Targeting signaling pathways in lymphoma: From molecular mechanisms to clinical breakthroughs.

Introduction

Lymphoma, a heterogeneous group of hematologic malignancies originating from the lymphatic system, poses a significant global health burden. The World Health Organization classification delineates over 100 distinct subtypes, broadly categorized into Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-HL (NHL), with the latter comprising a vast spectrum of B-cell, T-cell, and natural killer (NK)-cell neoplasms. [ 1 ] This pathological diversity is mirrored by profound molecular complexity, driven by a complex interplay of genetic mutations, chromosomal translocations, epigenetic dysregulation, and alterations from the tumor microenvironment (TME). [ 2 ] Consequently, lymphomas exhibit varied clinical behaviors, ranging from indolent diseases that can be managed with a “watch and wait” approach to highly aggressive subtypes requiring immediate and intensive intervention. [ 3 ] This inherent heterogeneity presents a formidable challenge in developing universally effective treatments. [ 4 ]

For decades, the standard of care for most lymphomas has been combination chemotherapy, often integrated with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies for B-cell lymphoma, exemplified by the rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone regimen (R-CHOP). [ 5 ] This immunochemotherapy approach has substantially improved survival rates and remains a curative standard for many aggressive B-cell lymphomas. However, its limitations exist. [ 6 ] In the realm of T-cell and NK/T-cell lymphomas (NKTCL), which are often characterized by greater biological heterogeneity and inherent chemoresistance, outcomes with conventional chemotherapy are frequently suboptimal. [ 7 ] Across both B-cell and T-cell lineages, a significant proportion of patients either fail to respond to initial therapy (refractory disease) or experience relapse. [ 8 ] Furthermore, the substantial toxicity associated with cytotoxic agents often precludes their use in elderly or frail patients, a growing demographic in the lymphoma population. These persistent unmet clinical needs have created an urgent need for the development of more effective, better-tolerated, and rationally designed therapeutic strategies that address the distinct biology of each lymphoma subtype. [ 9 ]

The quest for such strategies has been revolutionized by the advent of high-throughput multiomics technologies, including next-generation sequencing, transcriptomics, and proteomics. These powerful tools have provided a better understanding of lymphoma pathogenesis, providing insights that transcend traditional histopathology by revealing the intricate molecular landscape. [ 10 ] This has led to the development of sophisticated molecular classifications, such as the genetic subtypes and the characterization of the TME in lymphomas. [ 11 , 12 , 13 ] These new classification systems have illuminated a critical dependency of malignant cells on aberrantly activated intracellular signaling pathways. [ 14 ] Key pathways governing cell survival, proliferation, and immune evasion, such as the B-cell receptor (BCR), the intrinsic apoptosis pathway, the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) network, etc., are now understood to be constitutively active in specific molecularly defined subgroups. This refined understanding has provided the rationale for moving beyond indiscriminate cytotoxic agents toward an era of precision medicine. Therapies designed to specifically inhibit key nodes within these dysregulated cascades have thus emerged as a revolutionary approach, offering the potential for high efficacy in biomarker-selected patient populations. [ 15 ]

This review will comprehensively survey the landscape of targeted therapies that have reshaped lymphoma treatment. We will begin by dissecting the molecular architecture and therapeutic vulnerabilities of key oncogenic signaling pathways. For each of these areas, we will cover the journey from mechanism to clinical validation, including strategies to overcome resistance. Following this, we will synthesize how these agents are being integrated into clinical practice, discussing the rise of chemotherapy-free regimens, the critical role of biomarkers, and the promise of genetic subtype-guided combination therapies. Finally, we will address the current challenges and future directions, focusing on mechanisms of acquired resistance, rational combination strategies, and the potential of emerging modalities to pave the path toward precision cures for lymphoma.

Key Signaling Pathways and The Evolution of Targeted Agents in Lymphoma

The BCR signaling pathway

Molecular architecture and rationale for targeting the BCR pathway

The BCR signaling pathway is a key oncogenic driver in many B-cell malignancies, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL). The pivotal role of the BCR signaling pathway in B-cell biology was first highlighted through the study of X-linked agammaglobulinemia, a primary immunodeficiency caused by mutations in the bruton tyrosine kinase ( BTK ) gene. [ 16 ] In patients with X-linked agammaglobulinemia, these mutations impair B-cell development in the bone marrow and lead to a profound deficiency of serum immunoglobulins. This disease model was instrumental in establishing the BCR signaling pathway as indispensable for B-cell maturation and function. [ 17 ] The BCR complex is composed of a membrane surface immunoglobulin for antigen recognition and the signal-transducing heterodimer Igα/Igβ (CD79a/CD79b) [Figure 1 ]. The cytoplasmic tails of Igα/Igβ contain immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motifs (ITAMs), which are essential for initiating the downstream cascade. [ 18 ] Upon antigen binding, BCR clustering triggers the recruitment and activation of Src-family kinases (e.g., LYN), which phosphorylate the ITAM tyrosines. These phosphotyrosine sites serve as docking platforms for spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK). Subsequent phosphorylation and activation of SYK by Src-family kinases or through autophosphorylation establishes SYK as a central signaling hub. [ 19 ] Crucially, activated SYK then phosphorylates and activates key adaptor proteins, such as B-cell linker protein, which in turn recruits BTK to the plasma membrane. Once recruited, BTK is phosphorylated and fully activated, serving as a critical downstream signal transducer. Activated BTK propagates signals through multiple effector pathways, most notably by activating phospholipase C gamma 2, which leads to the activation of the nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) and mitogenactivated protein kinase pathways. This cascade ultimately controls B-cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival. [ 20 ] In B-cell malignancies, this entire pathway is often constitutively activated through several mechanisms, mainly including chronic antigen drive (e.g., in gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue [MALT] lymphoma and splenic marginal zone lymphoma), [ 21 ] cell-autonomous signaling (e.g., in follicular lymphoma [FL]), [ 22 ] and genetic mutations that hardwire the pathway in an “on” state (e.g., CD79B ITAM or CARD11 mutations in activated B-cell like DLBCL, or the API2-MALT1 fusion in MALT lymphoma). [ 23 ] This critical dependency on the BCR-BTK signaling axis renders it a prime therapeutic vulnerability in these diseases.

Clinical development of BCR pathway inhibitors

The validation of the BCR–BTK axis as a therapeutic vulnerability catalyzed the development of BTK inhibitors, which have revolutionized the treatment of B-cell malignancies. The first-generation covalent inhibitor, ibrutinib, was a trailblazer. [ 24 ] The RESONATE-2 trial demonstrated the superiority of ibrutinib over chlorambucil in treatment-naïve older patients with CLL/SLL, showing a significant progress in efficacy [Table 1 ]. [ 25 ] Similarly, in relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL, ibrutinib monotherapy also showed durable efficacy [Table 1 ]. [ 26 ]

Building on this success, second-generation covalent BTK inhibitors, [ 27 ] such as acalabrutinib, zanubrutinib, and orelabrutinib, were developed with improved kinase selectivity to minimize off-target toxicities. The phase III ELEVATE-TN trial confirmed that acalabrutinib, as monotherapy or in combination with anti-CD20 antibody obinutuzumab, demonstrated superior efficacy compared to the immunochemotherapy regimen of obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil for treatment-naïve CLL, with a manageable safety profile [Table 1 ]. [ 28 ] Likewise, in the phase III ASPEN trial, which compared zanubrutinib to ibrutinib in patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM), zanubrutinib showed a trend toward a higher rate of complete response rate (CRR) or very good partial response, although the difference did not reach statistical significance for the primary endpoint (28% vs. 19%; P = 0.09) [Table 1 ]. [ 29 ] Orelabrutinib, another highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor, has also demonstrated significant efficacy. A phase II study in Chinese patients with R/R MCL demonstrated high response rates and durable progression-free survival (PFS), leading to its approval in China [Table 1 ]. [ 30 ]

The paradigm is now evolving from monotherapy toward rational combination strategies aimed at achieving deeper and more durable remissions. This includes synergistic pairings of BTK inhibitors with anti-CD20 antibodies. In MCL, combining ibrutinib with the anti-CD20 antibody rituximab has been explored to deepen responses, with some studies suggesting a higher overall response rate (ORR) compared to historical data for ibrutinib monotherapy, providing a chemotherapy-free option for R/R MCL. [ 31 ] More intensive chemotherapy-free combinations have also been investigated in R/R MCL, demonstrating high rates of complete response (CR) but without a clear survival benefit over less intensive regimens in early studies. [ 32 ] In R/R FL, the phase II ROSEWOOD trial demonstrated that the combination of zanubrutinib and obinutuzumab significantly improved the ORR and PFS compared to obinutuzumab monotherapy, establishing a new chemotherapy-free option for this indolent malignancy [Table 1 ]. [ 33 ] Pushing the chemotherapy-free boundary into the frontline setting for aggressive lymphomas, the phase II POLARIS trial evaluated a novel triplet combination of orelabrutinib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in treatment-naïve MCL. The regimen established a highly effective, all-oral-based induction therapy for this patient population [Table 1 ]. [ 34 ] These combination studies underscore the ongoing effort to optimize BTK inhibitor-based therapy by integrating it with other targeted or immunotherapeutic agents.

Overcoming resistance and future directions

Despite the profound efficacy of BTK inhibitors, the emergence of acquired resistance remains a significant clinical hurdle, limiting their long-term efficacy. The mechanisms of resistance are multifaceted and can be broadly categorized into two main types: On-target alterations and activation of bypass signaling pathways. [ 35 ] The most well-characterized on-target resistance mechanism is the C481S mutation in the BTK gene, which prevents the covalent binding of first-generation inhibitors. Less commonly, gain-of-function mutations in the downstream effector PLCG2 can also render cells resistant to upstream BTK inhibition. [ 36 ] This evolving landscape of resistance necessitates continuous innovation in therapeutic strategies.

One primary strategy to overcome resistance involves developing novel agents that can vertically target the BTK protein itself more effectively. To address the C481S mutation, a new class of noncovalent BTK inhibitors was developed. The pioneering agent in this class, pirtobrutinib, does not rely on the C481 residue for binding and has demonstrated remarkable clinical activity in patients with CLL and MCL, who have progressed on prior covalent BTK inhibitors [Table 1 ]. [ 37 ] However, the evolutionary pressure of therapy continues, and resistance to pirtobrutinib can arise from new on-target BTK mutations (e.g., L528W, T474I) within the kinase domain. [ 38 ] Looking to the future, an even more advanced approach is the development of BTK-targeting proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs). [ 39 ] These molecules go beyond simple inhibition by inducing the complete degradation of the BTK protein, offering a potential strategy to eliminate both wild-type and mutated BTK and overcome kinase domain-mediated resistance. [ 40 ]

A parallel and complementary strategy is to horizontally target bypass pathways that allow malignant cells to circumvent their dependence on BTK. This approach is rooted in the understanding that resistance often involves the upregulation of alternative survival signals. For instance, in ibrutinib-resistant MCL, the identification of MALT1 overexpression or cyclin-dependent kinase 9 activation as escape mechanisms provides a strong rationale for combination therapies targeting these nodes. [ 41 , 42 ] The most clinically validated of these strategies is the dual targeting of BTK and the antiapoptotic protein B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2). The combination of ibrutinib and venetoclax exerts a powerful synergistic effect by simultaneously blocking prosurvival signaling and directly promoting apoptosis, leading to significantly deeper and more durable responses in R/R MCL compared to historical monotherapy data. [ 43 ] The future of this approach lies in rationally combining BTK inhibitors with a broader array of agents, including those targeting other cellular vulnerabilities such as nuclear export (e.g., selinexor) or the epigenetic machinery, [ 44 , 45 , 46 ] to create multipronged attacks that preempt or overcome resistance.

The BCL-2 apoptosis pathway

BCL-2 dysregulation as a therapeutic vulnerability in lymphoma

The evasion of apoptosis is a hallmark of cancer, and in many hematologic malignancies, this is achieved through the dysregulation of the BCL-2 family of proteins. This oncogenic dependency is particularly prominent in B-cell malignancies such as CLL, FL, and MCL, but is also a relevant therapeutic target in subsets of DLBCL. These proteins are the primary regulators of the intrinsic apoptosis pathway. The central event of this pathway is mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP), a point-of-no-return that releases proapoptotic factors such as cytochrome c into the cytoplasm, thereby triggering a caspase cascade that executes cell death [Figure 1 ]. [ 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 ] The BCL-2 family comprises three functional subgroups: (1) the antiapoptotic proteins (e.g., BCL-2, BCL-xL, and MCL-1), which act as guardians of mitochondrial integrity by sequestering their proapoptotic counterparts; [ 51 ] (2) the proapoptotic effector proteins (BCL2 associated X, apoptosis regulator (BAX) and BCL2 antagonist/killer (BAK), which, upon activation, oligomerize to form pores in the mitochondrial outer membrane and execute MOMP; [ 52 ] (3) a diverse group of BH3-only proteins (e.g., BCL2-like 11, p53 upregulated modulator of apoptosis, and BCL2-associated death promoter), which function as cellular stress sensors. [ 53 ] Upon activation, these sensors neutralize the antiapoptotic guardians, thereby liberating BAX and BAK to induce apoptosis. [ 54 , 55 , 56 ] In many lymphomas, particularly those of B-cell origin, such as CLL and FL, this homeostatic balance is pathologically tilted toward survival. [ 57 ] Malignant cells frequently overexpress antiapoptotic proteins, most notably BCL-2 itself, often as a result of the t(14;18) chromosomal translocation in FL or through other transcriptional mechanisms. [ 58 ] This BCL-2 overexpression allows tumor cells to sequester an excess of proapoptotic BH3-only proteins, effectively raising the threshold for apoptosis and conferring resistance to conventional therapies. [ 59 ] This state of oncogenic addiction to BCL-2 for survival creates a profound therapeutic vulnerability, providing a compelling rationale for developing agents that can specifically inhibit BCL-2 and restore the intrinsic capacity for cell apoptosis. [ 60 ]

Clinical development of BCL-2 inhibitors

The critical dependence of many lymphomas on antiapoptotic proteins has made them compelling therapeutic targets. [ 57 ] Early attempts to inhibit BCL-2 with agents such as the antisense oligonucleotide oblimersen or the gossypol derivative AT-101 were largely unsuccessful, constrained by low potency and unfavorable toxicity profiles. [ 61 ] A significant advancement came with the development of navitoclax, the first BH3-mimetic drug to enter clinical trials. As a dual inhibitor of both BCL-2 and BCL-xL, navitoclax showed clinical promise but was limited by on-target thrombocytopenia, a consequence of inhibiting BCL-xL, which is essential for platelet survival. [ 62 ]

This challenge directly spurred the development of venetoclax, a highly selective BCL-2 inhibitor designed to spare BCL-xL and thereby mitigate platelet toxicity. [ 63 ] As a potent BH3-mimetic, venetoclax binds with high affinity to the BH3-binding groove of the BCL-2 protein. This action displaces proapoptotic BH3-only proteins (such as BIM), liberating the effector proteins BAX and BAK to trigger MOMP and subsequent apoptosis. [ 64 ] The clinical impact of venetoclax has been profound, particularly in CLL, where it has demonstrated remarkable efficacy both as monotherapy and in combination regimens, even in patients resistant to prior therapies, such as BTK inhibitors [Table 1 ]. [ 65 ] A new generation of selective BCL-2 inhibitors is emerging, exemplified by lisaftoclax (APG-2575). This novel BH3-mimetic was first evaluated in a phase I trial, which established its favorable safety profile and showed clinical activity in patients with R/R CLL/SLL and other hematologic malignancies [Table 1 ]. [ 66 ] Subsequently, a pooled analysis combining this trial with a phase Ib/II study in a Chinese cohort provided more robust efficacy data. [ 67 ] In heavily pretreated CLL patients from this combined dataset, lisaftoclax monotherapy demonstrated an ORR of 73.3%, underscoring its potential as an effective new option in this setting [Table 1 ].

The success of venetoclax has validated the principle of selectively targeting BCL-2 family members and has broadened its application to other lymphomas. The phase II CAVALLI trial investigated the addition of venetoclax to standard R-CHOP immunochemotherapy as a first-line treatment for DLBCL [Table 1 ]. [ 68 ] In this study of 206 patients, the combination regimen yielded a CRR of 69%. With a median follow-up of 32.2 months, the venetoclax plus R-CHOP arm showed a significant improvement in PFS compared to a historical R-CHOP cohort (HR = 0.61). While grade 3/4 hematologic adverse events were more frequent in the combination therapy arm (86%), they were generally manageable and did not increase treatment-related mortality. These findings highlight the potential of this combination to improve outcomes, especially in high-risk, BCL-2-positive DLBCL subgroups.

Meanwhile, research continues on inhibitors targeting other BCL-2 family members. Selective BCL-xL inhibitors are being explored for solid tumors, while selective MCL-1 inhibitors are under investigation for hematologic malignancies such as multiple myeloma and myelodysplastic syndrome, where MCL-1 is a key survival factor. [ 69 ] The development of these agents faces challenges, including complex protein structures and potential off-target effects, necessitating sophisticated strategies such as BH3 profiling to identify patients most likely to benefit. [ 69 ]

Overcoming resistance and future directions

Despite the success of venetoclax, the development of resistance is inevitable and poses a significant clinical challenge. The mechanisms are diverse and can be broadly classified into two categories: (1) alterations intrinsic to the BCL-2 family itself, and (2) activation of parallel prosurvival pathways. The former includes the upregulation of other antiapoptotic proteins, most notably MCL-1 and BCL-xL, which can compensate for BCL-2 inhibition. [ 70 ] Additionally, mutations in the BCL2 gene that disrupt drug binding, or loss-of-function alterations in proapoptotic effectors such as BAX, can also confer resistance. [ 71 , 72 ] The latter category often involves the activation of signaling cascades like the PI3K/AKT pathway or aberrations in cellular metabolism. [ 73 ]

Consequently, a primary strategy to overcome resistance is to target multiple antiapoptotic BCL-2 family members simultaneously. Given the prominent role of MCL-1 mediating resistance, the combination of venetoclax with selective MCL-1 inhibitors is a highly rational approach currently under active clinical investigation. [ 74 ] However, the development of MCL-1 inhibitors has been hampered by concerns about on-target cardiotoxicity. [ 75 ] An alternative strategy involves leveraging agents that can indirectly downregulate MCL-1. A phase Ib trial combining polatuzumab vedotin with venetoclax and an anti-CD20 antibody demonstrated high ORR in heavily pretreated patients with R/R FL (76%) and R/R DLBCL (29%). [ 76 ] Another major therapeutic avenue is to coinhibit the BCL-2 pathway and key prosurvival signaling cascades. Since venetoclax resistance is frequently linked to the activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, combining venetoclax with inhibitors of this axis is a logical strategy. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that PI3K inhibitors (e.g., duvelisib) or AKT inhibitors (e.g., MK-2206) can synergize with venetoclax to overcome resistance in both sensitive and resistant cell lines. [ 77 , 78 ] Similarly, given the frequent crosstalk between the BCR and BCL-2 pathways, combining venetoclax with BTK inhibitors such as ibrutinib has proven highly effective, yielding high ORR and CRR in diseases such as CLL and MCL. [ 70 , 79 ]

Finally, combining venetoclax with agents that modulate the apoptotic threshold or cellular epigenetics represents a promising frontier. For instance, combining venetoclax with conventional agents such as rituximab can overcome resistance by leveraging immune-mediated killing mechanisms and potentially downregulating BCL-2 expression. [ 80 ] Furthermore, epigenetic modulators, such as the DNA hypomethylating agent (HMA) decitabine and various histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors (HDACis), can synergize with venetoclax. These agents are thought to reprime cancer cells for apoptosis by altering the expression of BCL-2 family members, thereby lowering the threshold for venetoclax-induced cell death and restoring sensitivity. [ 81 ] These rational combination strategies are key to broadening the applicability of BCL-2 inhibition and achieving more durable clinical outcomes.

The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway

Molecular architecture and aberrant activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway in lymphoma

The PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway is a highly conserved network that serves as a central regulator of cell survival, growth, and metabolism. Upon activation by upstream signals such as growth factors, PI3K phosphorylates phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bisphosphate to generate phosphatidylinositol(3,4,5)-trisphosphate [Figure 1 ]. This second messenger recruits and activates the serine/threonine kinase AKT, which in turn phosphorylates a multitude of downstream targets, including the mTOR complex. The mTOR complex, which exists as two distinct complexes (mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 and mammalian target of rapamycin complex 2), orchestrates protein synthesis and metabolic programming by phosphorylating key effectors such as 4E-BP1. [ 82 ]

In malignant lymphocytes, this pathway is frequently hyperactivated through various mechanisms. These include (1) upstream oncogenic signals, such as aberrant BCR signaling or overactive receptor tyrosine kinases; [ 20 ] (2) loss of endogenous negative regulators, most notably the phosphatase and tensin homolog, which is often deleted or epigenetically silenced; [ 83 ] (3) direct activating mutations within pathway components themselves, such as in the PIK3CA gene. [ 84 ] The TME also plays a critical role, particularly in diseases such as CLL, where stromal cells provide continuous signals that sustain PI3K/AKT activity and promote cell survival. [ 85 ] Aberrant activation of this pathway is a common feature across a spectrum of lymphomas, including B-cell malignancies such as FL, CLL, and DLBCL, as well as in various peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs). This profound dependency renders the PI3K/AKT/mTOR axis a prime therapeutic target in lymphoma.

Clinical development of PI3K pathway inhibitors

The therapeutic targeting of this pathway has led to the development of a diverse array of inhibitors, including pan-PI3K inhibitors, isoform-selective PI3K inhibitors, dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitors, and specific AKT or mTOR inhibitors. [ 86 , 87 , 88 ] The clinical journey of these agents has been a lesson in balancing efficacy with on-target and off-target toxicities.

PI3K inhibitors have seen the most extensive clinical development. Early-generation, isoform-selective PI3Kδ inhibitors such as idelalisib and the dual PI3Kδ/γ inhibitor duvelisib demonstrated significant efficacy in R/R B-cell lymphomas. [ 89 ] In the DYNAMO trial, duvelisib was used to treat patients with R/R indolent NHL [Table 1 ]. [ 90 ] However, their clinical utility was quickly tempered by a challenging toxicity profile. These agents were associated with a high incidence of severe, late-onset, and often life-threatening immune-mediated toxicities, including colitis, pneumonitis, and hepatotoxicity. [ 91 , 92 ] Crucially, this toxicity is not an off-target effect but rather a mechanism-based, on-target consequence of inhibiting PI3Kδ and PI3Kγ, which are essential for the function and survival of regulatory T-cells. [ 93 , 94 ] The suppression of regulatory T cells (Tregs) disrupts immune homeostasis, leading to the observed autoimmune phenomena. This fundamental challenge underscored the need for new agents with an improved therapeutic window.

This challenge directly spurred the development of next-generation PI3Kδ inhibitors specifically designed to mitigate these immune-mediated adverse events. Agents such as umbralisib (which also inhibits CK1ε), linperlisib, and parsaclisib were engineered to have improved selectivity or different pharmacokinetic properties, leading to more favorable safety profiles. [ 95 , 96 , 97 ] Among these, linperlisib gained approval in China for R/R FL based on a phase II trial that demonstrated high response rates and durable disease control, coupled with a significantly lower incidence of severe immune-mediated toxicities compared to its predecessors [Table 1 ]. [ 98 ] In parallel, the pan-PI3K inhibitor copanlisib, which is administered intravenously, has shown durable efficacy in indolent lymphomas with a distinct and potentially more manageable toxicity profile compared to oral agents. [ 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 ]

Notably, the role of PI3K inhibitors is expanding beyond B-cell lymphomas into PTCLs, a group of diseases with historically poor outcomes. The rationale is particularly strong for targeting the PI3Kδ and PI3Kγ isoforms, which are highly expressed in T-cells and mediate T-cell receptor signaling and chemokine-induced migration. [ 89 ] The dual PI3Kδ/γ inhibitor duvelisib received accelerated approval for R/R PTCL based on the pivotal phase II PRIMO trial. In this study, duvelisib monotherapy demonstrated significant clinical activity, establishing it as a crucial targeted therapy option for this challenging patient population [Table 1 ]. [ 103 ] This represents a significant step forward, providing a much-needed targeted therapy option for this challenging patient population, although careful management of toxicities remains paramount.

Targeting nodes downstream of PI3K is another key strategy. mTOR inhibitors, including first-generation allosteric inhibitors (e.g., everolimus) and second-generation ATP-competitive kinase inhibitors, have shown activity, particularly in T-cell lymphomas and HL, often in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted agents. [ 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ] More recently, selective AKT inhibitors like capivasertib are being explored. Preclinical data suggest a powerful synergy when combining AKT inhibition with venetoclax, providing a rational basis for future clinical trials in DLBCL. [ 108 ] The overarching goal remains to identify the most effective agent or combination for specific lymphoma subtypes while minimizing toxicity through optimized dosing and rational partnerships.

Overcoming resistance and future directions

Despite progress, the clinical utility of PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors is constrained by acquired resistance and the lack of predictive biomarkers. Resistance mechanisms are complex, involving reactivation of the pathway itself, activation of parallel signaling cascades like the mitogenactivated protein kinase or Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathways, or metabolic reprogramming. [ 109 , 110 ] For instance, interleukin (IL)-6-mediated STAT3 activation has been identified as a bypass mechanism in PI3K inhibitor-resistant cells, suggesting that cotargeting JAK/STAT could be an effective strategy to overcome resistance. [ 111 ] Future efforts are focused on several key areas. First is the development of novel therapeutic modalities, such as PROTAC-based degraders, which aim to eliminate target proteins rather than just inhibit them, potentially offering a more profound and durable effect. [ 112 ] A second key area is the pursuit of rational combination therapies. This includes combining pathway inhibitors with each other (e.g., multilevel, low-dose inhibition of AKT and mTOR), [ 113 ] or with agents that have complementary mechanisms, such as epigenetic modulators (e.g., enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) inhibitor or romidepsin), [ 114 , 115 ] which may also help mitigate toxicity. Finally, and perhaps most critical, is the need for biomarker-driven precision medicine. Leveraging multiomics to identify patients whose tumors are uniquely dependent on this pathway, or to predict which resistance mechanisms might emerge, will be essential to truly optimize the use of these powerful but challenging targeted therapies.

Epigenetic landscape

EZH2 inhibitors reversing aberrant histone methylation and transcriptional silencing

Dysregulation of histone methylation is a key oncogenic driver in many lymphomas, with the histone methyltransferase EZH2 being a central player. This mechanism is particularly critical in germinal center (GC) B-cell-derived lymphomas, such as FL and a subset of DLBCL. As the catalytic subunit of the polycomb repressive complex 2, EZH2 mediates the trimethylation of histone H3 at lysine 27 (H3K27me3), leading to transcriptional repression of target genes, including critical tumor suppressors [Figure 1 ]. [ 116 ] A landmark discovery in GC B-cell lymphomas was the identification of recurrent, gain-of-function mutations in the catalytic SET domain of EZH2 (e.g., Y641F). [ 117 ] These mutations paradoxically collaborate with wild-type EZH2 to drive global H3K27me3 hypermethylation and promote lymphomagenesis. [ 118 , 119 ] In FL, this epigenetic reprogramming allows malignant B-cells to form an aberrant, self-sustaining immunological niche, explaining how an indolent tumor can arise from a highly proliferative environment. [ 120 ]

This clear oncogenic dependency spurred the development of EZH2 inhibitors. The first-in-class, selective EZH2 inhibitor, tazemetostat, was developed to specifically target both wild-type and mutant EZH2. It received regulatory approval based on a phase II trial demonstrating durable clinical responses and a favorable safety profile in patients with R/R FL, particularly those harboring EZH2 mutations [Table 1 ]. [ 121 , 122 ] Preclinical studies also revealed that EZH2 -mutant DLBCL cells are cytotoxic to tazemetostat, whereas wild-type cells are primarily cytostatic, and highlighted a synergistic effect with BCR pathway inhibitors and glucocorticoids. Furthermore, clinical trials have shown the feasibility of combining tazemetostat with the R-CHOP regimen for the treatment of DLBCL [Table 1 ]. [ 123 ]

Although effective, the efficacy of selective EZH2 inhibition is limited in some contexts due to a compensatory mechanism involving its homolog, EZH1. [ 124 ] This led to the development of dual EZH1/2 inhibitors like valemetostat. By blocking both enzymes, valemetostat can achieve a more profound reduction of H3K27me3. This has translated into significant clinical activity, particularly in R/R adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma and other PTCLs, where it recently gained approval in Japan [Table 1 ]. [ 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 ] The next frontier involves EZH2-targeting PROTACs, which go beyond inhibition to induce protein degradation, representing a potential strategy to achieve deeper and more lasting therapeutic effects in diseases like Burkitt lymphoma. [ 129 ]

DNA HMAs restoring normal DNA methylation patterns

Aberrant DNA methylation is another critical epigenetic lesion in lymphoma, disrupting the delicate balance between methylation writers and erasers. This process is primarily governed by two opposing enzyme families: the DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) that establish and maintain 5-methylcytosine, and the ten-eleven translocation (TET) enzymes that initiate its removal. In lymphoma, both sides of this equilibrium are frequently dysregulated. On the “writer” side, DNMTs can be pathologically altered [Figure 1 ]. [ 130 ] For instance, DNMT1 is often overexpressed in DLBCL, leading to hypermethylation, while loss-of-function mutations in the de novo methyltransferase DNMT3A are a hallmark of PTCLs, particularly the angioimmunoblastic-type (nTFHL-AI). [ 131 , 132 ] Dysregulation of the “eraser” side is even more common. Loss-of-function mutations in the primary eraser, TET2 , are among the most frequent genetic alterations in T-cell lymphomas, especially nTFHL-AI, and also occur in B-cell lymphomas like DLBCL [Figure 1 ]. [ 133 ] The inactivation of TET2 impairs DNA demethylation, leading to a global hypermethylation phenotype and altered gene expression that disrupts normal lymphocyte differentiation. [ 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 ] The function of TET2 can also be indirectly compromised by mutations in the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) enzymes. While wild-type IDH2 converts isocitrate to α-ketoglutarate, a critical cofactor for TET enzymes, recurrent mutations in IDH2 (e.g., R172K), which are particularly characteristic of nTFHL-AI, cause the enzyme to produce a potent oncometabolite, 2-hydroxyglutarate [Figure 1 ]. [ 138 ] This 2-hydroxyglutarate competitively inhibits α-ketoglutarate-dependent enzymes, including TET2 and certain histone demethylases. [ 139 ] The result is a “TET2-loss-of-function-like” state, characterized by profound DNA and histone hypermethylation. [ 140 ] Together, the state of epigenetic chaos that provide a strong rationale for therapeutic intervention with agents that can reset these pathological methylation patterns.

The therapeutic rationale for reversing DNA hypermethylation has led to the clinical investigation of DNA HMAs, such as azacitidine and decitabine. These agents function as cytosine analogs that, upon incorporation into DNA, covalently trap DNMTs, leading to their degradation and the passive loss of methylation patterns. This can reactivate silenced tumor suppressor genes and enhance antitumor immunity. [ 141 ] The clinical utility of HMAs has been most extensively explored in PTCLs, a group of diseases where epigenetic dysregulation is a central pathogenic feature. Early studies with single-agent HMAs established their clinical activity. For instance, the guadecitabine monotherapy trial in R/R PTCL reported an ORR of 40%, with notable efficacy in patients with a TFH phenotype and those harboring RHOA G17V mutations, suggesting a potential biomarker-guided approach. [ 142 ]

Building on this, HMAs have been integrated into combination regimens. A significant advancement was the integration of oral azacitidine into CHOP-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed PTCL [Table 1 ]. [ 143 ] This phase II trial demonstrated that the regimen was safe and highly active, achieving an impressive CRR of 75% overall, and 88.2% in the TFH subtype. Importantly, this study also identified potential predictive biomarkers, showing that TET2 mutations were significantly associated with achieving a CR and favorable survival, whereas DNMT3A mutations were linked to adverse outcomes. A highly synergistic and chemotherapy-free approach involves combining HMAs with other epigenetic modulators, most notably HDACis. A phase II trial combining oral azacitidine with the HDACi romidepsin in R/R PTCL demonstrated impressive efficacy, with a high ORR and durable responses, again with particular benefit in patients with the TFH phenotype. [ 144 ] Furthermore, given their ability to enhance immune signaling, HMAs are being actively explored in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In R/R classic HL, where single-agent ICI efficacy is often limited, the combination of decitabine and a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor significantly improved response rates, particularly in high-risk patients. [ 145 , 146 ] Similarly, a pilot study of azacitidine plus nivolumab showed promising activity in R/R nTFHL-AI, providing a strong rationale for further investigation of this chemo-free, immuno-epigenetic approach. [ 147 ] These studies highlight the evolving role of HMAs, not just as single agents, but as potent synergistic partners capable of reshaping the therapeutic landscape of lymphoma.

HDACis modulating gene expression by promoting histone acetylation

HDACs are critical epigenetic regulators that remove acetyl groups from histones, leading to a condensed chromatin structure and the transcriptional repression of tumor suppressor genes. HDACis block this process, promoting a more open chromatin state, restoring gene expression, and ultimately inducing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in malignant cells. [ 148 ] The clinical potential of this strategy was first demonstrated in 2001 with a report on the activity of depsipeptide (later known as romidepsin) in T-cell lymphoma, paving the way for the development of a new class of anticancer agents. [ 149 ]

The most profound impact of HDACis has been in the treatment of T-cell lymphomas, with several agents receiving regulatory approval based on robust clinical data. [ 150 , 151 ] Romidepsin, a potent cyclic peptide HDACi, is approved for both cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and PTCL. In R/R cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, it achieved an ORR of 34–35% as a single agent [Table 1 ]. [ 152 ] Its approval in R/R PTCL was based on a pivotal study demonstrating durable responses, establishing it as a key therapeutic option. [ 153 , 154 ] Belinostat, a hydroxamic acid-based pan-HDACi, gained approval for R/R PTCL following the BELIEF trial [Table 1 ]. [ 155 , 156 ] Notably, the response was even higher in the nTFHL-AI subtype, with an ORR of 46% compared to 26% for the overall cohort. Belinostat is also characterized by a favorable safety profile with low hematologic toxicity, making it a suitable option for patients with thrombocytopenia. [ 157 ] Chidamide (also known as tucidinostat), a novel benzamide-class, subtype-selective HDACi, was approved in China for R/R PTCL. [ 158 ] In a phase 2 trial, it demonstrated an ORR of 28%, comparable to other approved HDACis, but with a remarkably long median overall survival (OS) of 21.4 months, suggesting a significant long-term survival benefit [Table 1 ]. [ 159 ] Like belinostat, it showed particular efficacy in the nTFHL-AI subtype. Beyond T-cell lymphomas, in the TRUST trial, the combination of chidamide and R-GemOx in patients with R/R DLBCL yielded high response rates and promising survival outcomes [Table 1 ]. [ 160 ]

The success of these drugs has solidified epigenetic modulation via HDAC inhibition as a cornerstone of therapy, particularly for relapsed T-cell malignancies, and has spurred further research into novel combinations, such as with PD-1 inhibitors in NKTCL, to overcome resistance and improve outcomes. [ 161 ]

Challenges and future directions in epigenetic therapy

Despite their success, the clinical utility of epigenetic drugs is often constrained by acquired resistance and the complexity of their biological effects. Therefore, a key future direction lies in the development of rational combination strategies designed to achieve synergistic efficacy and preempt or overcome resistance. These strategies are increasingly being guided by a deep understanding of the intricate crosstalk between epigenetic and other cellular pathways.

One major approach involves creating synergy within the epigenome itself. Combining HMAs with HDACis, for instance, has shown strong preclinical synergy across various T-cell lymphoma models. [ 162 ] This combination aims to achieve a more comprehensive epigenetic reprogramming than either agent alone and is currently being evaluated in clinical trials. Another layer of complexity involves overcoming crosstalk-mediated resistance from parallel signaling pathways. In NKTCL, signaling nodes like MELK and JAK3 have been shown to stabilize EZH2, thereby conferring resistance to other therapies; this provides a clear rationale for cotargeting these kinases to restore therapeutic sensitivity. [ 163 , 164 ] Similarly, in MYC-driven B-cell lymphomas, the co-repressive complex formed by MYC, HDAC3, and EZH2 can be disrupted by dual inhibition of HDAC3 and EZH2, leading to the synergistic restoration of tumor suppressor microRNAs. [ 165 ] Novel resistance mechanisms, such as the activation of ferroptosis defense pathways in response to EZH2 inhibition in DLBCL, are also uncovering new potential combination partners like ferroptosis inducers. [ 166 ]

Perhaps the most promising frontier is the combination of epigenetic agents with immunotherapy. Epigenetic drugs can remodel the TME and enhance tumor cell immunogenicity, for example, by upregulating MHC class I expression on cancer cells, thereby making them more visible to the immune system. [ 167 ] This provides a powerful rationale for combining HMAs or EZH2 inhibitors with PD-1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade, as well as T-cell therapy. Such combinations are being actively explored to overcome immune escape and enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy in a range of diseases, including Burkitt lymphoma, classic HL, and FL. [ 167 , 168 , 169 , 170 ] Ultimately, the future of epigenetic therapy in lymphoma will depend on our ability to leverage these intelligent, mechanism-based combinations and to identify predictive biomarkers that can guide patient selection toward achieving deeper and more durable responses.

Nuclear export pathway—exportin 1 (XPO1)

The role of XPO1 in oncogenesis and tumor suppressor inactivation in lymphoma

XPO1 (also known as CRM1) protein is a critical regulator of cellular homeostasis, responsible for transporting a wide range of cargo proteins and RNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm. Its cargo includes numerous tumor suppressor proteins (TSPs) such as TP53, RB1, and CDKN1A, as well as the NF-κB inhibitor, IκB [Figure 1 ]. [ 171 ] In many hematologic malignancies, XPO1 is overexpressed, leading to two key oncogenic consequences: (1) the forced nuclear export and subsequent cytoplasmic inactivation of TSPs, preventing them from executing their functions of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis induction; (2) the enhanced degradation of IκB, resulting in constitutive activation of the prosurvival NF-κB pathway. This dual mechanism of inactivating tumor suppressors while activating oncogenic pathways makes XPO1 a prime therapeutic target. [ 172 , 173 ]

Selinexor, a first-in-class, oral, selective inhibitor of nuclear export, functions by covalently binding to the Cys528 residue in the cargo-binding pocket of XPO1. [ 174 ] This action blocks the export machinery, leading to the nuclear retention and functional restoration of TSPs and the suppression of oncogenic signaling. This potent mechanism of action has led to its regulatory approval for R/R DLBCL and multiple myeloma. [ 175 ]

Clinical development of XPO1 inhibitors

The clinical utility of selinexor has been demonstrated across a range of lymphoma subtypes, including B-cell lymphomas like DLBCL and MCL, as well as T-cell and NK-cell lymphomas, particularly in heavily pretreated populations. The approval for DLBCL was based on the phase II SADAL trial [Table 1 ]. This study enrolled R/R DLBCL patients who had received at least two prior lines of therapy, a population with a poor prognosis and an expected median OS of less than 6 months. In this challenging setting, single-agent oral selinexor achieved an ORR of 29.1% and a median OS of 9 months. [ 176 ] A subsequent detailed survival analysis of the SADAL study further underscored its clinical benefit. [ 177 ] At a median follow-up of 14.8 months, the median OS for the entire cohort was 9.0 months, significantly exceeding historical controls. The most striking finding was the profound survival advantage conferred by achieving a response: Patients who attained a partial or complete response had a markedly prolonged median OS of 29.7 months, compared with 4.9 months for non-responders. This demonstrates that for patients who respond, selinexor can provide deep and durable disease control. To move selinexor into earlier lines of therapy, the SELINDA trial evaluated its combination with R-GDP (rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin) salvage chemotherapy, establishing a recommended phase II dose and demonstrating tolerable safety and promising efficacy in R/R B-cell lymphomas [Table 1 ]. [ 178 ] Preclinical studies also suggest that combining selinexor with other targeted agents, such as BET inhibitors, could overcome resistance, particularly in high-risk subtypes like double-hit lymphoma. [ 179 ]

Selinexor is also being explored in T-cell and NK-cell lymphomas, diseases with urgent unmet needs. A retrospective study in R/R NKTCL showed that the combination of selinexor with anti-PD-1 therapy could provide meaningful clinical benefit in patients who had failed prior therapies, including those with challenging CNS involvement. [ 180 ] Furthermore, a preclinical study in T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma demonstrated a strong synergistic antitumor effect when selinexor was combined with the HMA decitabine, providing a rationale for clinical investigation of this novel combination in this rare and aggressive disease. [ 181 ]

Overcoming toxicities and future directions

A significant challenge with selinexor is its toxicity profile, which, while generally manageable, requires proactive and supportive care to ensure patient adherence and treatment success. The most common adverse events include cytopenia, particularly thrombocytopenia, and constitutional and gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, anorexia, fatigue, and weight loss. Effective management of these toxicities is crucial. For example, nausea is typically managed with a prophylactic antiemetic regimen, often including a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (e.g., ondansetron) combined with olanzapine or a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for patients at high risk. Anorexia and weight loss require nutritional counseling and appetite stimulants, while cytopenia may necessitate dose interruptions or reductions and careful monitoring. This comprehensive supportive care framework is essential for maintaining patients on therapy and optimizing clinical benefit. [ 182 ]

To address these limitations at a pharmacological level, the next-generation SINE compound, eltanexor (KPT-8602), was developed. [ 183 ] It was designed with a shorter half-life and reduced blood-brain barrier penetration to have less impact on normal cells, thereby aiming to decrease systemic toxicity while retaining antitumor efficacy. This improved therapeutic window may allow for more frequent or continuous dosing schedules, potentially enhancing its combination potential with other targeted therapies. The development of such better-tolerated agents represents a key direction for the future of XPO1 inhibition in lymphoma, promising to broaden its clinical applicability and improve the patient experience. [ 184 , 185 ]

The JAK/STAT pathway

Molecular architecture and aberrant activation of the JAK/STAT pathway

The JAK-STAT pathway is a crucial mediator of cytokine signaling, essential for normal hematopoiesis and immune cell function. The JAK family comprises four non-receptor tyrosine kinases (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2) that are activated by ligands binding to cytokine receptors. This activation triggers a phosphorylation cascade, leading to the phosphorylation and activation of STAT proteins. Activated STATs then dimerize, translocate to the nucleus, and regulate the expression of target genes involved in cell proliferation, differentiation, and apoptosis, such as BCL2L1 and CCND1 [Figure 1 ]. [ 186 , 187 ]

In various lymphomas, particularly in PTCLs and NKTCL, the JAK/STAT pathway is frequently hyperactivated. [ 188 ] This aberrant activation is often driven by gain-of-function mutations in pathway components, such as in the pseudokinase domain of JAK family members (e.g., JAK1 Y658F, JAK2 V617F, and JAK3 A573V) or in the SH2 domain of STAT proteins (e.g., STAT3 Y640F, STAT5B N642H). [ 189 , 190 ] Despite the presence of these activating mutations, the oncogenic function of the pathway remains dependent on the structural scaffold provided by cytokine receptors, making multiple nodes within this axis viable therapeutic targets. [ 189 , 190 ]

Clinical development of JAK/STAT pathway inhibitors

The dependency of certain lymphomas on JAK/STAT signaling has spurred the development of targeted inhibitors. The main JAK/STAT pathway-related drugs currently being developed include JAK inhibitors such as ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor), tofacitinib (pan-JAK inhibitor), STAT inhibitors such as lisofylline, and anticytokine neutralizing antibodies such as anti-IL-15 antibody. [ 189 ] The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib has demonstrated clinical activity in R/R PTCLs, with a phase II study reporting an ORR of 25% and a median PFS of 2.8 months [Table 1 ]. [ 191 ] More recently, golidocitinib, a highly selective JAK1 inhibitor, showed greater efficacy in a phase I trial of R/R PTCLs [Table 1 ]. [ 192 ]

Combination strategies are also being actively explored. In HL, combining ruxolitinib with the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab has shown promise for overcoming resistance to ICIs. [ 193 ] Furthermore, preclinical studies in NKTCL have revealed that JAK/STAT signaling can mediate resistance to epigenetic drugs like chidamide, providing a strong rationale for combining JAK inhibitors with HDACis to achieve synergistic antitumor effects. [ 194 ] While direct STAT inhibitors are in early development, no agents targeting this node have yet received FDA approval for cancer treatment. [ 195 ]

Overcoming resistance and future directions

Resistance to JAK inhibitors is a growing clinical challenge. Mechanisms include the heterodimerization of JAK kinases (e.g., JAK2 with JAK1 or TYK2), which can reactivate downstream signaling, and protective signals from the bone marrow microenvironment. [ 186 ] Potential strategies to overcome resistance include combining JAK inhibitors with agents that promote JAK2 degradation, such as heat shock protein 90 or HDACis. [ 196 ] In the context of immunotherapy resistance in PTCL driven by specific JAK3 mutations, the pan-JAK inhibitor tofacitinib has shown efficacy in preclinical models, suggesting a path for precision therapy. [ 197 ] Additionally, emerging research indicates that inhibiting the integrin αvβ3 with cilengitide can alleviate abnormal JAK/STAT activation, offering a novel, potentially less toxic therapeutic strategy. [ 198 ]

A key future direction will be to conduct clinical trials of JAK/STAT inhibitors specifically in PTCL subtypes known to be highly dependent on this pathway. These include entities such as monomorphic epitheliotropic intestinal T-cell lymphoma, hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, and NKTCL, where pathway activation is a defining pathogenic feature. [ 199 , 200 ] Such biomarker-driven studies will be critical for realizing the full potential of JAK/STAT inhibition in precision therapy for PTCLs. [ 186 , 197 , 198 ]

The cyclic GMP–AMP synthase–stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS–STING) innate immunity pathway

cGAS–STING pathway as a central sensor for innate immunity

The cGAS-STING pathway is a critical component of the innate immune system that functions as a primary sensor for cytosolic double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). [ 201 ] The cytosolic dsDNA that activates this pathway can originate from multiple sources [Figure 1 ]. Endogenous sources within tumor cells include DNA fragments from ruptured micronuclei, which often form due to a deficient DNA damage response, as well as mitochondrial DNA released from damaged mitochondria. Additionally, exogenous dsDNA from pathogens such as viruses and bacteria, or from the debris of neighboring dead cells, can also enter the cytoplasm and trigger cGAS activation. The core mechanism involves cGAS-mediated synthesis of the second messenger cGAMP, which in turn activates the adaptor protein STING. [ 202 ] Activated STING, through the TBK1–IRF3 axis, orchestrates the production of type I interferons, ILs, and tumor necrosis factor, which are pivotal for bridging innate and adaptive antitumor immunity by promoting dendritic cell maturation and enhancing cytotoxic T-cell responses. [ 203 , 204 , 205 ]

A dichotomous role of the cGAS-STING pathway in lymphoma

While the canonical role of the cGAS–STING pathway is tumor suppressive, its ultimate impact on lymphomagenesis is highly context-dependent, varying significantly across different lymphoma subtypes [Figure 1 ]. In B-cell lymphomas, such as DLBCL and FL, the pathway functions primarily as a tumor suppressor. Its activation, either intrinsically through genomic instability (e.g., loss of SAMHD1 [ 206 ] ) or extrinsically through therapy (e.g., the bendamustine–rituximab regimen [ 207 ] and natural compound sulforaphane [ 208 ] ), leads to potent antitumor effects, including the induction of programmed cell death and the enhancement of antitumor immunity. In contrast, emerging evidence suggests that in PTCLs, the cGAS-STING pathway can be oncogenic, where its activation is associated with increased proliferation and poor clinical outcome. [ 209 ] In this context, chemotherapy-induced DNA damage paradoxically activates this prosurvival pathway, contributing to therapeutic resistance. This discovery reveals a completely opposite therapeutic paradigm for PTCL, where inhibiting cGAS can suppress tumor growth and synergize with chemotherapy. This subtype-specific duality underscores the critical importance of understanding the precise biological role of the pathway before designing therapeutic interventions.

Another mechanism involves the pathway being hijacked and disabled to promote viral oncogenesis, as exemplified by mutations in the RNA helicase DDX3X in Epstein–Barr virus-associated lymphomas, especially NKTCL. In this context, the cGAS-STING pathway represents a critical antiviral defense that must be overcome for the tumor to develop. [ 210 ] Pathogenic mutations in DDX3X achieve this by sabotaging the signaling cascade downstream of STING, specifically impairing the activation of the IRF3/7 transcription factors. This targeted crippling of the innate immune response creates a permissive environment for the overexpression of potent EBV oncoproteins such as BNLF2b. The viral oncoprotein then drives the accumulation of pathological R-loops, leading to genomic instability and malignant progression. Thus, in this scenario, the abrogation of the cGAS-STING pathway’s antiviral surveillance function is a prerequisite for tumorigenesis. This highlights a third, distinct mechanism by which dysregulation of this pathway contributes to lymphomagenesis—not by being intrinsically oncogenic, but by having its tumor-suppressive function disabled to permit another oncogenic driver to emerge.

Therapeutic modulation of the cGAS-STING pathway

The dual role of the cGAS-STING pathway necessitates a nuanced therapeutic approach, involving both agonists and inhibitors. STING agonists are being developed with two distinct therapeutic rationales. The canonical approach leverages their ability to potently induce a type I interferon response, aiming to convert immunologically “cold” tumors into “hot” ones and thereby sensitize them to immune checkpoint blockade. [ 211 , 212 ] However, a particularly compelling and distinct application is in directly overcoming therapy resistance by rewiring apoptotic signaling. In hematologic malignancies with TP53 mutations, cancer cells are often resistant to BCL-2 inhibitors (BH3-mimetics) because they lack a TP53-dependent feedforward loop that normally amplifies the apoptotic signal. STING agonists can circumvent this resistance mechanism entirely. Upon activation, the STING pathway can induce the upregulation of proapoptotic BH3-only proteins in a TP53-independent manner. This action effectively restores the missing apoptotic signal, synergizing powerfully with BH3-mimetics to kill cancer cells. This cell-intrinsic, nonimmunological mechanism provides a powerful rationale for combining STING agonists with agents like venetoclax to treat high-risk, TP53 -mutant cancers. [ 213 ]

Conversely, the discovery of its protumorigenic role in PTCLs has validated the development of cGAS or STING inhibitors as a viable anticancer strategy for specific lymphoma subtypes. [ 209 ] The challenge for all these agents lies in achieving targeted delivery to maximize efficacy while minimizing systemic side effects, a problem being addressed by novel delivery systems. [ 214 ] The future of STING-based therapy in lymphoma will undoubtedly rely on biomarker-driven patient stratification to determine whether a given patient’s tumor should be treated with an agonist or an inhibitor.

Integration of Targeted Therapies into Clinical Practice

Rise of chemotherapy-free regimens

A major paradigm shift in lymphoma treatment, and a direct triumph of decades of basic and translational research into signaling pathways, is the development of chemotherapy-free regimens. These strategies stem from a deep molecular understanding of how specific lymphomas become addicted to signaling pathways. By replacing or omitting nonspecific cytotoxic agents with rationally designed combinations of targeted drugs, monoclonal antibodies, and immunomodulators, these regimens aim to selectively eradicate malignant cells while sparing normal tissues. This approach has proven particularly valuable for elderly or frail patients and those with R/R disease, with its application expanding across the lymphoma spectrum.

In indolent lymphomas, where the primary goal is often durable disease control with minimal toxicity, this new paradigm is perhaps most advanced. The quintessential example is in CLL/SLL, a disease defined by its profound addiction to the BCR signaling pathway. [ 215 ] BTK inhibitors, used either as monotherapy or in combination with anti-CD20 antibodies, provide a highly effective, oral, and chemotherapy-free approach that can induce lasting remissions. This success is a direct clinical manifestation of targeting core molecular dependency of the disease, a principle that is now being extended to other indolent lymphomas. [ 216 ] The success in CLL has been mirrored in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, which also heavily relies on BCR signaling. The use of BTK inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination, has become a central component of its chemotherapy-free management. In other indolent lymphomas, such as marginal zone lymphoma and FL, signaling pathway inhibitors are key components of chemotherapy-free strategies for R/R disease. [ 217 ] For instance, PI3K inhibitors and the EZH2 inhibitor (particularly in EZH2 -mutant FL) have established efficacy as monotherapies. [ 218 ] In aggressive lymphomas, chemotherapy-free strategies are being developed to address the dual challenges of chemo-insensitivity and treatment-related toxicity. In aggressive lymphomas, the central role of the BCR pathway has established BTK inhibitors as the backbone of many chemotherapy-free strategies. For instance, in the R/R setting, multiagent regimens have been developed around this principle. The DR2IVE regimen (dexamethasone, rituximab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and ibrutinib) is one such example, where the BTK inhibitor is combined with other targeted and immunomodulatory agents to create a multipronged attack on various survival pathways. [ 219 ] Similarly, in DLBCL, particularly for elderly or unfit patients with subtypes dependent on chronic active BCR and NF-κB signaling, the BTKi-based iR2 regimen (ibrutinib, rituximab, lenalidomide) has demonstrated significant efficacy, validating the approach of targeting core survival pathways in a chemotherapy-free context. [ 220 ] Another phase 2 trial evaluated the ZR2 regimen (zanubrutinib, rituximab, and lenalidomide) in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients aged ≥ 75 years. [ 221 ] The results were highly encouraging, with a CRR of 65.0% and a 2-year OS of 82.4%, comparing favorably to historical outcomes with R-miniCHOP. This chemotherapy-free paradigm is also extending to T-cell lymphomas. In R/R PTCLs, therapies targeting the epigenome are particularly prominent. The combination of the oral HMA azacitidine with the HDACi romidepsin, for example, has shown impressive efficacy, providing a crucial option for a patient population with poor outcomes with conventional chemotherapy. [ 144 ]

Each of these successful chemotherapy-free regimens is, in essence, a clinical manifestation of our deep understanding of molecular drivers in lymphomas. They illustrate a clear trajectory away from a “one-size-fits-all” cytotoxic approach toward more tailored, biology-driven treatments, marking a new era where insights from signaling pathway research are directly translated into improved patient outcomes.

Predictive biomarkers for signaling pathway-targeted therapies

The ultimate goal of dissecting lymphoma signaling pathways is to enable precision medicine, where therapeutic decisions are guided by predictive biomarkers. Unlike prognostic markers such as MYC/BCL2 dual expression in DLBCL that only stratify risk, [ 222 ] predictive biomarkers identify the specific molecular vulnerabilities of a tumor, allowing for the selection of targeted therapies most likely to be effective. This section summarizes some of the key predictive biomarkers discussed in this review, which are pivotal for matching the right drug to the right patient.

Several well-established and emerging biomarkers now directly inform clinical practice. A prime example of this principle is the use of EZH2 mutations in FL. The presence of a gain-of-function EZH2 mutation is a well-established predictive biomarker for sensitivity to the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat. Patients with EZH2 -mutant tumors derive significantly greater benefit from this agent, rendering the assessment of EZH2 mutation status a key component of treatment decision-making. [ 223 ]

Biomarker-driven approaches are also crucial in T-cell lymphomas, where epigenetic dysregulation is a central feature. As highlighted in recent clinical trials, specific genetic alterations can guide the use of epigenetic therapies in PTCLs. For example, the presence of TET2 mutations is associated with a favorable response to HMAs, whereas DNMT3A mutations may predict a poorer outcome, highlighting how genetic biomarkers can guide the use of epigenetic agents. [ 224 ] Furthermore, for T-cell and NKTCL dependent on the JAK/STAT pathway, both pathway activation status (e.g., phosphorylated STAT3 levels) and the presence of activating mutations in JAK3 or STAT3 are emerging as powerful predictive biomarkers for response to JAK/STAT inhibitors. [ 191 , 225 , 226 ]

However, for many targeted agents, the identification of reliable predictive biomarkers remains a critical challenge and an area of active research. For the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, which is approved for R/R DLBCL, there is an ongoing effort to identify molecular correlates of response. Early studies suggest that the protein expression levels of XPO1 itself, as well as key cargo proteins like TP53 and downstream effectors like MCL-1, may serve as potential protein-level biomarkers to help select patients who are most likely to benefit from this therapeutic approach. [ 227 ] The continued discovery and clinical validation of such predictive biomarkers are essential for realizing the full potential of targeted therapies in lymphomas. [ 228 ]

Genetic subtype-guided combination therapy by aligning treatment with signaling pathway dependencies

A pivotal advancement in personalizing lymphoma treatment is the use of genetic subtyping to guide the addition of targeted agents to standard immunochemotherapy backbones. This strategy is built upon foundational discoveries that have dissected the molecular heterogeneity of lymphomas, revealing distinct subtypes defined by their addiction to specific signaling pathways. For example, in DLBCL, comprehensive genomic analyses have identified subtypes like MCD (driven by MYD88 and CD79B mutations, indicating chronic active BCR/NF-κB signaling) and BN2 (characterized by BCL6 fusions and NOTCH2 mutations). [ 229 ] Similarly, in PTCLs, four major molecular subtypes have been defined, each with unique dependencies, such as the T1 subtype’s reliance on aberrant T-cell receptor/RHOA signaling. [ 230 ] These classifications provide a biological roadmap, allowing for the rational selection of targeted agents to inhibit the specific pathways driving each subtype.

The GUIDANCE-01 trial provides a powerful clinical validation of this approach in newly diagnosed, intermediate/high-risk DLBCL [Figure 2 A]. [ 231 ] In this randomized study, patients were stratified into genetic subtypes and received either standard R-CHOP or a subtype-guided regimen of R-CHOP plus a targeted agent (R-CHOP-X)—for instance, adding a BTK or NF-κB pathway inhibitor for BCR-dependent subtypes. The results were striking: the addition of a rationally chosen targeted agent led to significantly higher CRR (88% vs. 66%), 2-year PFS (88% vs. 63%), and 2-year OS (94% vs. 77%) compared to R-CHOP alone. This trial elegantly demonstrated that aligning targeted therapy with the underlying pathway dependency can dramatically improve the efficacy of the standard-of-care backbone.

This biomarker-driven paradigm has also been successfully applied to frontline PTCLs in the GUIDANCE-03 trial [Figure 2 B]. [ 232 ] Acknowledging the diverse epigenetic and signaling aberrations in PTCLs, patients in the experimental arm received a CHOP-X regimen, where the “X” was an epigenetic modulator or targeted agent tailored to their tumor’s specific mutations. For example, patients with histone modifier mutations ( CREBBP / EP300 ) received the HDACi chidamide, whereas others received agents such as the HMA decitabine for TP53 mutations. This personalized strategy resulted in a near-doubling of the CRR (64.6% vs. 33.3%) and a dramatic extension of the median PFS (25.5 vs. 9.0 months) compared to standard CHOP. [ 232 ] This study provides compelling evidence that tailoring targeted therapy to the dominant molecular aberrations can overcome the inherent chemoresistance of PTCLs. The same principle is being applied to the R/R setting. The GUIDANCE-06 trial evaluated a genetic subtype-guided approach for R/R DLBCL, adding targeted agents to the R-ICE regimen (rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) salvage chemotherapy backbone (R-ICE-X) [Figure 2 C]. [ 233 ] This strategy yielded impressive outcomes, with a 2-year PFS of 69.3 % and a 2-year OS of 88.3 %, rates that are highly favorable for this patient population.

Collectively, these studies herald a new era of lymphoma therapy. They transform genetic subtyping from a purely prognostic tool into an actionable predictive biomarker, guiding the construction of more effective, personalized combination regimens. This marks a critical step forward, where insights from signaling pathway and epigenetic research are directly used to enhance the efficacy of standard immunochemotherapy for defined patient cohorts.

Current challenges and future directions in lymphoma targeted therapy

Overcoming acquired resistance

While the advent of targeted therapy has significantly improved prognoses for patients with lymphoma, acquired drug resistance remains a primary obstacle limiting long-term therapeutic efficacy. [ 234 , 235 ] Consequently, a central focus of current research is the comprehensive analysis of drug resistance mechanisms and the development of next-generation therapeutic strategies to circumvent them. [ 235 ]

Mechanisms of resistance are multifaceted. A primary driver is the acquisition of on-target mutations that alter drug binding. [ 236 ] The C481S “gatekeeper” mutation in the BTK gene, for instance, is a well-characterized mechanism of drug resistance to covalent BTK inhibitors, as it disrupts drug binding by altering the active site conformation. [ 237 ] Another key mechanism involves the activation of compensatory or bypass signaling pathways. Abnormal upregulation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, for example, can circumvent the BTK blockade, thereby promoting cell survival and proliferation independent of the original target. [ 238 ] In addition, extrinsic factors, including remodeling of the TME—such as increased infiltration of immunosuppressive cells—and the enrichment of tumor stem cell populations, [ 239 ] also contribute to diminished drug sensitivity and therapeutic failure. [ 240 , 241 , 242 , 243 ]

To address these resistance mechanisms, several next-generation therapeutic strategies are under investigation. For instance, PROTAC technology offers a new approach by inducing the degradation of the target protein rather than merely inhibiting its enzymatic activity. [ 244 ] This mechanism can overcome resistance conferred by mutations that affect inhibitor binding. Notably, BTK-targeting PROTACs have shown efficacy in degrading the C481S mutant protein in preclinical models. [ 245 ] Combination therapies are a cornerstone for overcoming resistance. Combining a BTK inhibitor with a BCL-2 inhibitor has shown synergistic effects by simultaneously blocking proliferation signals and promoting apoptosis, significantly improving outcomes in challenging patient populations. [ 246 ] Finally, the implementation of liquid biopsies for dynamic monitoring of circulating tumor DNA is emerging as a powerful tool. [ 247 ] Detecting resistance mutations in circulating tumor DNA can provide an early warning of impending clinical relapse, enabling preemptive or personalized adjustments to treatment plans and representing a paradigm shift toward precision medicine in lymphoma management. [ 248 ]

Rational combination strategies

To counteract the complex interplay of resistance mechanisms and tumor heterogeneity, rational combination strategies have become a cornerstone of modern lymphoma therapy. The goal is to achieve synergistic cytotoxicity, prevent or delay the emergence of resistance, and broaden therapeutic efficacy. These strategies primarily involve pairing targeted agents with epigenetic modulators, other targeted agents, immunotherapy, or innovative chemotherapy regimens.

A key strategy involves sensitization through epigenetic reprogramming. Epigenetic agents, such as HMAs and HDACis, can reverse aberrant gene silencing. For instance, in R/R DLBCL, combining the HMA decitabine with standard immunochemotherapy (e.g., R-CHOP) or as a pretreatment for CD19/CD22 chimeric antigen receptor-modified T (CAR-T) therapy has shown promise in resensitizing tumors and improving response rates. [ 249 , 250 ] The underlying rationale is that these agents can restore the expression of tumor suppressor genes and critical surface antigens. Similarly, HDACis can overcome immune escape by upregulating CD20 to enhance the efficacy of anti-CD20 CAR-NK cells or rituximab, and restore tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL)-mediated apoptosis pathways. [ 251 , 252 ] In the same way, activation of the JAK/STAT pathway and epigenetic regulation are closely associated with ICI resistance. Combining JAK inhibitors with epigenetic drugs can significantly improve therapeutic efficacy. [ 253 , 254 ]

Another powerful approach is the combination of different targeted agents to induce synthetic lethality. This involves the simultaneous blockade of parallel or compensatory survival pathways. In MCL and double-hit lymphoma, combining the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor with the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax has demonstrated strong synergistic effects. Selinexor traps TSPs within the nucleus while venetoclax directly triggers the mitochondrial apoptosis pathway, leading to enhanced cell death. [ 255 , 256 ] Preclinical models in DLBCL also support combining venetoclax with agents like sildenafil, which synergistically downregulate key oncogenes such as MYC and BCL2 , providing a rationale for targeting multiple core dependencies. [ 257 ]

Integrating targeted therapies with immunotherapy is a rapidly evolving frontier. The central principle is that targeted agents can modulate the TME and enhance tumor cell immunogenicity, thereby boosting the efficacy of immunotherapies like ICIs, CAR-T cells, and bispecific antibodies. [ 258 , 259 ] For example, as previously discussed, the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat can upregulate MHC molecules on FL tumor cells, making them more visible to the immune system and potentially overcoming resistance to ICIs. [ 167 ] Similarly, combining JAK inhibitors with PD-1 blockade has shown promise in overcoming ICI resistance in HL. [ 253 , 254 ] In the realm of cellular therapy, epigenetic priming with agents like decitabine before CAR-T cell infusion has been shown to improve patient outcomes in R/R DLBCL, likely by resensitizing chemoresistant cells. [ 249 , 250 ] Future strategies will undoubtedly focus on creating synergistic triplets, combining targeted pathway inhibitors (e.g., BTKi, PI3Ki) with ICIs and next-generation cellular therapies to achieve deep and durable responses, transforming the treatment paradigm for even the most aggressive lymphomas. [ 260 , 261 ]

Real-world implementation

Although the molecular and clinical breakthroughs in targeted therapies are transformative, their real-world implementation is significantly constrained by practical challenges, most notably toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and inequitable global access. The successful management of treatment-related toxicities, as discussed for agents such as PI3K and XPO1 inhibitors, is a prerequisite for clinical adoption. However, even when toxicities are manageable, socioeconomic barriers often determine whether a patient can benefit from these innovations.

The high cost of novel agents presents a formidable hurdle. Targeted drugs, despite their significant therapeutic benefits, often enter the market with prohibitively high prices due to expensive research, development, and patent-protected pricing. [ 262 ] This economic reality creates a stark divide in global access. In high-income countries, access is largely dependent on the robustness of public or private health insurance systems. In contrast, patients in low- and middle-income countries face a confluence of barriers, including patent laws, limited governmental healthcare budgets, and low individual payment capacity, resulting in extremely low access rates and exacerbating global health disparities. [ 263 ]

Beyond direct costs, delays in drug availability further impact patient outcomes. Patented anticancer drugs are significantly less affordable in low- and middle-income countries, and patients in these nations often experience a multiyear lag in accessing new therapies. [ 264 ] Although the introduction of biosimilars and generic drugs can help narrow this treatment gap, a multipronged approach is essential for the future. Strategies such as mandatory licensing, drug price caps, differentiated pricing, and expanding universal healthcare coverage will be critical to ensuring that the promise of precision medicine in lymphoma translates into equitable and accessible care for all patients, regardless of their geographic location or economic status. [ 265 ]

Leveraging multiomics and artificial intelligence (AI)

The clinical challenge in lymphoma is rooted in the profound heterogeneity of the oncogenic signaling networks that drive tumor survival and resistance. To move beyond a one-gene, one-drug paradigm, the convergence of multiomics technologies and AI is essential for deconstructing this complexity and enabling truly pathway-informed personalized medicine.

Multiomics platforms provide a multilayered readout of signaling pathway activity. Genomics identifies mutations in key pathway components (e.g., MYD88 , CD79B ); transcriptomics quantifies the downstream output of hyperactive pathways (e.g., NF-κB or MYC target gene signatures); and phosphoproteomics directly measures the activation state of critical kinases (e.g., p-BTK, p-AKT). This integrated approach is crucial for uncovering pathogenic mechanisms. For example, in FL, multiomics identified mutations in epigenetic regulators like CREBBP and KMT2D as early events that lead to sustained BCL6 activity and the dysregulation of downstream pathways essential for GC B-cell biology. [ 266 ] Similarly, in PTCLs, this approach has stratified tumors into subtypes defined by distinct TME, which are shaped by underlying cytokine signaling networks and offer different therapeutic vulnerabilities. [ 267 ]

The analytical power of AI is required to integrate these data layers and identify functional signaling states that are not apparent from single-analyte analysis. This synergy is revolutionizing diagnostics and prognostics by linking observable features to underlying pathway biology. [ 268 ] In digital pathology, deep learning is moving beyond simple classification to correlate morphological phenotypes on whole-slide images with specific oncogenic signaling signatures, providing a visual surrogate for molecular tests. [ 269 ] In radiomics, AI can link imaging features from MRI or PET/CT scans to biological processes governed by signaling pathways, such as angiogenesis or proliferation, thereby creating non-invasive prognostic biomarkers. [ 270 , 271 ] In liquid biopsy, the COMOS platform utilizes machine learning to integrate conventional omics, such as methylation, copy number alterations, with novel fragmentomics from cell-free DNA. These fragmentation patterns reflect chromatin accessibility, indirectly reporting on the activity of transcription factors and signaling pathways. [ 272 ] Ultimately, this fusion of technologies is set to accelerate the development of pathway-targeted therapies. AI algorithms can mine multiomics datasets to identify novel, druggable nodes within dysregulated signaling networks or predict, based on a tumor’s unique “pathway signature”, which signaling inhibitor a patient is most likely to respond to. [ 273 ] Although challenges in clinical integration remain, the combination of multiomics and AI is undeniably shaping a new era of lymphoma treatment, one focused on deciphering and therapeutically targeting the complex and dynamic signaling networks at the heart of the disease.

Conclusions

The journey of targeted therapies in lymphoma represents a landmark achievement in modern oncology, transforming the treatment paradigm from the indiscriminate cytotoxicity of chemotherapy to an era of genetic subtype-guided precision medicine. This evolution was built upon decades of fundamental research that unraveled the intricate signaling pathways that drive lymphomagenesis. The translation of this knowledge into clinically effective agents has delivered unprecedented improvements in patient outcomes, particularly in historically difficult-to-treat subtypes and in patients unsuitable for conventional chemotherapy.

The impact of these therapies extends beyond single-agent efficacy; they have catalyzed an ongoing shift toward personalized treatment strategies. The rise of chemotherapy-free regimens, stemming from a deep understanding of oncogenic signaling pathways, marks a pivotal success in this journey. Furthermore, the integration of molecular subtyping into clinical practice, as powerfully demonstrated by the GUIDANCE trials, is transforming genomics from a prognostic tool into an actionable guide for constructing rational, synergistic combinations. By aligning targeted agents with the specific pathway dependencies of the tumor, we can now enhance the efficacy of standard immunochemotherapy backbones, achieving deeper and more durable responses in molecularly defined cohorts.

Despite these remarkable advances, the path toward curative therapies is paved with challenges. Acquired resistance, driven by on-target mutations and the activation of bypass signaling pathways, remains a formidable obstacle. The future of lymphoma therapy will therefore be defined by our ability to meet these challenges with continuous innovation. This includes the development of next-generation agents like noncovalent inhibitors and PROTAC degraders designed to overcome known resistance mechanisms. It also involves the design of intelligent, mechanism-based combination therapies that can preemptively target multiple survival pathways. Ultimately, the convergence of multiomics and AI technologies will be essential to decipher the full complexity of lymphoma signaling networks, identify novel therapeutic vulnerabilities, and validate predictive biomarkers. By continuing to bridge the gap between molecular mechanisms and clinical breakthroughs, the field is poised to move beyond long-term disease control toward the ultimate goal of achieving precision cures for all patients with lymphoma.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Footnotes

How to cite this article: Wang SQ, Qiu YR, Zhao WL. Targeting signaling pathways in lymphoma: From molecular mechanisms to clinical breakthroughs. Chin Med J 2026;139:949–972. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000004017

References

1. Khoury JD Solary E Abla O Akkari Y Alaggio R Apperley JF, et al. The 5th edition of the world health organization classification of haematolymphoid tumours: Myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms. Leukemia 2022;36:1703–1719. doi: 10.1038/s41375-022-01613-1.

2. Blombery PA, Wall M, Seymour JF. The molecular pathogenesis of b-cell non-hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Haematol 2015;95:280–293. doi: 10.1111/ejh.12589.

3. Skarin AT, Dorfman DM. Non-hodgkin’s lymphomas: Current classification and management. CA Cancer J Clin 1997;47:351–372. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.47.6.351.

4. Intlekofer AM, Younes A. Precision therapy for lymphoma--current state and future directions. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014;11:585–596. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.137.

5. Coiffier B Lepage E Brière J Herbrecht R Tilly H Bouabdallah R, et al. Chop chemotherapy plus rituximab compared with chop alone in elderly patients with diffuse large-b-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:235–242. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa011795.

6. Di M, Huntington SF, Olszewski AJ. Challenges and opportunities in the management of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma in older patients. Oncologist 2021;26:120–132. doi: 10.1002/onco.13610.

7. Fiore D, Cappelli LV, Broccoli A, Zinzani PL, Chan WC, Inghirami G. Peripheral t cell lymphomas: From the bench to the clinic. Nat Rev Cancer 2020;20:323–342. doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-0247-0.

8. Bertolini F Tarella C Gueli A Delaini F Rossi A Barbui AM, et al. Rate of primary refractory disease in b and t-cell non-hodgkin’s lymphoma: Correlation with long-term survival. PLoS ONE 2014;9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106745.

9. Wildes TM, Goede V, Hamlin P. Personalizing therapy for older adults with lymphoid malignancies: Options and obstacles. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2014:e240–e248. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2014.34.e240.

10. Jin C, Zhou D, Li J, Bi L, Li L. Single‑cell multi‑omics advances in lymphoma research (review). Oncol Rep 2023;50. doi: 10.3892/or.2023.8621.

11. Steen CB Luca BA Esfahani MS Azizi A Sworder BJ Nabet BY, et al. The landscape of tumor cell states and ecosystems in diffuse large b cell lymphoma. Cancer Cell 2021;39:1422–1437.e1410. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.08.011.

12. Wright GW Huang DW Phelan JD Coulibaly ZA Roulland S Young RM, et al. A probabilistic classification tool for genetic subtypes of diffuse large b cell lymphoma with therapeutic implications. Cancer Cell 2020;37:551–568.e514. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.015.

13. Li X Singhal K Deng Q Chihara D Russler-Germain D Harkins RA, et al. Large b cell lymphoma microenvironment archetype profiles. Cancer Cell 2025;43:1347–1364.e1313. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2025.06.002.

14. Lenz G Davis RE Ngo VN Lam L George TC Wright GW, et al. Oncogenic card11 mutations in human diffuse large b cell lymphoma. Science 2008;319:1676–1679. doi: 10.1126/science.1153629.

15. Xu PP, Huo YJ, Zhao WL. All roads lead to targeted diffuse large b-cell lymphoma approaches. Cancer Cell 2022;40:131–133. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.01.013.

16. Vetrie D Vořechovský I Sideras P Holland J Davies A Flinter F, et al. The gene involved in x-linked agammaglobulinaemia is a member of the src family of protein-tyrosine kinases. Nature 1993;361:226–233. doi: 10.1038/361226a0.

17. Zhu Q Zhang M Rawlings DJ Vihinen M Hagemann T Saffran DC, et al. Deletion within the src homology domain 3 of bruton’s tyrosine kinase resulting in x-linked agammaglobulinemia (xla). J Exp Med 1994;180:461–470. doi: 10.1084/jem.180.2.461.

18. Dong Y Pi X Bartels-Burgahn F Saltukoglu D Liang Z Yang J, et al. Structural principles of b cell antigen receptor assembly. Nature 2022;612:156–161. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05412-7.

19. Feng Y, Wang Y, Zhang S, Haneef K, Liu W. Structural and immunogenomic insights into b-cell receptor activation. J Genet Genomics 2020;47:27–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jgg.2019.12.003.

20. Niemann CU, Wiestner A. B-cell receptor signaling as a driver of lymphoma development and evolution. Semin Cancer Biol 2013;23:410–421. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2013.09.001.

21. Du MQ. Malt lymphoma: A paradigm of nf-κb dysregulation. Semin Cancer Biol 2016;39:49–60. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2016.07.003.

22. Masle-Farquhar E Jeelall Y White J Bier J Deenick EK Brink R, et al. Card11 gain-of-function mutation drives cell-autonomous accumulation of pd-1+ icoshigh activated t cells, t-follicular, t-regulatory and t-follicular regulatory cells. Front Immunol 2023;14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1095257.

23. Burger JA, Wiestner A. Targeting b cell receptor signalling in cancer: Preclinical and clinical advances. Nat Rev Cancer 2018;18:148–167. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2017.121.

24. Byrd JC Furman RR Coutre SE Flinn IW Burger JA Blum KA, et al. Targeting btk with ibrutinib in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2013;369:32–42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215637.

25. Burger JA Tedeschi A Barr PM Robak T Owen C Ghia P, et al. Ibrutinib as initial therapy for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2425–2437. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509388.

26. Wang ML Blum KA Martin P Goy A Auer R Kahl BS, et al. Long-term follow-up of mcl patients treated with single-agent ibrutinib: Updated safety and efficacy results. Blood 2015;126:739–745. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-03-635326.

27. Wu J, Liu C, Tsui ST, Liu D. Second-generation inhibitors of bruton tyrosine kinase. J Hematol OncolJ Hematol Oncol 2016;9. doi: 10.1186/s13045-016-0313-y.

28. Sharman JP Egyed M Jurczak W Skarbnik A Pagel JM Flinn IW, et al. Acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab versus chlorambucil and obinutuzumab for treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (elevate-tn): A randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet 2020;395:1278–1291. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30262-2.

29. Dimopoulos MA Opat S D’Sa S Jurczak W Lee HP Cull G, et al. Zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib in symptomatic waldenström macroglobulinemia: Final analysis from the randomized phase iii aspen study. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:5099–5106. doi: 10.1200/jco.22.02830.

30. Deng LJ Zhou KS Liu LH Zhang MZ Li ZM Ji CY, et al. Orelabrutinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractory mcl: A phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter, single-arm study. Blood Adv 2023;7:4349–4357. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022009168.

31. Wang ML Lee H Chuang H Wagner-Bartak N Hagemeister F Westin J, et al. Ibrutinib in combination with rituximab in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma: A single-centre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:48–56. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00438-6.

32. Jerkeman M Eskelund CW Hutchings M Räty R Wader KF Laurell A, et al. Ibrutinib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (philemon): A multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol 2018;5:e109–e116. doi: 10.1016/s2352-3026(18)30018-8.

33. Zinzani PL Mayer J Flowers CR Bijou F De Oliveira AC Song Y, et al. Rosewood: A phase ii randomized study of zanubrutinib plus obinutuzumab versus obinutuzumab monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2023;41:5107–5117. doi: 10.1200/jco.23.00775.

34. Zhang H Su L Liu L Bai O Song Z Zhao Z, et al. A prospective multicenter phase ii study of orelabrutinib-lenalidomide-rituximab (olr) in patients with untreated mantle cell lymphoma (mcl) in china (polaris study): Preliminary analysis on efficacy, safety, mutation spectrum and impact of mutation profiling on treatment responses. Blood 2023;142:736–736. doi: 10.1182/blood-2023-178509.

35. Skånland SS, Mato AR. Overcoming resistance to targeted therapies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood Adv 2021;5:334–343. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020003423.

36. Jain N Croner LJ Allan JN Siddiqi T Tedeschi A Badoux XC, et al. Absence of btk, bcl2, and plcg2 mutations in chronic lymphocytic leukemia relapsing after first-line treatment with fixed-duration ibrutinib plus venetoclax. Clin Cancer Res 2024;30:498–505. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-22-3934.

37. Mato AR Shah NN Jurczak W Cheah CY Pagel JM Woyach JA, et al. Pirtobrutinib in relapsed or refractory b-cell malignancies (bruin): A phase 1/2 study. Lancet 2021;397:892–901. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00224-5.

38. Wang E Mi X Thompson MC Montoya S Notti RQ Afaghani J, et al. Mechanisms of resistance to noncovalent bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. N Engl J Med 2022;386:735–743. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2114110.

39. Sabakhtarishvili G, Alshebli M, Bajwa O, Tabbara IA. Bruton tyrosine kinase degraders: Current concepts. Am J Clin Oncol 2025;48:257–261. doi: 10.1097/coc.0000000000001170.

40. Dostálová H, Kryštof V. Strategies for overcoming resistance to bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor zanubrutinib. Hematol Oncol 2024;42. doi: 10.1002/hon.3294.

41. Jiang VC Liu Y Lian J Huang S Jordan A Cai Q, et al. Cotargeting of btk and malt1 overcomes resistance to btk inhibitors in mantle cell lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2023;133. doi: 10.1172/jci165694.

42. Jiang V Lee W Zhang T Jordan A Yan F Cai Q, et al. The cdk9 inhibitor enitociclib overcomes resistance to btk inhibition and car-t therapy in mantle cell lymphoma. Biomark Res 2024;12. doi: 10.1186/s40364-024-00589-7.

43. Tam CS Anderson MA Pott C Agarwal R Handunnetti S Hicks RJ, et al. Ibrutinib plus venetoclax for the treatment of mantle-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1211–1223. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1715519.

44. Ming M Wu W Xie B Sukhanova M Wang W Kadri S, et al. Xpo1 inhibitor selinexor overcomes intrinsic ibrutinib resistance in mantle cell lymphoma via nuclear retention of iκb. Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17:2564–2574. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.Mct-17-0789-atr.

45. Shaffer AL Phelan JD Wang JQ Huang D Wright GW Kasbekar M, et al. Overcoming acquired epigenetic resistance to btk inhibitors. Blood Cancer Discov 2021;2:630–647. doi: 10.1158/2643-3230.Bcd-21-0063.

46. Wang L Yue C Zhou X Yang J Jin B Wang B, et al. Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor t cell therapy combined with zanubrutinib in the treatment of relapsed/refractory diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Chin Med J 2025;138:748–750. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000003504.

47. Roy MJ, Vom A, Czabotar PE, Lessene G. Cell death and the mitochondria: Therapeutic targeting of the bcl-2 family-driven pathway. Br J Pharmacol 2014;171:1973–1987. doi: 10.1111/bph.12431.

48. Kvansakul M, Hinds MG. The bcl-2 family: Structures, interactions and targets for drug discovery. Apoptosis 2014;20:136–150. doi: 10.1007/s10495-014-1051-7.

49. Vogler M Braun Y Smith VM Westhoff MA Pereira RS Pieper NM, et al. The bcl2 family: From apoptosis mechanisms to new advances in targeted therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2025;10. doi: 10.1038/s41392-025-02176-0.

50. Wang S Guo S Guo J Du Q Wu C Wu Y, et al. Cell death pathways: Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets for cancer. MedComm 2024;5. doi: 10.1002/mco2.693.

51. Hockings C Alsop AE Fennell SC Lee EF Fairlie WD Dewson G, et al. Mcl-1 and bcl-xl sequestration of bak confers differential resistance to bh3-only proteins. Cell Death Differ 2018;25:721–734. doi: 10.1038/s41418-017-0010-6.

52. Schweighofer SV Jans DC Keller-Findeisen J Folmeg A Ilgen P Bates M, et al. Endogenous bax and bak form mosaic rings of variable size and composition on apoptotic mitochondria. Cell Death Differ 2024;31:469–478. doi: 10.1038/s41418-024-01273-x.

53. Stankiewicz AR, Livingstone AM, Mohseni N, Mosser DD. Regulation of heat-induced apoptosis by mcl-1 degradation and its inhibition by hsp70. Cell Death Differ 2009;16:638–647. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2008.189.

54. Ashkenazi A, Fairbrother WJ, Leverson JD, Souers AJ. From basic apoptosis discoveries to advanced selective bcl-2 family inhibitors. Nat Rev Drug Discovery 2017;16:273–284. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.253.

55. Banjara S, Suraweera CD, Hinds MG, Kvansakul M. The bcl-2 family: Ancient origins, conserved structures, and divergent mechanisms. Biomolecules 2020;10. doi: 10.3390/biom10010128.

56. Perini GF, Ribeiro GN, Pinto Neto JV, Campos LT, Hamerschlak N. Bcl-2 as therapeutic target for hematological malignancies. J Hematol OncolJ Hematol Oncol 2018;11. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0608-2.

57. Klanova M, Klener P. Bcl-2 proteins in pathogenesis and therapy of b-cell non-hodgkin lymphomas. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12. doi: 10.3390/cancers12040938.

58. Robetorye RS, Bohling SD, Morgan JW, Fillmore GC, Lim MS, Elenitoba-Johnson KS. Microarray analysis of b-cell lymphoma cell lines with the t(14;18). J Mol Diagn 2002;4:123–136. doi: 10.1016/s1525-1578(10)60693-9.

59. Cheng EH Wei MC Weiler S Flavell RA Mak TW Lindsten T, et al. Bcl-2, bcl-x(l) sequester bh3 domain-only molecules preventing bax- and bak-mediated mitochondrial apoptosis. Mol Cell 2001;8:705–711. doi: 10.1016/s1097-2765(01)00320-3.

60. Valentin R, Grabow S, Davids MS. The rise of apoptosis: Targeting apoptosis in hematologic malignancies. Blood 2018;132:1248–1264. doi: 10.1182/blood-2018-02-791350.

61. Davids MS. Targeting bcl-2 in b-cell lymphomas. Blood 2017;130:1081–1088. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-737338.

62. Debrincat MA Pleines I Lebois M Lane RM Holmes ML Corbin J, et al. Bcl-2 is dispensable for thrombopoiesis and platelet survival. Cell Death Dis 2015;6:e1721. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2015.97.

63. R SS, Eastman A. Bcl2 inhibitors as anticancer drugs: A plethora of misleading bh3 mimetics. Mol Cancer Ther 2016;15:2011–2017. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.Mct-16-0031.

64. Ong F, Kim K, Konopleva MY. Venetoclax resistance: Mechanistic insights and future strategies. Cancer Drug Resist 2022;5:380–400. doi: 10.20517/cdr.2021.125.

65. Kater AP Wu JQ Kipps T Eichhorst B Hillmen P D’Rozario J, et al. Venetoclax plus rituximab in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia: 4-year results and evaluation of impact of genomic complexity and gene mutations from the murano phase iii study. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:4042–4054. doi: 10.1200/jco.20.00948.

66. Ailawadhi S Chen Z Huang B Paulus A Collins MC Fu L, et al. Novel bcl-2 inhibitor lisaftoclax in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and other hematologic malignancies: First-in-human open-label trial. Clin Cancer Res 2023;29:2385–2393. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-22-3321.

67. Zhou K Sun M Wei X Yi S Qi J Nian W, et al. Updated efficacy and safety results of lisaftoclax (apg-2575) in patients (pts) with heavily pretreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (cll): Pooled analyses of two clinical trials. Blood 2023;142:1900–1900. doi: 10.1182/blood-2023-183071.

68. Morschhauser F Feugier P Flinn IW Gasiorowski R Greil R Illés Á, et al. A phase 2 study of venetoclax plus r-chop as first-line treatment for patients with diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Blood 2021;137:600–609. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020006578.

69. Bolomsky A Vogler M Köse MC Heckman CA Ehx G Ludwig H, et al. Mcl-1 inhibitors, fast-lane development of a new class of anti-cancer agents. J Hematol Oncol 2020;13:173. doi: 10.1186/s13045-020-01007-9.

70. Kapoor I, Bodo J, Hill BT, Hsi ED, Almasan A. Targeting bcl-2 in b-cell malignancies and overcoming therapeutic resistance. Cell Death Dis 2020;11:941. doi: 10.1038/s41419-020-03144-y.

71. Xu Y, Ye H. Progress in understanding the mechanisms of resistance to bcl-2 inhibitors. Exp Hematol Oncol 2022;11. doi: 10.1186/s40164-022-00283-0.

72. Condoluci A, Rossi D. Mechanisms of resistance to venetoclax. Blood 2022;140:2094–2096. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022017341.

73. Alkhatabi HA Zohny SF Shait Mohammed MR Choudhry H Rehan M Ahmad A, et al. Venetoclax-resistant mv4-11 leukemic cells activate pi3k/akt pathway for metabolic reprogramming and redox adaptation for survival. Antioxidants (Basel) 2022;11. doi: 10.3390/antiox11030461.

74. Seyfried F Stirnweiß FU Niedermayer A Enzenmüller S Hörl RL Münch V, et al. Synergistic activity of combined inhibition of anti-apoptotic molecules in b-cell precursor all. Leukemia 2022;36:901–912. doi: 10.1038/s41375-021-01502-z.

75. Sullivan GP, Flanagan L, Rodrigues DA, Ní Chonghaile T. The path to venetoclax resistance is paved with mutations, metabolism, and more. Sci Transl Med 2022;14. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abo6891.

76. Lasater EA Amin DN Bannerji R Mali RS Barrett K Rys RN, et al. Targeting mcl-1 and bcl-2 with polatuzumab vedotin and venetoclax overcomes treatment resistance in r/r non-hodgkin lymphoma: Results from preclinical models and a phase ib study. Am J Hematol 2023;98:449–463. doi: 10.1002/ajh.26809.

77. Pham LV Huang S Zhang H Zhang J Bell T Zhou S, et al. Strategic therapeutic targeting to overcome venetoclax resistance in aggressive b-cell lymphomas. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24:3967–3980. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-17-3004.

78. Choudhary GS Al-harbi S Mazumder S Hill BT Smith MR Bodo J, et al. Correction to: Mcl-1 and bcl-xl-dependent resistance to the bcl-2 inhibitor abt-199 can be overcome by preventing pi3k/akt/mtor activation in lymphoid malignancies. Cell Death Dis 2024;15. doi: 10.1038/s41419-024-06878-1.

79. Thus YJ, Eldering E, Kater AP, Spaargaren M. Tipping the balance: Toward rational combination therapies to overcome venetoclax resistance in mantle cell lymphoma. Leukemia 2022;36:2165–2176. doi: 10.1038/s41375-022-01627-9.

80. Mounier N. Rituximab plus chop (r-chop) overcomes bcl-2--associated resistance to chemotherapy in elderly patients with diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (dlbcl). Blood 2003;101:4279–4284. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-11-3442.

81. Zhu F Crombie JL Ni W Hoang NM Garg S Hackett L, et al. Hypomethylating agent decitabine sensitizes diffuse large b-cell lymphoma to venetoclax. Haematologica 2023. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2023.283245.

82. Schatz JH. Targeting the pi3k/akt/mtor pathway in non-hodgkin’s lymphoma: Results, biology, and development strategies. Curr Oncol Rep 2011;13:398–406. doi: 10.1007/s11912-011-0187-7.

83. Hollander MC, Blumenthal GM, Dennis PA. Pten loss in the continuum of common cancers, rare syndromes and mouse models. Nat Rev Cancer 2011;11:289–301. doi: 10.1038/nrc3037.

84. Glaviano A Foo ASC Lam HY Yap KCH Jacot W Jones RH, et al. Pi3k/akt/mtor signaling transduction pathway and targeted therapies in cancer. Mol Cancer 2023;22. doi: 10.1186/s12943-023-01827-6.

85. Pauls SD, Lafarge ST, Landego I, Zhang T, Marshall AJ. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase signaling pathway in normal and malignant b cells: Activation mechanisms, regulation and impact on cellular functions. Front Immunol 2012;3. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2012.00224.

86. Formisano L Napolitano F Rosa R D'Amato V Servetto A Marciano R, et al. Mechanisms of resistance to mTOR inhibitors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2020;147:102886. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.102886.

87. Lampson BL, Brown JR. Pi3kδ-selective and pi3kα/δ-combinatorial inhibitors in clinical development for b-cell non-hodgkin lymphoma. Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs 2017;26:1267–1279. doi: 10.1080/13543784.2017.1384815.

88. Mishra R, Patel H, Alanazi S, Kilroy MK, Garrett JT. Pi3k inhibitors in cancer: Clinical implications and adverse effects. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22. doi: 10.3390/ijms22073464.

89. Hus I, Puła B, Robak T. Pi3k inhibitors for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Current status and future perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14. doi: 10.3390/cancers14061571.

90. Flinn IW Miller CB Ardeshna KM Tetreault S Assouline SE Mayer J, et al. Dynamo: A phase ii study of duvelisib (ipi-145) in patients with refractory indolent non-hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:912–922. doi: 10.1200/jco.18.00915.

91. Hanlon A, Brander DM. Managing toxicities of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (pi3k) inhibitors. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2020;2020:346–356. doi: 10.1182/hematology.2020000119.

92. Hanlon A, Brander DM. Managing toxicities of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (pi3k) inhibitors. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2020;2020:346–356. doi: 10.1182/hematology.2020000119.

93. Esposito A, Viale G, Curigliano G. Safety, tolerability, and management of toxic effects of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase inhibitor treatment in patients with cancer. JAMA Oncol 2019;5. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0034.

94. Pongas G, Cheson BD. Pi3k signaling pathway in normal b cells and indolent b-cell malignancies. Semin Oncol 2016;43:647–654. doi: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.11.011.

95. Burris HA Flinn IW Patel MR Fenske TS Deng C Brander DM, et al. Umbralisib, a novel pi3kδ and casein kinase-1ε inhibitor, in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and lymphoma: An open-label, phase 1, dose-escalation, first-in-human study. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:486–496. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30082-2.

96. Fowler NH Samaniego F Jurczak W Ghosh N Derenzini E Reeves JA, et al. Umbralisib, a dual pi3kδ/ck1ε inhibitor in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2021;39:1609–1618. doi: 10.1200/jco.20.03433.

97. Zinzani PL Trněný M Ribrag V Zilioli VR Walewski J Christensen JH, et al. Parsaclisib, a pi3kδ inhibitor, in relapsed and refractory mantle cell lymphoma (citadel-205): A phase 2 study. eClinicalMedicine 2023;62. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102131.

98. Wang T Sun X Qiu L Su H Cao J Li Z, et al. The oral pi3kδ inhibitor linperlisib for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory follicular lymphoma: A phase ii, single-arm, open-label clinical trial. Clin Cancer Res 2023;29:1440–1449. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-22-2939.

99. Krause G, Hassenrück F, Hallek M. Copanlisib for treatment of b-cell malignancies: The development of a pi3k inhibitor with considerable differences to idelalisib. Drug Des Devel Ther 2018;12:2577–2590. doi: 10.2147/dddt.S142406.

100. Munoz J, Follows GA, Nastoupil LJ. Copanlisib for the treatment of malignant lymphoma: Clinical experience and future perspectives. Target Oncol 2021;16:295–308. doi: 10.1007/s11523-021-00802-9.

101. Dreyling M Santoro A Mollica L Leppä S Follows G Lenz G, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of the pi3k inhibitor copanlisib in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma: 2-year follow-up of the chronos-1 study. Am J Hematol 2020;95:362–371. doi: 10.1002/ajh.25711.

102. Dreyling M Morschhauser F Bouabdallah K Bron D Cunningham D Assouline SE, et al. Phase ii study of copanlisib, a pi3k inhibitor, in relapsed or refractory, indolent or aggressive lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2017;28:2169–2178. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx289.

103. Mehta-Shah N Zinzani PL Jacobsen ED Zain J Mead M Casulo C, et al. Duvelisib in patients with relapsed/refractory peripheral t-cell lymphoma: Final results from the phase 2 primo trial. Blood 2024;144:3061–3061. doi: 10.1182/blood-2024-203577.

104. Witzig TE Reeder C Han JJ LaPlant B Stenson M Tun HW, et al. The mtorc1 inhibitor everolimus has antitumor activity in vitro and produces tumor responses in patients with relapsed t-cell lymphoma. Blood 2015;126:328–335. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-02-629543.

105. Moskowitz AJ, Horwitz SM. Mtor inhibition in t-cell lymphoma: A path(way) forward. Blood 2015;126:284–286. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-05-644724.

106. Kim SJ Shin DY Kim JS Yoon DH Lee WS Lee H, et al. A phase ii study of everolimus (rad001), an mtor inhibitor plus chop for newly diagnosed peripheral t-cell lymphomas. Ann Oncol 2016;27:712–718. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv624.

107. Janku F Park H Call SG Madwani K Oki Y Subbiah V, et al. Safety and efficacy of vorinostat plus sirolimus or everolimus in patients with relapsed refractory hodgkin lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:5579–5587. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-20-1215.

108. Willis BS Mongeon K Dry H Neveras IL Bryan N Pandya M, et al. Potent combination benefit of the akt inhibitor capivasertib and the bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax in diffuse large b cell lymphoma. Leukemia 2024;38:2663–2674. doi: 10.1038/s41375-024-02401-9.

109. Yu L, Wei J, Liu P. Attacking the pi3k/akt/mtor signaling pathway for targeted therapeutic treatment in human cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 2022;85:69–94. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.06.019.

110. Bou Zeid N, Yazbeck V. Pi3k inhibitors in nhl and cll: An unfulfilled promise. Blood Lymphat Cancer 2023;13:1–12. doi: 10.2147/blctt.S309171.

111. Kim JH, Kim WS, Park C. Interleukin-6 mediates resistance to pi3k-pathway–targeted therapy in lymphoma. BMC Cancer 2019;19. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6057-7.

112. Martín-Acosta P, Xiao X. Protacs to address the challenges facing small molecule inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem 2021;210:112993. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2020.112993.

113. Kupcova K Senavova J Jura F Herman V Rajmonova A Pacheco-Blanco M, et al. Vertical targeting of the pi3k/akt pathway at multiple points is synergistic and effective for non-hodgkin lymphoma. Exp Hematol Oncol 2024;13. doi: 10.1186/s40164-024-00568-6.

114. Chen F Liu J Song X DuCote TJ Byrd AL Wang C, et al. Ezh2 inhibition confers pik3ca-driven lung tumors enhanced sensitivity to pi3k inhibition. Cancer Lett 2022;524:151–160. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2021.10.010.

115. Horwitz SM Nirmal AJ Rahman J Xu R Drill E Galasso N, et al. Duvelisib plus romidepsin in relapsed/refractory t cell lymphomas: A phase 1b/2a trial. Nat Med 2024;30:2517–2527. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-03076-6.

116. Li B, Chng WJ. Ezh2 abnormalities in lymphoid malignancies: Underlying mechanisms and therapeutic implications. J Hematol OncolJ Hematol Oncol 2019;12. doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0814-6.

117. Chapuy B Stewart C Dunford AJ Kim J Kamburov A Redd RA, et al. Molecular subtypes of diffuse large b cell lymphoma are associated with distinct pathogenic mechanisms and outcomes. Nat Med 2018;24:679–690. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0016-8.

118. Yap DB Chu J Berg T Schapira M Cheng SWG Moradian A, et al. Somatic mutations at ezh2 y641 act dominantly through a mechanism of selectively altered prc2 catalytic activity, to increase h3k27 trimethylation. Blood 2011;117:2451–2459. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-11-321208.

119. Jiang Y, Melnick A. The epigenetic basis of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Semin Hematol 2015;52:86–96. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2015.01.003.

120. Zhao W Li J Chen MM Luo Y Ju Z Nesser NK, et al. Large-scale characterization of drug responses of clinically relevant proteins in cancer cell lines. Cancer Cell 2020;38:829–843.e824. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.10.008.

121. Italiano A Soria JC Toulmonde M Michot JM Lucchesi C Varga A, et al. Tazemetostat, an ezh2 inhibitor, in relapsed or refractory b-cell non-hodgkin lymphoma and advanced solid tumours: A first-in-human, open-label, phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:649–659. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30145-1.

122. Morschhauser F Tilly H Chaidos A McKay P Phillips T Assouline S, et al. Tazemetostat for patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: An open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:1433–1442. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30441-1.

123. Sarkozy C Molina TJ Dubois S Portugues C Bohers E Ysebaert L, et al. Efficacy of tazemetostat in combination with r-chop in elderly patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large b cell lymphoma: Results of the epirchop phase ii study of the lysa. eClinicalMedicine 2025;82. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103157.

124. Dou F, Tian Z, Yang X, Li J, Wang R, Gao J. Valemetostat: First approval as a dual inhibitor of ezh1/2 to treat adult t-cell leukemia/lymphoma. Drug Discov Ther 2022;16:297–299. doi: 10.5582/ddt.2022.01085.

125. Yamagishi M Hori M Fujikawa D Ohsugi T Honma D Adachi N, et al. Targeting excessive ezh1 and ezh2 activities for abnormal histone methylation and transcription network in malignant lymphomas. Cell Rep 2019;29:2321–2337.e2327. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.10.083.

126. Li W Bi C Han Y Tian T Wang X Bao H, et al. Targeting ezh1/2 induces cell cycle arrest and inhibits cell proliferation through reactivation of p57cdkn1c and tp53inp1 in mantle cell lymphoma. Cancer Biol Med 2019;16:530–541. doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2018.0380.

127. Izutsu K Makita S Nosaka K Yoshimitsu M Utsunomiya A Kusumoto S, et al. An open-label, single-arm phase 2 trial of valemetostat for relapsed or refractory adult t-cell leukemia/lymphoma. Blood 2023;141:1159–1168. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022016862.

128. Zinzani PL Izutsu K Mehta-Shah N Barta SK Ishitsuka K Córdoba R, et al. Valemetostat for patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral t-cell lymphoma (valentine-ptcl01): A multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2024;25:1602–1613. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00503-5.

129. Jeong Y Jang H Kim SB Yu M Kim RE Choi WS, et al. Dual targeting of ezh2 and pd-l1 in burkitt’s lymphoma enhances immune activation and induces apoptotic pathway. Front Immunol 2025;16. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1578665.

130. Weissman J, Naidu S, Bjornsson HT. Abnormalities of the DNA methylation mark and its machinery: An emerging cause of neurologic dysfunction. Semin Neurol 2014;34:249–257. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1386763.

131. Clozel T Yang S Elstrom RL Tam W Martin P Kormaksson M, et al. Mechanism-based epigenetic chemosensitization therapy of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Cancer Discov 2013;3:1002–1019. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-13-0117.

132. Hoang NM, Rui L. DNA methyltransferases in hematological malignancies. J Genet Genomics 2020;47:361–372. doi: 10.1016/j.jgg.2020.04.006.

133. Carty SA. Biological insights into the role of tet2 in t cell lymphomas. Front Oncol 2023;13:1199108. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1199108.

134. Zhao WL, Wang L, Qian Y, Gao XD, Sun XJ, Liu MK. Methylation alterations and advance of treatment in lymphoma. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 2021;26. doi: 10.52586/4970.

135. Cogan JC, Liu Y, Amengual JE. Hypomethylating agents in lymphoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2020;21. doi: 10.1007/s11864-020-00761-9.

136. Kalinkova L, Sevcikova A, Stevurkova V, Fridrichova I, Ciernikova S. Targeting DNA methylation in leukemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, and lymphoma: A potential diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic tool. Int J Mol Sci 2022;24. doi: 10.3390/ijms24010633.

137. Goffin J, Eisenhauer E. DNA methyltransferase inhibitors—state of the art. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1699–1716. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdf314.

138. Lemonnier F Cairns RA Inoue S Li WY Dupuy A Broutin S, et al. The idh2 r172k mutation associated with angioimmunoblastic t-cell lymphoma produces 2hg in t cells and impacts lymphoid development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016;113:15084–15089. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1617929114.

139. Xu W Yang H Liu Y Yang Y Wang P Kim SH, et al. Oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate is a competitive inhibitor of α-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases. Cancer Cell 2011;19:17–30. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2010.12.014.

140. Leca J Lemonnier F Meydan C Foox J El Ghamrasni S Mboumba DL, et al. Idh2 and tet2 mutations synergize to modulate t follicular helper cell functional interaction with the aitl microenvironment. Cancer Cell 2023;41:323–339.e310. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.01.003.

141. Patel K, Dickson J, Din S, Macleod K, Jodrell D, Ramsahoye B. Targeting of 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine residues by chromatin-associated dnmt1 induces proteasomal degradation of the free enzyme. Nucleic Acids Res 2010;38:4313–4324. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq187.

142. Wong J Gruber E Maher B Waltham M Sabouri-Thompson Z Jong I, et al. Integrated clinical and genomic evaluation of guadecitabine (sgi-110) in peripheral t-cell lymphoma. Leukemia 2022;36:1654–1665. doi: 10.1038/s41375-022-01571-8.

143. Ruan J Moskowitz AJ Mehta-Shah N Sokol L Chen Z Kotlov N, et al. Multicenter phase 2 study of oral azacitidine (cc-486) plus chop as initial treatment for peripheral t-cell lymphoma. Blood 2023. doi: 10.1182/blood.2022018254.

144. Falchi L Ma H Klein S Lue JK Montanari F Marchi E, et al. Combined oral 5-azacytidine and romidepsin are highly effective in patients with ptcl: A multicenter phase 2 study. Blood 2021;137:2161–2170. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020009004.

145. Liu Y Wang C Li X Dong L Yang Q Chen M, et al. Improved clinical outcome in a randomized phase ii study of anti-pd-1 camrelizumab plus decitabine in relapsed/refractory hodgkin lymphoma. J Immunother Cancer 2021;9. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-002347.

146. Nie J Wang C Liu Y Yang Q Mei Q Dong L, et al. Addition of low-dose decitabine to anti–pd-1 antibody camrelizumab in relapsed/refractory classical hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:1479–1489. doi: 10.1200/jco.18.02151.

147. Ricard L Cervera P Stocker N Corre E Van de Wyngaert Z Banet A, et al. A combination of 5-azacytidine and nivolumab is a potentially effective rescue therapy in relapsed/refractory aitl. Front Immunol 2024;15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1410638.

148. Ramaiah MJ, Tangutur AD, Manyam RR. Epigenetic modulation and understanding of hdac inhibitors in cancer therapy. Life Sci 2021;277:119504. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119504.

149. Piekarz RL Robey R Sandor V Bakke S Wilson WH Dahmoush L, et al. Inhibitor of histone deacetylation, depsipeptide (fr901228), in the treatment of peripheral and cutaneous t-cell lymphoma: A case report. Blood 2001;98:2865–2868. doi: 10.1182/blood.V98.9.2865.

150. Sabzevari A Ung J Craig JW Jayappa KD Pal I Feith DJ, et al. Management of t-cell malignancies: Bench-to-bedside targeting of epigenetic biology. CA Cancer J Clin 2025;75:282–307. doi: 10.3322/caac.70001.

151. Li X Liu B Huang D Ma N Xia J Zhao X, et al. Chidamide triggers pyroptosis in t-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukemia via the foxo1/gsdme axis. Chin Med J 2025;138:1213–1224. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000003214.

152. Smolewski P, Robak T. The discovery and development of romidepsin for the treatment of t-cell lymphoma. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2017;12:859–873. doi: 10.1080/17460441.2017.1341487.

153. Foss F Pro B Miles Prince H Sokol L Caballero D Horwitz S, et al. Responses to romidepsin by line of therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral t-cell lymphoma. Cancer Med 2016;6:36–44. doi: 10.1002/cam4.939.

154. Foss F Horwitz S Pro B Prince HM Sokol L Balser B, et al. Romidepsin for the treatment of relapsed/refractory peripheral t cell lymphoma: Prolonged stable disease provides clinical benefits for patients in the pivotal trial. J Hematol Oncol 2016;9:22. doi: 10.1186/s13045-016-0243-8.

155. El Omari N Bakrim S Khalid A Albratty M Abdalla AN Lee LH, et al. Anticancer clinical efficiency and stochastic mechanisms of belinostat. Biomed Pharmacother 2023;165. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115212.

156. O’Connor OA Horwitz S Masszi T Van Hoof A Brown P Doorduijn J, et al. Belinostat in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral t-cell lymphoma: Results of the pivotal phase ii belief (cln-19) study. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:2492–2499. doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.59.2782.

157. Sawas A, Radeski D, O’Connor OA. Belinostat in patients with refractory or relapsed peripheral t-cell lymphoma: A perspective review. Ther Adv Hematol 2015;6:202–208. doi: 10.1177/2040620715592567.

158. Lu X, Ning Z, Li Z, Cao H, Wang X. Development of chidamide for peripheral t-cell lymphoma, the first orphan drug approved in china. Intractable Rare Dis Res 2016;5:185–191. doi: 10.5582/irdr.2016.01024.

159. Shi Y Dong M Hong X Zhang W Feng J Zhu J, et al. Results from a multicenter, open-label, pivotal phase ii study of chidamide in relapsed or refractory peripheral t-cell lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2015;26:1766–1771. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv237.

160. Zou Q Zhang Y Zhou H Lai Y Cao Y Li Z, et al. Chidamide, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, combined with r-gemox in relapsed/refractory diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (trust): A multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Cancer Med 2025;14. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70919.

161. Wen T Sun G Jiang W He X Shi Y Ma F, et al. Histone deacetylases inhibitor chidamide synergizes with humanized pd1 antibody to enhance t-cell chemokine expression and augment ifn-γ response in nk-t cell lymphoma. eBioMedicine 2023;87. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104420.

162. Marchi E Zullo KM Amengual JE Kalac M Bongero D McIntosh CM, et al. The combination of hypomethylating agents and histone deacetylase inhibitors produce marked synergy in preclinical models of t-cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2015;171:215–226. doi: 10.1111/bjh.13566.

163. Li B Yan J Phyu T Fan S Chung TH Mustafa N, et al. Melk mediates the stability of ezh2 through site-specific phosphorylation in extranodal natural killer/t-cell lymphoma. Blood 2019;134:2046–2058. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019000381.

164. Yan J Li B Lin B Lee PT Chung TH Tan J, et al. Ezh2 phosphorylation by jak3 mediates a switch to noncanonical function in natural killer/t-cell lymphoma. Blood 2016;128:948–958. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-01-690701.

165. Zhang X Zhao X Fiskus W Lin J Lwin T Rao R, et al. Coordinated silencing of myc-mediated mir-29 by hdac3 and ezh2 as a therapeutic target of histone modification in aggressive b-cell lymphomas. Cancer Cell 2012;22:506–523. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.09.003.

166. Yu L Wang YF Xiao J Shen QQ Chi SS Gao YL, et al. Dysregulation of iron homeostasis by tfr-1 renders ezh2 wild type diffuse large b-cell lymphoma resistance to ezh2 inhibition. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2023;44:2113–2124. doi: 10.1038/s41401-023-01097-4.

167. Isshiki Y Chen X Teater M Karagiannidis I Nam H Cai W, et al. Ezh2 inhibition enhances t cell immunotherapies by inducing lymphoma immunogenicity and improving t cell function. Cancer Cell 2025;43:49–68.e49. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.11.006.

168. Ennishi D Takata K Béguelin W Duns G Mottok A Farinha P, et al. Molecular and genetic characterization of mhc deficiency identifies ezh2 as therapeutic target for enhancing immune recognition. Cancer Discov 2019;9:546–563. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-18-1090.

169. Jeong Y Jang H Kim SB Yu M Kim RE Choi WS, et al. Dual targeting of ezh2 and pd-l1 in burkitt’s lymphoma enhances immune activation and induces apoptotic pathway. Front Immunol 2025;16:1578665. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1578665.

170. Liu Y Wang C Li X Dong L Yang Q Chen M, et al. Improved clinical outcome in a randomized phase ii study of anti-pd-1 camrelizumab plus decitabine in relapsed/refractory hodgkin lymphoma. J Immunother Cancer 2021;9. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-002347.

171. Parikh K, Cang S, Sekhri A, Liu D. Selective inhibitors of nuclear export (sine)--a novel class of anti-cancer agents. J Hematol Oncol 2014;7:78. doi: 10.1186/s13045-014-0078-0.

172. Azmi AS, Uddin MH, Mohammad RM. The nuclear export protein xpo1 — from biology to targeted therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2020;18:152–169. doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-00442-4.

173. Trkulja KL, Manji F, Kuruvilla J, Laister RC. Nuclear export in non-hodgkin lymphoma and implications for targeted xpo1 inhibitors. Biomolecules 2023;13. doi: 10.3390/biom13010111.

174. Crochiere M Kashyap T Kalid O Shechter S Klebanov B Senapedis W, et al. Deciphering mechanisms of drug sensitivity and resistance to selective inhibitor of nuclear export (sine) compounds. BMC Cancer 2015;15:910. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1790-z.

175. Bader JC, Abdul Razak AR, Shacham S, Xu H. Pharmacokinetics of selinexor: The first-in-class selective inhibitor of nuclear export. Clin Pharmacokinet 2021;60:957–969. doi: 10.1007/s40262-021-01016-y.

176. Kalakonda N Maerevoet M Cavallo F Follows G Goy A Vermaat JSP, et al. Selinexor in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large b-cell lymphoma (sadal): A single-arm, multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol 2020;7:e511–e522. doi: 10.1016/s2352-3026(20)30120-4.

177. Maerevoet M Zijlstra JM Follows G Casasnovas RO Vermaat JSP Kalakonda N, et al. Survival among patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large b cell lymphoma treated with single-agent selinexor in the sadal study. J Hematol Oncol 2021;14:111. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01122-1.

178. Maerevoet M Casasnovas O Cartron G Morschhauser F Thieblemont C Bouabdallah K, et al. Phase ib study of oral selinexor in combination with rituximab and platinum chemotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory b-cell lymphoma-final analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2024;16. doi: 10.3390/cancers16152672.

179. Deng M Zhang M Xu-Monette ZY Pham LV Tzankov A Visco C, et al. Xpo1 expression worsens the prognosis of unfavorable dlbcl that can be effectively targeted by selinexor in the absence of mutant p53. J Hematol Oncol 2020;13:148. doi: 10.1186/s13045-020-00982-3.

180. Tao R, Liu C, Zhang W, Zhu Y, Ma Y, Hao S. Selinexor with anti-pd-1 antibody as a potentially effective regimen for patients with natural killer/t-cell lymphoma failing prior l-asparaginase and pd-1 blockade. Oncologist 2024;29:e90–e96. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyad241.

181. Meng M Feng X Zhang Y Gao Y Han L Li Z, et al. Efficacy and mechanism of the xpo1 inhibitor selinexor combined with decitabine in t-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma. Ann Hematol 2025;104:1747–1756. doi: 10.1007/s00277-025-06271-8.

182. Gavriatopoulou M Chari A Chen C Bahlis N Vogl DT Jakubowiak A, et al. Integrated safety profile of selinexor in multiple myeloma: Experience from 437 patients enrolled in clinical trials. Leukemia 2020;34:2430–2440. doi: 10.1038/s41375-020-0756-6.

183. Liu S Wang S Gu R Che N Wang J Cheng J, et al. The xpo1 inhibitor kpt-8602 ameliorates parkinson’s disease by inhibiting the nf-κb/nlrp3 pathway. Front Pharmacol 2022;13:847605. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.847605.

184. Hing ZA Fung HYJ Ranganathan P Mitchell S El-Gamal D Woyach JA, et al. Next-generation xpo1 inhibitor shows improved efficacy and in vivo tolerability in hematological malignancies. Leukemia 2016;30:2364–2372. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.136.

185. Walker JS, Garzon R, Lapalombella R. Selinexor for advanced hematologic malignancies. Leuk Lymphoma 2020;61:2335–2350. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1775210.

186. Quintás-Cardama A, Verstovsek S. Molecular pathways: Jak/stat pathway: Mutations, inhibitors, and resistance. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:1933–1940. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-12-0284.

187. Roskoski R,, Jr. Janus kinase (jak) inhibitors in the treatment of neoplastic and inflammatory disorders. Pharmacol Res 2022;183:106362. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106362.

188. Wang C, Wang L. Resistance mechanisms and potential therapeutic strategies in relapsed or refractory natural killer/t cell lymphoma. Chin Med J 2024;137:2308–2324. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000003152.

189. Waldmann TA, Chen J. Disorders of the jak/stat pathway in t cell lymphoma pathogenesis: Implications for immunotherapy. Annu Rev Immunol 2017;35:533–550. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-110416-120628.

190. Scott LM, Gandhi MK. Deregulated jak/stat signalling in lymphomagenesis, and its implications for the development of new targeted therapies. Blood Reviews 2015;29:405–415. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2015.06.002.

191. Moskowitz AJ Ghione P Jacobsen E Ruan J Schatz JH Noor S, et al. A phase 2 biomarker-driven study of ruxolitinib demonstrates effectiveness of jak/stat targeting in t-cell lymphomas. Blood 2021;138:2828–2837. doi: 10.1182/blood.2021013379.

192. Song Y Yoon DH Yang H Cao J Ji D Koh Y, et al. Phase i dose escalation and expansion study of golidocitinib, a highly selective jak1 inhibitor, in relapsed or refractory peripheral t-cell lymphomas. Ann Oncol 2023;34:1055–1063. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.08.013.

193. Bachanova V Hegerova L Cao Q Janakiram M Maakaron J Ayyappan S, et al. Ruxolitinib plus nivolumab in patients with r/r hodgkin lymphoma after failure of check-point inhibitors: Preliminary report on safety and efficacy. Blood 2021;138:230–230. doi: 10.1182/blood-2021-149675.

194. Chen J Zuo Z Gao Y Yao X Guan P Wang Y, et al. Aberrant jak-stat signaling-mediated chromatin remodeling impairs the sensitivity of nk/t-cell lymphoma to chidamide. Clin Epigenetics 2023;15. doi: 10.1186/s13148-023-01436-6.

195. Zhu F, Wang KB, Rui L. Stat3 activation and oncogenesis in lymphoma. Cancers 2019;12. doi: 10.3390/cancers12010019.

196. Mumin NH Drobnitzky N Patel A Lourenco LM Cahill FF Jiang Y, et al. Overcoming acquired resistance to hsp90 inhibition by targeting jak-stat signalling in triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2019;19:102. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5295-z.

197. Lou N Yang M Xie Z Gao R Zhang L Tang L, et al. Jak3a573vandjak3m511imutations in peripheral t-cell lymphoma mediating resistance to anti-pd-1 therapy through the stat3/pd-l1 pathway. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 2025;13. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2024-010783.

198. Debernardi M Correa A Alvarado L Revuelta MV Sterle HA Gonzalez G, et al. Thyroid hormones contribute to jak/stat pathway abnormal activation, promoting t-cell lymphoma dissemination. Blood Adv 2025;9:4067–4080. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2024015332.

199. Veloza L Cavalieri D Missiaglia E Ledoux-Pilon A Bisig B Pereira B, et al. Monomorphic epitheliotropic intestinal t-cell lymphoma comprises morphologic and genomic heterogeneity impacting outcome. Haematologica 2023;108:181–195. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2022.281226.

200. Pro B, Allen P, Behdad A. Hepatosplenic t-cell lymphoma: A rare but challenging entity. Blood 2020;136:2018–2026. doi: 10.1182/blood.2019004118.

201. Xiao Y Ma Y Zhao J Zhang X Gan C Gao J, et al. The cgas-sting signaling pathway as a therapeutic target in human diseases. Chin Med J 2025;138:3251–3284. doi: 10.1097/cm9.0000000000003904.

202. Yang Y, Wang L, Peugnet-González I, Parada-Venegas D, Dijkstra G, Faber KN. Cgas-sting signaling pathway in intestinal homeostasis and diseases. Front Immunol 2023;14:1239142. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1239142.

203. Samson N, Ablasser A. The cgas–sting pathway and cancer. Nat Cancer 2022;3:1452–1463. doi: 10.1038/s43018-022-00468-w.

204. Jiang M Chen P Wang L Li W Chen B Liu Y, et al. Cgas-sting, an important pathway in cancer immunotherapy. J Hematol Oncol 2020;13. doi: 10.1186/s13045-020-00916-z.

205. Gong J, Gao X, Ge S, Li H, Wang R, Zhao L. The role of cgas-sting signalling in metabolic diseases: From signalling networks to targeted intervention. Int J Biol Sci 2024;20:152–174. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.84890.

206. Cai Y Chen X Lu T Fang X Ding M Yu Z, et al. Activation of sting by samhd1 deficiency promotes panoptosis and enhances efficacy of pd-l1 blockade in diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Int J Biol Sci 2023;19:4627–4643. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.85236.

207. Xiao R Zhao W Lin W Xiao Y Ren J Zhou Y, et al. Bendamustine–rituximab elicits dual tumoricidal and immunomodulatory responses via cgas–sting activation in diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. J Immunother Cancer 2024;12. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2024-009212.

208. Xagoraris I Yang Y Bougka E Trogrlic D Xyderou P Stathopoulou K, et al. Sulforaphane promotes natural killer cell-mediated anti-tumor immune responses partially via cgas-sting pathway in classical hodgkin lymphoma. Leukemia 2025;39:1787–1790. doi: 10.1038/s41375-025-02627-1.

209. Lu X Wang S Hua X Chen X Zhan M Hu Q, et al. Targeting the cgas-sting pathway inhibits peripheral t-cell lymphoma progression and enhances the chemotherapeutic efficacy. Adv Sci (Weinh) 2023;11. doi: 10.1002/advs.202306092.

210. Cai HM Qiu YR Tan Y Cai K Cheng S Zhong HJ, et al. Ddx3x mutation and epstein-barr virus cooperate to induce r-loop-dependent oncogenesis. Cell Rep 2025;44:116237. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116237.

211. Li Q, Wu P, Du Q, Hanif U, Hu H, Li K. Cgas–sting, an important signaling pathway in diseases and their therapy. MedComm 2024;5. doi: 10.1002/mco2.511.

212. Skopelja-Gardner S, An J, Elkon KB. Role of the cgas–sting pathway in systemic and organ-specific diseases. Nat Rev Nephrol 2022;18:558–572. doi: 10.1038/s41581-022-00589-6.

213. Diepstraten ST Yuan Y La Marca JE Young S Chang C Whelan L, et al. Putting the sting back into bh3-mimetic drugs for tp53-mutant blood cancers. Cancer Cell 2024;42:850–868.e859. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.04.004.

214. Zhou S, Cheng F, Zhang Y, Su T, Zhu G. Engineering and delivery of cgas-sting immunomodulators for the immunotherapy of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Acc Chem Res 2023;56:2933–2943. doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.3c00394.

215. Wiestner A. Emerging role of kinase-targeted strategies in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 2012;120:4684–4691. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-05-423194.

216. Minson A, Tam C, Dickinson M, Seymour JF. Targeted agents in the treatment of indolent b-cell non-hodgkin lymphomas. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14. doi: 10.3390/cancers14051276.

217. Ollila TA, Olszewski AJ. Chemotherapy-free management of follicular and marginal zone lymphoma. Cancer Manag Res 2021;13:3935–3952. doi: 10.2147/cmar.S267258.

218. Morschhauser F Tilly H Chaidos A McKay P Phillips T Assouline S, et al. Tazemetostat for patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: An open-label, single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:1433–1442. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30441-1.

219. Srour SA Lee HJ Nomie K Ye H Chen W Oriabure O, et al. Novel chemotherapy-free combination regimen for ibrutinib-resistant mantle cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2017;181:561–564. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14669.

220. Xu PP Shi ZY Qian Y Cheng S Zhu Y Jiang L, et al. Ibrutinib, rituximab, and lenalidomide in unfit or frail patients aged 75 years or older with de novo diffuse large b-cell lymphoma: A phase 2, single-arm study. Lancet Healthy Longev 2022;3:e481–e490. doi: 10.1016/s2666-7568(22)00123-4.

221. Xu P Zhu Y Shi ZY Wang L Cheng S Qian Y, et al. A phase 2 study of zanubrutinib in combination with rituximab and lenalidomide in de novo diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Blood 2025. doi: 10.1182/blood.2025028649.

222. Zou H Liu W Wang Y Shan D Xie T Li R, et al. Favorable outcomes of front-line risk-adapted therapy in young patients with diffuse large b-cell lymphoma with clinically or biologically high-risk features. Chin Med J 2024;137:1620–1622. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002940.

223. Sorigue M, Cañamero E, Sancho JM. Precision medicine in follicular lymphoma: Focus on predictive biomarkers. Hematol Oncol 2020;38:625–639. doi: 10.1002/hon.2781.

224. Döhner H Dolnik A Tang L Seymour JF Minden MD Stone RM, et al. Cytogenetics and gene mutations influence survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with azacitidine or conventional care. Leukemia 2018;32:2546–2557. doi: 10.1038/s41375-018-0257-z.

225. Yap DRY, Lim JQ, Huang D, Ong CK, Chan JY. Emerging predictive biomarkers for novel therapeutics in peripheral t-cell and natural killer/t-cell lymphoma. Front Immunol 2023;14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1068662.

226. Koo GC Tan SY Tang T Poon SL Allen GE Tan L, et al. Janus kinase 3-activating mutations identified in natural killer/t-cell lymphoma. Cancer Discov 2012;2:591–597. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-12-0028.

227. Totiger TM Chaudhry S Musi E Afaghani J Montoya S Owusu-Ansah F, et al. Protein biomarkers for response to xpo1 inhibition in haematologic malignancies. J Cell Mol Med 2023;27:587–590. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.17667.

228. Yu S Kong H Luo H Zhao X Zhu G Feng X, et al. Multimodal profiling identifies cd4+cxcr5+pd-1- tfh cells as prognostic and predictive biomarkers in diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Chin Med J 2025. doi: 10.1097/cm9.0000000000003826.

229. Schmitz R Wright GW Huang DW Johnson CA Phelan JD Wang JQ, et al. Genetics and pathogenesis of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1396–1407. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801445.

230. Huang YH Qiu YR Zhang QL Cai MC Yu H Zhang JM, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic profiling of peripheral t cell lymphoma reveals distinct molecular and microenvironment subtypes. Cell Rep Med 2024;5. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101416.

231. Zhang MC Tian S Fu D Wang L Cheng S Yi HM, et al. Genetic subtype-guided immunochemotherapy in diffuse large b cell lymphoma: The randomized guidance-01 trial. Cancer Cell 2023;41:1705–1716.e1705. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.09.004.

232. Cai MC Cheng S Jing HM Liu Y Cui GH Niu T, et al. Targeted agents plus chop compared with chop as the first-line treatment for newly diagnosed patients with peripheral t-cell lymphoma (guidance-03): An open-label, multicentre phase 2 clinical trial. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2024;50. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101160.

233. Shen YG Shi Q Tang W Xu PP Cao YW Ji MM, et al. Genetic subtype-guided immunochemotherapy in relapsed and refractory diffuse large b cell lymphoma: A phase 2 investigator-initiated nonrandomized clinical trial (guidance-06). Signal Transduct Target Ther 2025;10. doi: 10.1038/s41392-025-02316-6.

234. Wang H, Zhang W, Yang J, Zhou K. The resistance mechanisms and treatment strategies of btk inhibitors in b-cell lymphoma. Hematol Oncol 2021;39:605–615. doi: 10.1002/hon.2933.

235. Deshpande A, Munoz J. Targeted and cellular therapies in lymphoma: Mechanisms of escape and innovative strategies. Front Oncol 2022;12:948513. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.948513.

236. Dhami K Chakraborty A Gururaja TL Cheung LW Sun C DeAnda F, et al. Kinase-deficient btk mutants confer ibrutinib resistance through activation of the kinase hck. Sci Signal 2022;15:eabg5216. doi: 10.1126/scisignal.abg5216.

237. Cheng S, Guo A, Lu P, Ma J, Coleman M, Wang YL. Functional characterization of btk(c481s) mutation that confers ibrutinib resistance: Exploration of alternative kinase inhibitors. Leukemia 2015;29:895–900. doi: 10.1038/leu.2014.263.

238. Kapoor I Li Y Sharma A Zhu H Bodo J Xu W, et al. Resistance to btk inhibition by ibrutinib can be overcome by preventing foxo3a nuclear export and pi3k/akt activation in b-cell lymphoid malignancies. Cell Death Dis 2019;10:924. doi: 10.1038/s41419-019-2158-0.

239. Lorenzo-Sanz L, Muñoz P. Tumor-infiltrating immunosuppressive cells in cancer-cell plasticity, tumor progression and therapy response. Cancer Microenviron 2019;12:119–132. doi: 10.1007/s12307-019-00232-2.

240. Laurent C, Dietrich S, Tarte K. Cell cross talk within the lymphoma tumor microenvironment: Follicular lymphoma as a paradigm. Blood 2024;143:1080–1090. doi: 10.1182/blood.2023021000.

241. Shah K, Al Ashiri L, Nasimian A, Ahmed M, Kazi JU. Venetoclax-resistant t-all cells display distinct cancer stem cell signatures and enrichment of cytokine signaling. Int J Mol Sci 2023;24. doi: 10.3390/ijms24055004.

242. Zhang W, Liu M, Li W, Song Y. Immune cells in the b-cell lymphoma microenvironment: From basic research to clinical applications. Chin Med J 2024;137:776–790. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002919.

243. Li X Huang H Wang F Li M Zhang B Shi J, et al. Decoding the immune microenvironment of secondary chronic myelomonocytic leukemia due to diffuse large b-cell lymphoma with cd19 car-t failure by single-cell rna-sequencing. Chin Med J 2025;138:1866–1881. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000003690.

244. Neklesa TK, Winkler JD, Crews CM. Targeted protein degradation by protacs. Pharmacol Ther 2017;174:138–144. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2017.02.027.

245. Buhimschi AD Armstrong HA Toure M Jaime-Figueroa S Chen TL Lehman AM, et al. Targeting the c481s ibrutinib-resistance mutation in bruton’s tyrosine kinase using protac-mediated degradation. Biochemistry 2018;57:3564–3575. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.8b00391.

246. Muhowski EM Ravikrishnan J Gordon B Yu L Misra S Walker B, et al. Preclinical evaluation of combination nemtabrutinib and venetoclax in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Hematol Oncol 2022;15:166. doi: 10.1186/s13045-022-01386-1.

247. Mahuron KM, Fong Y. Applications of liquid biopsy for surgical patients with cancer: A review. JAMA Surg 2024;159:96–103. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.5394.

248. Sanz-Garcia E, Zhao E, Bratman SV, Siu LL. Monitoring and adapting cancer treatment using circulating tumor DNA kinetics: Current research, opportunities, and challenges. Sci Adv 2022;8:eabi8618. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abi8618.

249. Kong X Zhang X Ding M Feng X Dong M Zhang L, et al. Decitabine combined with rdhap regimen in relapsed/refractory diffuse large b cell lymphoma. Cancer Med 2023;12:8134–8143. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5615.

250. Qu C Zou R Wang P Zhu Q Kang L Ping N, et al. Decitabine-primed tandem cd19/cd22 car-t therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large b-cell lymphoma patients. Front Immunol 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.969660.

251. Wang X, Waschke BC, Woolaver RA, Chen SMY, Chen Z, Wang JH. Hdac inhibitors overcome immunotherapy resistance in b-cell lymphoma. Protein Cell 2020;11:472–482. doi: 10.1007/s13238-020-00694-x.

252. Frys S Simons Z Hu Q Barth MJ Gu JJ Mavis C, et al. Entinostat, a novel histone deacetylase inhibitor is active in b-cell lymphoma and enhances the anti-tumour activity of rituximab and chemotherapy agents. Br J Haematol 2015;169:506–519. doi: 10.1111/bjh.13318.

253. Zak J Pratumchai I Marro BS Marquardt KL Zavareh RB Lairson LL, et al. Jak inhibition enhances checkpoint blockade immunotherapy in patients with hodgkin lymphoma. Science 2024;384:eade8520. doi: 10.1126/science.ade8520.

254. Dai M, Liu M, Yang H, Küçük C, You H. New insights into epigenetic regulation of resistance to pd-1/pd-l1 blockade cancer immunotherapy: Mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities. Exp Hematol Oncol 2022;11:101. doi: 10.1186/s40164-022-00356-0.

255. Yuan S, Zuo W, Liu T, Fu H. The therapeutic synergy of selinexor and venetoclax in mantle cell lymphoma through induction of DNA damage and perturbation of the DNA damage response. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2023;22. doi: 10.1177/15330338231208608.

256. Liu Y, Azizian NG, Dou Y, Pham LV, Li Y. Simultaneous targeting of xpo1 and bcl2 as an effective treatment strategy for double-hit lymphoma. J Hematol OncolJ Hematol Oncol 2019;12. doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0803-9.

257. Luo C, Yu T, Young KH, Yu L. Hdac inhibitor chidamide synergizes with venetoclax to inhibit the growth of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma via down-regulation of myc, bcl2, and tp53 expression. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2022;23:666–681. doi: 10.1631/jzus.B2200016.

258. Pelster MS, Amaria RN. Combined targeted therapy and immunotherapy in melanoma: A review of the impact on the tumor microenvironment and outcomes of early clinical trials. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2019;11:1758835919830826. doi: 10.1177/1758835919830826.

259. Tu S Li P Mei H Liu Y Hu Y Liu P, et al. Chinese expert consensus on integrated case management by a multidisciplinary team in car-t cell therapy for lymphoma. Chin Med J 2025;138:1894–1896. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000003085.

260. Nogami A, Sasaki K. Therapeutic advances in immunotherapies for hematological malignancies. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23. doi: 10.3390/ijms231911526.

261. Liu W Xie T Zhang Z Huang W Liu H Sui W, et al. Long-term outcomes of cnct19 chimeric antigen receptor t-cell therapy in relapsed or refractory aggressive b-cell lymphoma. Chin Med J 2025. doi: 10.1097/cm9.0000000000003716.

262. Calamia M, McBride A, Abraham I. Economic evaluation of polatuzumab-bendamustine-rituximab vs. Tafasitamab-lenalidomide in transplant-ineligible r/r dlbcl. J Med Econ 2021;24:14–24. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2021.2007704.

263. Medina-Olivares FJ, Gómez-De León A, Ghosh N. Obstacles to global implementation of car t cell therapy in myeloma and lymphoma. Front Oncol 2024;14:1397613. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1397613.

264. Goldstein DA Clark J Tu Y Zhang J Fang F Goldstein R, et al. A global comparison of the cost of patented cancer drugs in relation to global differences in wealth. Oncotarget 2017;8:71548–71555. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.17742.

265. Sathyanarayanan V, Flowers CR, Iyer SP. Comparison of access to novel drugs for lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia between india and the united states. JCO Glob Oncol 2020:1124–1133. doi: 10.1200/go.20.00012.

266. Bai B Wise JF Vodák D Nakken S Sharma A Blaker YN, et al. Multi-omics profiling of longitudinal samples reveals early genomic changes in follicular lymphoma. Blood Cancer J 2024;14. doi: 10.1038/s41408-024-01124-5.

267. Suehara Y Sakamoto K Fujisawa M Fukumoto K Abe Y Makishima K, et al. Discrete genetic subtypes and tumor microenvironment signatures correlate with peripheral t-cell lymphoma outcomes. Leukemia 2025;39:1184–1195. doi: 10.1038/s41375-025-02563-0.

268. van de Stolpe A, Holtzer L, van Ooijen H, Inda MA, Verhaegh W. Enabling precision medicine by unravelling disease pathophysiology: Quantifying signal transduction pathway activity across cell and tissue types. Sci Rep 2019;9:1603. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38179-x.

269. Doeleman T, Hondelink LM, Vermeer MH, van Dijk MR, Schrader AMR. Artificial intelligence in digital pathology of cutaneous lymphomas: A review of the current state and future perspectives. Semin Cancer Biol 2023;94:81–88. doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2023.06.004.

270. Zhang Y Deng Y Zou Q Jing B Cai P Tian X, et al. Artificial intelligence for diagnosis and prognosis prediction of natural killer/t cell lymphoma using magnetic resonance imaging. Cell Rep Med 2024;5. doi: 10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101551.

271. Cairns J, Frood R, Patel C, Scarsbrook A. The role of ai in lymphoma: An update. Semin Nucl Med 2025;55:377–386. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2025.02.007.

272. Zhang W Ye B Song Y Yang P Si W Jing H, et al. Integrating multi-omics features enables non-invasive early diagnosis and treatment response prediction of diffuse large b-cell lymphoma. Clin Transl Med 2025;15. doi: 10.1002/ctm2.70174.

273. Mao Y Shangguan D Huang Q Xiao L Cao D Zhou H, et al. Emerging artificial intelligence-driven precision therapies in tumor drug resistance: Recent advances, opportunities, and challenges. Mol Cancer 2025;24. doi: 10.1186/s12943-025-02321-x.