggs FB, Walsh K, Crouse V, Fu C, et al. Association of genetic variation in IKZF1, ARID5B, and CEBPE and surrogates for early-life infections with the risk of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in Hispanic children. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26:609–19.

186. Leveille E, Johnson NA. Genetic events inhibiting apoptosis in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(9):2167.

187. Hanker A, Rajkumar K, He Z, Ohneda O, Nguyen H-NT, Kawahara M et al. Frontiers frontiers in oncology ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 07 June 2022. Women in Breast Cancer: 2022, II. 2023:6

188. Akinci E, Hamilton MC, Khowpinitchai B, Sherwood RI. Using CRISPR to understand and manipulate gene regulation. Development. 2021;148(9):dev182667.

189. Moriyama T, Yang W, Smith C, Pui C-H, Evans WE, Relling MV, et al. Comprehensive characterization of pharmacogenetic variants in TPMT and NUDT15 in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2022;32(2):60–6.

190. Ellis GI, Sheppard NC, Riley JL. Genetic engineering of T cells for immunotherapy. Nat Rev Genet. 2021;22(7):427–47.

191. Ferris RL, Hunt JL, Ferrone S. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class i defects in head and neck cancer: molecular mechanisms and clinical significance. Immunol Res. 2005;33:113–33.

192. Chavez-Gonzalez A, Bakhshinejad B, Pakravan K, Guzman ML, Babashah S. Novel strategies for targeting leukemia stem cells: sounding the death knell for blood cancer. Cell Oncol. 2017;40:1–20.

193. Manolio TA. Bringing genome-wide association findings into clinical use. Nat Rev Genet. 2013;14(8):549–58.

194. Rahman S, Mansour MR. The role of noncoding mutations in blood cancers. Dis Model Mech. 2019;12(11):dmm041988.

195. Pourmasoumi P, Moradi A, Bayat M. BRCA1/2 mutations and breast/ovarian cancer risk: a new insights review. Reproductive Sci. 2024. 10.1007/s43032-024-01666-w.

196. O’Sullivan JW, Raghavan S, Marquez-Luna C, Luzum JA, Damrauer SM, Ashley EA, et al. Polygenic risk scores for cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;146(8):e93-118.

197. Iodice S, Barile M, Rotmensz N, Feroce I, Bonanni B, Radice P, et al. Oral contraceptive use and breast or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1/2 carriers: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(12):2275–84.

198. Pirmohamed M. Pharmacogenetics for the prescriber. Medicine. 2024;52(1):11–4.

199. Manson LE, Nijenhuis M, Soree B, de Boer-Veger NJ, Buunk A-M, Houwink EJ, et al. Dutch pharmacogenetics working group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction of CYP2C9, HLA-A and HLA-B with anti-epileptic drugs. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024;32(8):903–11.

200. Cacabelos R, Naidoo V, Corzo L, Cacabelos N, Carril JC. Genophenotypic factors and pharmacogenomics in adverse drug reactions. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(24):13302.

201. Zhang H, Qin C, An C, Zheng X, Wen S, Chen W, et al. Application of the CRISPR/Cas9-based gene editing technique in basic research, diagnosis, and therapy of cancer. Mol Cancer. 2021;20:1–22.

202. Ganger S, Harale G, Majumdar P. Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated (CRISPR/Cas) systems: Discovery, structure, classification, and general mechanism. CRISPR/Cas-Mediated Genome Editing in Plants. Apple Academic; 2023. p. 65–97.

203. Doudna JA, Charpentier E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. 2014;346(6213):1258096.

204. Hu LF, Li YX, Wang JZ, Zhao YT, Wang Y. Controlling CRISPR-Cas9 by guide RNA engineering. WIREs RNA. 2023;14(1):e1731.

205. Rassool FV. DNA double strand breaks (DSB) and non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) pathways in human leukemia. Cancer Lett. 2003;193(1):1–9.

206. Liao H, Wu J, VanDusen NJ, Li Y, Zheng Y. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated homology-directed repair for precise gene editing. Mol Ther. 2024. 10.1016/j.omtn.2024.102344.

207. Liu M, Rehman S, Tang X, Gu K, Fan Q, Chen D, et al. Methodologies for improving HDR efficiency. Front Genet. 2019;9:691.

208. Kansal R. The CRISPR-Cas system and clinical applications of CRISPR-based gene editing in hematology with a focus on inherited germline predisposition to hematologic malignancies. Genes. 2024;15(7):863.

209. Kontoghiorghes GJ, Spyrou A, Kolnagou A. Iron chelation therapy in hereditary hemochromatosis and thalassemia intermedia: regulatory and Non regulatory mechanisms of increased iron absorption. Hemoglobin. 2010;34(3):251–64.

210. Kang Z-J, Liu Y-F, Xu L-Z, Long Z-J, Huang D, Yang Y, et al. The Philadelphia chromosome in leukemogenesis. Chin J Cancer. 2016;35:1–15.

211. Vuelta E, García-Tuñón I, Hernández-Carabias P, Méndez L, Sánchez-Martín M. Future approaches for treating chronic myeloid leukemia: CRISPR therapy. Biology. 2021;10(2):118.

212. Krug U, Ganser A, Koeffler HP. Tumor suppressor genes in normal and malignant hematopoiesis. Oncogene. 2002;21(21):3475–95.

213. Peller S, Rotter V. TP53 in hematological cancer: low incidence of mutations with significant clinical relevance. Hum Mutat. 2003;21(3):277–84.

214. Guimaraes D, Hainaut P. TP53: a key gene in human cancer. Biochimie. 2002;84(1):83–93.

215. Azangou-Khyavy M, Ghasemi M, Khanali J, Boroomand-Saboor M, Jamalkhah M, Soleimani M, et al. CRISPR/Cas: from tumor gene editing to T cell-based immunotherapy of cancer. Front Immunol. 2020;11:2062.

216. Miri SM, Tafsiri E, Cho WCS, Ghaemi A. CRISPR-Cas, a robust gene-editing technology in the era of modern cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Cell Int. 2020;20:1–17.

217. Elmas E, Saljoughian N, de Souza Fernandes Pereira M, Tullius BP, Sorathia K, Nakkula RJ, et al. CRISPR gene editing of human primary NK and T cells for cancer immunotherapy. Front Oncol. 2022;12:834002.

218. Kolanu ND. CRISPR–Cas9 gene editing: curing genetic diseases by inherited epigenetic modifications. Glob Med Genet. 2024;11(01):113–22.

219. Zanganeh S, Zahedi AM, Bardsiri MS, Bazi A, Bastanifard M, Shool S, et al. Recent advances and applications of the CRISPR-Cas system in the gene therapy of blood disorders. Gene. 2024. 10.1016/j.gene.2024.148865.

220. Agapito-Tenfen SZ, Okoli AS, Bernstein MJ, Wikmark O-G, Myhr AI. Revisiting risk governance of GM plants: the need to consider new and emerging gene-editing techniques. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1874.

221. Maeder ML, Gersbach CA. Genome-editing technologies for gene and cell therapy. Mol Ther. 2016;24(3):430–46.

222. Eid A, Alshareef S, Mahfouz MM. Crispr base editors: genome editing without double-stranded breaks. Biochem J. 2018;475(11):1955–64.

223. Komor AC, Badran AH, Liu DR. Editing the genome without double-stranded DNA breaks. ACS Chem Biol. 2018;13(2):383–8.

224. Chergui A, Reagan JL. Immunotherapy in acute leukemias: past success paves the way for future progress. Cancers. 2023;15(16):4137.

225. Tang L, Huang Z, Mei H, Hu Y. Immunotherapy in hematologic malignancies: achievements, challenges and future prospects. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2023;8(1):306.

226. Ahmed G, Alsouqi A, Szabo A, Rojek AE, Riedell PA, Awan FT, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in secondary central nervous system large B-cell lymphoma (SCNSL): a multicenter retrospective analysis. Blood. 2023;142:3088.

227. Shah N, Chari A, Scott E, Mezzi K, Usmani SZ. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in multiple myeloma: rationale for targeting and current therapeutic approaches. Leukemia. 2020;34(4):985–1005.

228. Hong M, Clubb JD, Chen YY. Engineering CAR-T cells for next-generation cancer therapy. Cancer Cell. 2020;38(4):473–88.

229. Rafiq S, Hackett CS, Brentjens RJ. Engineering strategies to overcome the current roadblocks in CAR T cell therapy. Nat Reviews Clin Oncol. 2020;17(3):147–67.

230. Lee DW, Gardner R, Porter DL, Louis CU, Ahmed N, Jensen M, et al. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of cytokine release syndrome. Blood. 2014;124(2):188–95.

231. Lee DW, Santomasso BD, Locke FL, Ghobadi A, Turtle CJ, Brudno JN, et al. ASTCT consensus grading for cytokine release syndrome and neurologic toxicity associated with immune effector cells. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019;25(4):625–38.

232. Fife BT, Bluestone JA. Control of peripheral T-cell tolerance and autoimmunity via the CTLA‐4 and PD‐1 pathways. Immunol Rev. 2008;224(1):166–82.

233. Zhang H, Dai Z, Wu W, Wang Z, Zhang N, Zhang L, et al. Regulatory mechanisms of immune checkpoints PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021;40(1):184.

234. Bai J, Gao Z, Li X, Dong L, Han W, Nie J. Regulation of PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Oncotarget. 2017;8(66):110693.

235. Xie W, Medeiros LJ, Li S, Yin CC, Khoury JD, Xu J. PD-1/PD-L1 pathway and its blockade in patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin large-cell lymphomas. Curr Hematol Malig Rep. 2020;15:372–81.

236. Merryman RW, Armand P, Wright KT, Rodig SJ. Checkpoint blockade in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2017;1(26):2643–54.

237. Buchbinder EI, Desai A. CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways: similarities, differences, and implications of their inhibition. Am J Clin Oncol. 2016;39(1):98–106.

238. Du X, Liu M, Su J, Zhang P, Tang F, Ye P, et al. Uncoupling therapeutic from immunotherapy-related adverse effects for safer and effective anti-CTLA-4 antibodies in CTLA4 humanized mice. Cell Res. 2018;28(4):433–47.

239. Hatic H, Sampat D, Goyal G. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in lymphoma: challenges and opportunities. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(12):1037.

240. Quezada S, Peggs K. Exploiting. CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1 to reactivate the host immune response against cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(8):1560–5.

241. Byrne EH, Fisher DE. Immune and molecular correlates in melanoma treated with immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer. 2017;123(S11):2143–53.

242. Bair SM, Brandstadter JD, Ayers EC, Stadtmauer EA. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for blood cancers in the era of precision medicine and immunotherapy. Cancer. 2020;126(9):1837–55.

243. Nishida H, Yamada T. Monoclonal antibody therapies in multiple myeloma: a challenge to develop novel targets. J Oncol. 2019;2019(1):6084012.

244. Smith MR. Rituximab (monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody): mechanisms of action and resistance. Oncogene. 2003;22(47):7359–68.

245. Román VRG, Murray JC, Weiner LM. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC). In: Antibody Fc. Elsevier; 2014. p. 1–27. 10.1016/B978-0-12-394802-1.00001-7.

246. Pawluczkowycz AW, Beurskens FJ, Beum PV, Lindorfer MA, van de Winkel JG, Parren PW, et al. Binding of submaximal C1q promotes complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) of B cells opsonized with anti-CD20 mAbs ofatumumab (OFA) or rituximab (RTX): considerably higher levels of CDC are induced by OFA than by RTX. J Immunol. 2009;183(1):749–58.

247. Stanglmaier M, Reis S, Hallek M. Rituximab and alemtuzumab induce a nonclassic, caspase-independent apoptotic pathway in B-lymphoid cell lines and in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells. Ann Hematol. 2004;83(10):634–45.

248. Saltarella I, Desantis V, Melaccio A, Solimando AG, Lamanuzzi A, Ria R, et al. Mechanisms of resistance to anti-CD38 daratumumab in multiple myeloma. Cells. 2020;9(1):167.

249. Dalton WS. The tumor microenvironment: focus on myeloma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003;29:11–9.

250. Garcia-Ortiz A, Rodriguez-Garcia Y, Encinas J, Maroto-Martin E, Castellano E, Teixidó J, et al. The role of tumor microenvironment in multiple myeloma development and progression. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(2):217.

251. Goebeler M-E, Bargou RC. T cell-engaging therapies—BiTEs and beyond. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(7):418–34.

252. Huehls AM, Coupet TA, Sentman CL. Bispecific T-cell engagers for cancer immunotherapy. Immunol Cell Biol. 2015;93(3):290–6.

253. Gardell JL, Matsumoto LR, Chinn H, DeGolier KR, Kreuser SA, Prieskorn B, et al. Human macrophages engineered to secrete a bispecific T cell engager support antigen-dependent T cell responses to glioblastoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(2):e001202.

254. Tutt AL, French RR, Illidge TM, Honeychurch J, McBride HM, Penfold CA, et al. Monoclonal antibody therapy of B cell lymphoma: signaling activity on tumor cells appears more important than recruitment of effectors. J Immunol. 1998;161(6):3176–85.

255. Bald T, Krummel MF, Smyth MJ, Barry KC. The NK cell–cancer cycle: advances and new challenges in NK cell–based immunotherapies. Nat Immunol. 2020;21(8):835–47.

256. Pockley AG, Vaupel P, Multhoff G. NK cell-based therapeutics for lung cancer. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2020;20(1):23–33.

257. Du Y, Pollok KE, Shen J. Unlocking glioblastoma secrets: natural killer cell therapy against cancer stem cells. Cancers. 2023;15(24):5836.

258. Serratì S, De Summa S, Pilato B, Petriella D, Lacalamita R, Tommasi S, et al. Next-generation sequencing: advances and applications in cancer diagnosis. Onco Targets Ther. 2016. 10.2147/OTT.S99807.

259. Shibata T. Current and future molecular profiling of cancer by next-generation sequencing. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2015;45(10):895–9.

260. Zhu WM, Middleton MR. Combination therapies for the optimisation of bispecific T-cell engagers in cancer treatment. Immunotherapy Advances. 2023;3(1):ltad013.

261. Ricciuti B, Wang X, Alessi JV, Rizvi H, Mahadevan NR, Li YY, et al. Association of high tumor mutation burden in non–small cell lung cancers with increased immune infiltration and improved clinical outcomes of PD-L1 blockade across PD-L1 expression levels. JAMA Oncol. 2022;8(8):1160–8.

262. Gibellini L, De Biasi S, Porta C, Lo Tartaro D, Depenni R, Pellacani G, et al. Single-cell approaches to profile the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Immunol. 2020;11:490.

263. Chow A, Perica K, Klebanoff CA, Wolchok JD. Clinical implications of T cell exhaustion for cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2022;19(12):775–90.

264. Hsu C-L, Ou D-L, Bai L-Y, Chen C-W, Lin L, Huang S-F, et al. Exploring markers of exhausted CD8 T cells to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer. 2021;10(4):346–59.

265. Jain K. Biotechnology-based Drug Discovery. Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. 2009:307.

266. Namba S, Konuma T, Wu K-H, Zhou W, Okada Y. A practical guideline of genomics-driven drug discovery in the era of global biobank meta-analysis. Cell Genom. 2022. 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100190.

267. Wabel A-B, Khajah M. The principles behind targeted therapy for cancer treatment. IntechOpen: Tumor progression and metastasis.; 2019.

268. Manley PW, Stiefl NJ. Progress in the discovery of BCR-ABL kinase inhibitors for the treatment of leukemia. Cancer II. 2018:1–37.

269. Filippini T, Malavolti M, Borrelli F, Izzo AA, Fairweather-Tait SJ, Horneber M, et al. Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2020. 10.1002/14651858.CD005004.pub3.

270. Lambert GK, Duhme-Klair A-K, Morgan T, Ramjee MK. The background, discovery and clinical development of BCR-ABL inhibitors. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18(19–20):992–1000.

271. Burger JA. Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors: present and future. Cancer J. 2019;25(6):386–93.

272. Pal Singh S, Dammeijer F, Hendriks RW. Role of bruton’s tyrosine kinase in B cells and malignancies. Mol Cancer. 2018;17(1):57.

273. Zhuang X, Pei HZ, Li T, Huang J, Guo Y, Zhao Y, et al. The molecular mechanisms of resistance to IDH inhibitors in acute myeloid leukemia. Front Oncol. 2022;12:931462.

274. Fathi AT, Wander SA, Faramand R, Emadi A. Biochemical, epigenetic, and metabolic approaches to target IDH mutations in acute myeloid leukemia. Seminars in hematology: Elsevier; 2015. pp. 165–71.

275. Quazi S. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in precision and genomic medicine. Med Oncol. 2022;39(8):120.

276. You Y, Lai X, Pan Y, Zheng H, Vera J, Liu S, et al. Artificial intelligence in cancer target identification and drug discovery. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2022;7(1):156.

277. Gupta R, Srivastava D, Sahu M, Tiwari S, Ambasta RK, Kumar P. Artificial intelligence to deep learning: machine intelligence approach for drug discovery. Mol Diversity. 2021;25:1315–60.

278. Ganter B, Tugendreich S, Pearson CI, Ayanoglu E, Baumhueter S, Bostian KA, et al. Development of a large-scale chemogenomics database to improve drug candidate selection and to understand mechanisms of chemical toxicity and action. J Biotechnol. 2005;119(3):219–44.

279. Pu L, Naderi M, Liu T, Wu H-C, Mukhopadhyay S, Brylinski M. E toxpred: A machinE learning-based approach to estimatE thE toxicity of drug candidates. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol. 2019;20:1–15.

280. Misso G, Rachele Zarone M, Grimaldi A, Di Teresa M, Lombardi A, Kawasaki H, et al. Non coding rnas: a new avenue for the self-tailoring of blood cancer treatment. Curr Drug Targets. 2017;18(1):35–55.

281. Anelli L, Zagaria A, Specchia G, Musto P, Albano F. Dysregulation of miRNA in leukemia: exploiting miRNA expression profiles as biomarkers. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(13):7156.

282. Schmitt M, Margue C, Behrmann I, Kreis S. Mirna-29: a MicroRNA family with tumor-suppressing and immune-modulating properties. Curr Mol Med. 2013;13(4):572–85.

283. Hatzimichael E, Crook T. Cancer epigenetics: new therapies and new challenges. J Drug Deliv. 2013;2013:2013(1):529312.

284. Juergens RA, Wrangle J, Vendetti FP, Murphy SC, Zhao M, Coleman B, et al. Combination epigenetic therapy has efficacy in patients with refractory advanced non–small cell lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011;1(7):598–607.

285. Kim TK, Gore SD, Zeidan AM. Epigenetic therapy in acute myeloid leukemia: current and future directions. Seminars in hematology: Elsevier; 2015. pp. 172–83.

286. Dimopoulos K, Grønbæk K. Epigenetic therapy in hematological cancers. APMIS. 2019;127(5):316–28.

287. Tan DS, Thomas GV, Garrett MD, Banerji U, De Bono JS, Kaye SB, et al. Biomarker-driven early clinical trials in oncology: a paradigm shift in drug development. Cancer J. 2009;15(5):406–20.

288. Parikesit AA. Introduction to genomic-driven drug discovery. genomics-driven drug discovery through pharmacogenomics. IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2025. 10.4018/979-8-3693-6597-7.ch006.

289. Jyothi N. AI-enabled genomic biomarkers: the future of pharmaceutical industry and personalized medicine. Seybold Rep J. 2023;18(08):54–72.

290. Taefehshokr S, Parhizkar A, Hayati S, Mousapour M, Mahmoudpour A, Eleid L, et al. Cancer immunotherapy: challenges and limitations. Pathology. 2022;229:153723.

291. Peterson C, Denlinger N, Yang Y. Recent advances and challenges in cancer immunotherapy. Cancers. 2022;14(16):3972.

292. Zafar A, Khan MJ, Abu J, Naeem A. Revolutionizing cancer care strategies: immunotherapy, gene therapy, and molecular targeted therapy. Mol Biol Rep. 2024;51(1):219.

293. El-Sayes N, Vito A, Mossman K. Tumor heterogeneity: a great barrier in the age of cancer immunotherapy. Cancers. 2021;13(4):806.

294. Jia Q, Wang A, Yuan Y, Zhu B, Long H. Heterogeneity of the tumor immune microenvironment and its clinical relevance. Exp Hematol Oncol. 2022;11(1):24.

295. Howell DA, McCaughan D, Smith AG, Patmore R, Roman E. Incurable but treatable: understanding, uncertainty and impact in chronic blood cancers—a qualitative study from the UK’s haematological malignancy research network. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(2):e0263672.

296. Jiang Y, Lin W, Zhu L. Targeted drug delivery for the treatment of blood cancers. Molecules. 2022;27(4):1310.

297. Casagrande S, Sopetto GB, Bertalot G, Bortolotti R, Racanelli V, Caffo O, et al. Immune-related adverse events due to cancer immunotherapy: immune mechanisms and clinical manifestations. Cancers (Basel). 2024;16(7):1440.

298. Ibis B, Aliazis K, Cao C, Yenyuwadee S, Boussiotis VA. Immune-related adverse effects of checkpoint immunotherapy and implications for the treatment of patients with cancer and autoimmune diseases. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1197364.

299. Rahman MM, Behl T, Islam MR, Alam MN, Islam MM, Albarrati A, et al. Emerging management approach for the adverse events of immunotherapy of cancer. Molecules. 2022;27(12):3798.

300. Gkazi SA. Quantifying CRISPR off-target effects. Emerg Top Life Sci. 2019;3(3):327–34.

301. Guo C, Ma X, Gao F, Guo Y. Off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1143157.

302. Maity S, Mukherjee R, Banerjee S. Recent advances and therapeutic strategies using CRISPR genome editing technique for the treatment of cancer. Mol Biotechnol. 2023;65(2):206–26.

303. Rehman S. Ethical implications of genetic engineering: balancing innovation and responsibility. Front Biotechnol Genet. 2024;1(1):37–55.

304. Adeniji AA, Dulal S, Martin MG. Personalized medicine in oncology in the developing world: barriers and concepts to improve status quo. World J Oncol. 2021;12(2–3):50.

305. Gill J, Fontrier A-M, Miracolo A, Kanavos P. Access to personalised oncology in Europe. London School of Economics; 2020.

306. Naveed M, Ayday E, Clayton EW, Fellay J, Gunter CA, Hubaux J-P, et al. Privacy in the genomic era. ACM Comput Surv. 2015;48(1):1–44.

307. Tyagi AK. Privacy preservation of genomic and medical data. Wiley; 2023.

308. Gyngell C, Douglas T, Savulescu J. The ethics of germline gene editing. J Appl Philos. 2017;34(4):498–513.

309. Green RM. Babies by design: the ethics of genetic choice. Yale University Press; 2007.

310. Ali H. Artificial intelligence in multi-omics data integration: advancing precision medicine, biomarker discovery and genomic-driven disease interventions. Int J Sci Res Arch. 2023;8(1):1012–30.

311. Pettini F, Visibelli A, Cicaloni V, Iovinelli D, Spiga O. Multi-omics model applied to cancer genetics. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(11):5751.

312. Menyhárt O, Győrffy B. Multi-omics approaches in cancer research with applications in tumor subtyping, prognosis, and diagnosis. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021;19:949–60.

313. Kang M, Ko E, Mersha TB. A roadmap for multi-omics data integration using deep learning. Brief Bioinform. 2022;23(1):bbab454.

314. Arjmand B, Hamidpour SK, Tayanloo-Beik A, Goodarzi P, Aghayan HR, Adibi H, et al. Machine learning: a new prospect in multi-omics data analysis of cancer. Front Genet. 2022;13:824451.

315. Cai Z, Poulos RC, Liu J, Zhong Q. Machine learning for multi-omics data integration in cancer. iScience. 2022. 10.1016/j.isci.2022.103798.

316. Xu Z, Li W, Dong X, Chen Y, Zhang D, Wang J, et al. Precision medicine in colorectal cancer: leveraging multi-omics, spatial omics, and artificial intelligence. Clin Chim Acta. 2024. 10.1016/j.cca.2024.119686.

317. Mohr AE, Ortega-Santos CP, Whisner CM, Klein-Seetharaman J, Jasbi P. Navigating challenges and opportunities in multi-omics integration for personalized healthcare. Biomedicines. 2024;12(7):1496.

318. de Anda-Jáuregui G, Hernández-Lemus E. Computational oncology in the multi-omics era: state of the art. Front Oncol. 2020;10:423.

319. Li F, Wang S, Gao Z, Qing M, Pan S, Liu Y, et al. Harnessing artificial intelligence in sepsis care: advances in early detection, personalized treatment, and real-time monitoring. Front Med. 2025;11:1510792.

320. Zhang C, Li N, Zhang P, Jiang Z, Cheng Y, Li H, et al. Advancing precision and personalized breast cancer treatment through multi-omics technologies. Am J Cancer Res. 2024;14(12):5614.

321. McKeage MJ, Baguley BC. Disrupting established tumor blood vessels: an emerging therapeutic strategy for cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(8):1859–71.

322. Wiese W, Siwecka N, Wawrzynkiewicz A, Rozpędek-Kamińska W, Kucharska E, Majsterek I. IRE1α inhibitors as a promising therapeutic strategy in blood malignancies. Cancers. 2022;14(10):2526.

323. El-Tanani M, Rabbani SA, Satyam SM, Rangraze IR, Wali AF, El-Tanani Y, et al. Deciphering the role of cancer stem cells: drivers of tumor evolution, therapeutic resistance, and precision medicine strategies. Cancers (Basel). 2025;17(3):382.

324. Segun AF. Advances in personalized medical therapeutics: leveraging genomics for targeted treatments. Int J Res Publ Rev. 2024;5(10):2921–33.

325. Sheykhhasan M, Manoochehri H, Dama P. Use of CAR T-cell for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) treatment: a review study. Cancer Gene Ther. 2022;29(8):1080–96.

326. Im A, Sehgal A, Carroll M, Smith B, Tefferi A, Johnson D, et al. DNMT3A and IDH mutations in acute myeloid leukemia and other myeloid malignancies: associations with prognosis and potential treatment strategies. Leukemia. 2014;28(9):1774–83.

327. Issa GC, DiNardo CD. Acute myeloid leukemia with IDH1 and IDH2 mutations: 2021 treatment algorithm. Blood Cancer J. 2021;11(6):107.

328. Greaves M. Leukaemia’firsts’ in cancer research and treatment. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(3):163–72.

329. Shi J, Kantoff PW, Wooster R, Farokhzad OC. Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(1):20–37.

330. Hartshorn CM, Bradbury MS, Lanza GM, Nel AE, Rao J, Wang AZ, et al. Nanotechnology strategies to advance outcomes in clinical cancer care. ACS Nano. 2018;12(1):24–43.

331. Bibbins-Domingo K, Helman A. Improving representation in clinical trials and research. 2022.

332. Hindorff LA, Bonham VL, Brody LC, Ginoza ME, Hutter CM, Manolio TA, et al. Prioritizing diversity in human genomics research. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19(3):175–85.

333. Cappell KM, Kochenderfer JN. Long-term outcomes following CAR T cell therapy: what we know so far. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2023;20(6):359–71.

334. Bachanova V, Perales M-A, Abramson JS. Modern management of relapsed and refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma: a perspective on the current treatment landscape and patient selection for CAR T-cell therapy. Blood Rev. 2020;40:100640.

335. Mohty M, Dulery R, Gauthier J, Malard F, Brissot E, Aljurf M, et al. CAR T-cell therapy for the management of refractory/relapsed high-grade B-cell lymphoma: a practical overview. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020;55(8):1525–32.

336. Boretti A. The transformative potential of AI-driven CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing to enhance CAR T-cell therapy. Comput Biol Med. 2024;182:109137.

337. Hu Y, Zhou Y, Zhang M, Ge W, Li Y, Yang L, et al. CRISPR /Cas9-engineered universal CD19/CD22 dual-targeted CAR-T cell therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(10):2764–72.

338. Bhingarkar A, Vangapandu HV, Rathod S, Hoshitsuki K, Fernandez CA. Amino acid metabolic vulnerabilities in acute and chronic myeloid leukemias. Front Oncol. 2021;11:694526.

339. Fultang L, Gneo L, De Santo C, Mussai FJ. Targeting amino acid metabolic vulnerabilities in myeloid malignancies. Front Oncol. 2021;11:674720.

340. Jones CL, Stevens BM, D’Alessandro A, Reisz JA, Culp-Hill R, Nemkov T, et al. Inhibition of amino acid metabolism selectively targets human leukemia stem cells. Cancer Cell. 2018;34(5):724–40. e4.

341. Liao P, Chang N, Xu B, Qiu Y, Wang S, Zhou L, et al. Amino acid metabolism: challenges and opportunities for the therapeutic treatment of leukemia and lymphoma. Immunol Cell Biol. 2022;100(7):507–28.

342. Fung MKL, Chan GC-F. Drug-induced amino acid deprivation as strategy for cancer therapy. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):144.

343. Tabe Y, Lorenzi PL, Konopleva M. Amino acid metabolism in hematologic malignancies and the era of targeted therapy. Blood. 2019;134(13):1014–23.

344. Kreitz J, Schönfeld C, Seibert M, Stolp V, Alshamleh I, Oellerich T, et al. Metabolic plasticity of acute myeloid leukemia. Cells. 2019;8(8):805.

345. Zuo E, Huo X, Yao X, Hu X, Sun Y, Yin J, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted chromosome elimination. Genome Biol. 2017;18:1–18.

346. Gregory MA, Nemkov T, Park HJ, Zaberezhnyy V, Gehrke S, Adane B, et al. Targeting glutamine metabolism and redox state for leukemia therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(13):4079–90.

347. Sillar JR, Germon ZP, De Iuliis GN, Dun MD. The role of reactive oxygen species in acute myeloid leukaemia. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(23):6003.

348. Cano-Galiano A, Oudin A, Fack F, Allega M-F, Sumpton D, Martinez-Garcia E, et al. Cystathionine-γ-lyase drives antioxidant defense in cysteine-restricted IDH1-mutant astrocytomas. Neuro-Oncol Adv. 2021;3(1):vdab057.

349. Hong J, Liu W, Xiao X, Gajendran B, Ben-David Y. Targeting pivotal amino acids metabolism for treatment of leukemia. Heliyon. 2024. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40492.

350. Scalise M, Galluccio M, Console L, Pochini L, Indiveri C. The human SLC7A5 (LAT1): the intriguing histidine/large neutral amino acid transporter and its relevance to human health. Front Chem. 2018;6:243.

351. Bavaro L, Martelli M, Cavo M, Soverini S. Mechanisms of disease progression and resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in chronic myeloid leukemia: an update. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(24):6141.

352. Soverini S, Mancini M, Bavaro L, Cavo M, Martinelli G. Chronic myeloid leukemia: the paradigm of targeting oncogenic tyrosine kinase signaling and counteracting resistance for successful cancer therapy. Mol Cancer. 2018;17:1–15.

353. Atene CG, Fiorcari S, Mesini N, Alboni S, Martinelli S, Maccaferri M, et al. Indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase 1 mediates survival signals in chronic lymphocytic leukemia via kynurenine/aryl hydrocarbon receptor-mediated MCL1 modulation. Front Immunol. 2022;13:832263.

354. Mostazo MGC, Kurrle N, Casado M, Fuhrmann D, Alshamleh I, Häupl B, et al. Metabolic plasticity is an essential requirement of acquired tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance in chronic myeloid leukemia. Cancers. 2020;12(11):3443.

355. Pranzini E, Pardella E, Paoli P, Fendt S-M, Taddei ML. Metabolic reprogramming in anticancer drug resistance: a focus on amino acids. Trends Cancer. 2021;7(8):682–99.

356. Soltani M, Zhao Y, Xia Z, Ganjalikhani Hakemi M, Bazhin AV. The importance of cellular metabolic pathways in pathogenesis and selective treatments of hematological malignancies. Front Oncol. 2021;11:767026.

357. Liu X-Q, Lu K, Feng L-L, Ding M, Gao J-M, Ge X-L, et al. Up-regulated expression of indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase 1 in non-Hodgkin lymphoma correlates with increased regulatory T-cell infiltration. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(2):405–14.

358. Tarte K. Role of the microenvironment across histological subtypes of NHL. Hematol Am Soc Hematol Educ Program book. 2014;2017(1):610–7.

359. Watanabe T. The tumor microenvironment in follicular lymphoma: its pro-malignancy role with therapeutic potential. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(10):5352.

360. Martí i Líndez A-A, Reith W. Arginine-dependent immune responses. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2021;78(13):5303–24.

361. Fultang L, Vardon A, De Santo C, Mussai F. Molecular basis and current strategies of therapeutic arginine depletion for cancer. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(3):501–9.

362. Raber P, Ochoa AC, Rodríguez PC. Metabolism of L-arginine by myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cancer: mechanisms of T cell suppression and therapeutic perspectives. Immunol Invest. 2012;41(6–7):614–34.

363. Borkum JM. The tricarboxylic acid cycle as a central regulator of the rate of aging: implications for metabolic interventions. Adv Biol. 2023;7(7):2300095.

364. Masnikosa R, Cvetković Z, Pirić D. Tumor biology hides novel therapeutic approaches to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a narrative review. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(21):11384.

365. Colak C, Yagin FH, Algarni A, Algarni A, Al-Hashem F, Ardigò LP. Untargeted lipidomic biomarkers for liver cancer diagnosis: a tree-based machine learning model enhanced by explainable artificial intelligence. Medicina (B Aires). 2025;61(3):405.

366. Reina-Campos M, Diaz-Meco MT, Moscat J. The complexity of the serine glycine one-carbon pathway in cancer. J Cell Biol. 2019;219(1):e201907022.

367. Sun W, Liu R, Gao X, Lin Z, Tang H, Cui H, et al. Targeting serine-glycine-one-carbon metabolism as a vulnerability in cancers. Biomark Res. 2023;11(1):48.

368. Marengo B, Nitti M, Furfaro AL, Colla R, Ciucis CD, Marinari UM, et al. Redox homeostasis and cellular antioxidant systems: crucial players in cancer growth and therapy. Oxidative Med Cell Longev. 2016;2016(1):6235641.

369. Lee J, Roh J-L. SLC7A11 as a gateway of metabolic perturbation and ferroptosis vulnerability in cancer. Antioxidants. 2022;11(12):2444.

370. Yahsi B, Gunaydin G. Immunometabolism–the role of branched-chain amino acids. Front Immunol. 2022;13:886822.

371. Dimou A, Tsimihodimos V, Bairaktari E. The critical role of the branched chain amino acids (BCAAs) catabolism-regulating enzymes, branched-chain aminotransferase (BCAT) and branched-chain α-keto acid dehydrogenase (BCKD), in human pathophysiology. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(7):4022.

372. Bolzoni M, Chiu M, Accardi F, Vescovini R, Airoldi I, Storti P, et al. Dependence on glutamine uptake and glutamine addiction characterize myeloma cells: a new attractive target. Blood. 2016;128(5):667–79.

373. Conrad M, Sato H. The oxidative stress-inducible cystine/glutamate antiporter, system xc–: cystine supplier and beyond. Amino Acids. 2012;42:231–46.

374. Koppula P, Zhuang L, Gan B. Cystine transporter SLC7A11/xCT in cancer: ferroptosis, nutrient dependency, and cancer therapy. Protein Cell. 2021;12(8):599–620.

375. Xiao Y, Hu B, Guo Y, Zhang D, Zhao Y, Chen Y, et al. Targeting glutamine metabolism as an attractive therapeutic strategy for acute myeloid leukemia. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2023;24(8):1021–35.

376. Mahmood K, Emadi A. 1-C metabolism—serine, glycine, folates—in acute myeloid leukemia. Pharmaceuticals. 2021;14(3):190.

377. Chiu M, Taurino G, Bianchi MG, Kilberg MS, Bussolati O. Asparagine synthetase in cancer: beyond acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Front Oncol. 2020;9:1480.

378. Bassit RA, Sawada LA, Bacurau RFP, Navarro F, Rosa L. The effect of BCAA supplementation upon the immune response of triathletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(7):1214–9.

379. Di Martino L, Tosello V, Peroni E, Piovan E. Insights on metabolic reprogramming and its therapeutic potential in acute leukemia. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(16):8738.

380. Rosenthal DS, Dean-Clower E. Integrative medicine in hematology/oncology: benefits, ethical considerations, and controversies. ASH Educ Program Book. 2005;2005(1):491–7.

381. Datta M, Coussens LM, Nishikawa H, Hodi FS, Jain RK. Reprogramming the tumor microenvironment to improve immunotherapy: emerging strategies and combination therapies. American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. 2019. 10.1200/EDBK_237987.

382. Joshi DC, Sharma A, Prasad S, Singh K, Kumar M, Sherawat K, et al. Novel therapeutic agents in clinical trials: emerging approaches in cancer therapy. Discover Oncol. 2024;15(1):342.

383. Shanafelt TD, Wang XV, Hanson CA, Paietta EM, O’Brien S, Barrientos J, et al. Long-term outcomes for ibrutinib–rituximab and chemoimmunotherapy in CLL: updated results of the E1912 trial. Blood. 2022;140(2):112–20.

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.