Promising Therapeutic Strategies for Hematologic Malignancies: Innovations and Potential.

1. Introduction

Hematologic malignancies (HMs), encompassing a diverse array of cancers affecting blood, bone marrow, and lymph nodes, present a significant clinical challenge due to their heterogeneity and propensity for treatment resistance [ 1 , 2 ]. In 2020, the global incidence of leukemia was approximately 474,519 new cases, according to GLOBOCAN data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This represents about 2.6% of all new cancer cases worldwide [ 3 ]. NHL had an estimated 544,352 new cases in 2020, while HL accounted for about 83,087 new cases [ 4 ]. Despite advances in therapy, achieving durable remissions remains elusive in many cases. Traditional treatments for hematologic malignancies include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, stem cell transplantation (SCT), and therapeutic antibodies [ 5 , 6 ]. However, these approaches often lead to adverse effects such as organ damage, fatigue, nausea, cytokine syndrome, cardiotoxicity, and autoimmune reactions [ 7 , 8 ]. Moreover, the diversity and unique characteristics of these malignancies necessitate tailored treatment approaches. For instance, contemporary therapy for leukemia often involves a combination of therapeutic antibodies like fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab, Pi3k inhibitor, and Venetoclax [ 9 , 10 ]. In contrast, Multiple Myeloma (MM) treatments are increasingly combining immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies and Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies [ 9 ], while lymphoma treatment predominantly relies on classical approaches such as Rituximab, Etoposide, and multidrug chemotherapy [ 11 ].

Multimodal therapeutic strategies have emerged as a promising avenue to overcome these challenges, leveraging the synergistic effects of various treatment modalities to enhance efficacy and overcome resistance mechanisms. Recent advancements in therapeutic strategies for hematologic malignancies include the development of innovative immunotherapies such as bispecific CAR-T therapy, bispecific killer cell engagers, trispecific killer cell engagers, and dual affinity retargeting therapies [ 12 ]. Additionally, exosomes have emerged as promising cell-free tumor treatment alternatives, capable of delivering drugs, genes, and therapeutic substances to modify the tumor microenvironment [ 13 ]. Furthermore, antibody-based immunotherapies like cancer vaccines, oncolytic virus therapies, monoclonal antibody treatments, and CAR-T cell therapies have shown longer survival times and fewer adverse reactions compared to conventional treatments, emphasizing the potential of immunotherapy in treating hematologic malignancies [ 14 ].

These innovative approaches signify a shift towards more effective and targeted treatment modalities, offering new hope for improved patient outcomes and reduced complications. This review aims to explore the potential of these strategies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, PI3K inhibitors, TIM-3 and TIGIT inhibitors, neddylation inhibitors, and CAR-T cell therapies.

2. Therapeutic Strategies

2.1. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown significant success in treating solid tumors, but their efficacy in hematologic malignancies remain under investigation. ICIs work by eliciting T-lymphocyte-mediated anti-tumor responses. Currently, FDA-approved ICIs such as Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab are used for treating classic Hodgkin lymphoma and primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma [ 15 ]. Multiple clinical trials are ongoing, exploring drug candidates such as PD-1/PDL-1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors [ 16 ]. Other T-lymphocyte checkpoints, including LAG-3, TIM-3, TIGIT are also being studied with a focus on long term safety and efficacy [ 17 ].

TIM-3 (T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3) is an inhibitory immune checkpoint receptor co-expressed with PD-1 on tumor-infiltrating immune cells, including dendritic cells and NK cells ( Table 1 ). Its inhibition leads to T cell exhaustion and apoptosis. TIM-3 ligands include Galectin-9 (GAL-9) and carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule (CEACAM1). Interestingly, it has been postulated that TIM-3 signaling plays a role in PD-1 directed therapy resistance due to the co-expression of both receptors, making it an attractive target for investigation [ 18 ].

TIGIT (T cell immunoglobulin and ITIM domain) is another potential target involved in T cell inhibition and immune escape in hematological malignancies ( Table 2 ). TIGIT is expressed on T cells, regulatory T cells, and NK cells, and activates an immunoregulatory network on antigen-presenting and cancer cells. Its primary ligand is CD155 [ 19 , 20 ], leading to T cell inhibition through receptor downregulation and competition with the activating co-receptor CD226. By targeting TIGIT, inhibitors disrupt its immunosuppressive signaling pathways, aiming to enhance the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells and improve anti-tumor immune responses. These inhibitors represent promising approaches to counteract TIGIT-mediated immune suppression and enhance anti-tumor immunity in cancer patients [ 21 ].

2.2. Small Molecule Inhibitors

Small molecules (with molecular weight under 1 kDa), such as peptides, remain an attractive option for treating hematological cancers. For example, the dipeptide melphalan is used for MM. These molecules promote DNA damage, triggering apoptosis in cancer cells. Other peptides, like proteasome inhibitors, such as borteozomib, have high lipophilicity, enabling them to penetrate the skin easily and cross the blood–brain barrier. Proteasome inhibitors like boratezomib play a crucial role in maintaining cellular homeostasis by regulating the turnover of cellular proteins. Bortezomib binds reversibly to the chymotrypsin-like subunit of the 26S proteasome, inhibiting its activity and preventing the degradation of several pro-apoptotic components. This inhibition leads to the accumulation of pro-apoptotic proteins, which in turn triggers programmed cell death via caspase-mediated pathways, particularly in neoplastic cells that rely on the suppression of pro-apoptotic pathways for their proliferation and survival [ 22 ].

Ubiquitin-Specific Proteases 7 (USP7) belong to the USP family of cysteine proteases that are actively researched in the context of deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs). Many proteins, including p53, MDM2, BRCA1-A, p21, and beta-catenin, that are implicated in the pathways leading to the advancement of cancer, are deubiquitinated by USP7 [ 23 ]. P5091, an inhibitor of USP7, induces apoptosis in MM cells that are resistant to bortezomib and conventional treatments. Biochemical and genetic studies demonstrate that P5091-induced cytotoxicity is mitigated by inhibiting HDM2 and p21. In vivo studies indicate that P5091 is well tolerated, inhibits malignant cell growth, and extends survival [ 23 ]. Another molecule, known as NCT02372240 or VLX1570, inhibits USP14 but has shown severe pulmonary toxicity in preclinical studies [ 19 ]. Utilizing ubiquitin-like proteins (ULPs) as an alternative pathway for protein degradation has also unveiled new targets for cancer therapy. ULPs contribute to approximately 20% of protein degradation through the proteasome system.

Modern approaches utilizing small molecules, especially those with molecular weight under 1 kDa, are gaining fresh impetus in the treatment of such malignancies ( Table 3 ). The molecules offer advantages such as easier cellular entry, oral effectiveness, and comparatively cost-efficient synthesis [ 23 ].

2.3. PI3K Inhibitors

The PI3K/Akt/mTOR is an essential pathway for regulating cell growth and proliferation. Activation of this pathway is critical for leukemogenesis and is linked to a poor prognosis ( Figure 1 ). Several molecular abnormalities lead to the activation of this pathway, with its activation varying based on the behavior of hematological malignancies. Diverse HMs activate this pathway through genetic mutations, including the oncogenes phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha ( PIK3CA ) and phosphoinositide-3-kinase regulatory subunit 1 ( PIK3R1 ), and the tumor suppressor gene phosphatase and tensin homolog ( PTEN ) [ 20 ]. Since PTEN is a major regulating pathway of PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling, loss of PTEN contributes to the upregulation of this signaling cascade, eventually resulting in enhanced cell proliferation and chemoresistance in AML, CML, and ALL. Apart from PTEN mutations, FLT3 mutations induce proliferation in AML through mTOR signaling, whereas in CML, BCR-ABL kinase binds to the p85 PI3K regulatory subunit, thereby activating the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway [ 24 ]. Therefore, inhibition of PI3K might generate novel therapeutic promise against HMs ( Figure 1 ).

Currently approved inhibitors of PI3K include idelalisib, duvelisib, and umbralisib. While these are commonly used for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (RR) HMs, their mechanism of action and targets are diverse. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that idelalisib exerts dose-dependent cytotoxicity by induction of caspase-dependent apoptosis in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients [ 25 ]. Moreover, reduction in AKT and mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activity have been observed in CLL cells treated with idelalisib. Idelalisib also affects the tumor microenvironment by preventing the secretion of cytokines and chemokines, it interferes with the connection between CLL cells and monocyte-derived nurse-like cells (NLCs), and it eventually reduces chemotaxis [ 26 ].

Regarding duvelisib, the predominant expression of PI3Kγ is on myeloid and T cells, while PI3Kδ is mostly seen on leukocytes. Therefore, PI3K inhibition aims to lower cytokine synthesis that promotes leukemic cell survival. In preclinical investigations, duvelisib exposure resulted in direct cytotoxicity due to lowered production of pro-survival cytokines in leukemic B cells [ 27 ]. In comparison to blocking either isoform alone, duvelisib was found to be more effective at dual PI3K inhibition in animal models [ 28 ].

Umbralisib is considered a next-generation, highly selective PI3Kδ inhibitor that also inhibits casein kinase-1ε (CK-1ε), a protein implicated in the regulation of the Wnt5a pathway and the translation of the c-Myc oncogene. In silico docking experiments have revealed that umbralisib binds to, and inhibits, the catalytic site of CK1ε through the core pyrazolopyrimidine amine moiety. Furthermore, two forms of kinome profiling verified the specificity of umbralisib for only PI3Kδ and CK1ε, with no off-target inhibition [ 29 , 30 ]. This dual mechanism of action allows Umbralisib to exert its effects on hematological malignancies by targeting both PI3Kδ and CK1e pathways simultaneously, potentially leading to enhanced therapeutic outcomes in patients with relapsed or refractory marginal zone lymphoma and follicular lymphoma [ 30 ]. In vitro, umbralisib tends to inhibit malignant cell proliferation, CXCL12-mediated cell adhesion, and CCL19-mediated cell migration [ 31 ]. (For the overview of PI3K inhibitors see Table 4 below).

Despite the approval of these inhibitors by FDA for some HMs, questions regarding their efficacy and adverse effects (AE) remain. Therefore, some novel small molecule inhibitors of PI3K are currently in early phase clinical trials. These include Zandelisib (ME-401), Linperlisib, TQB3525, Acalisib, and SHC014748M [ 32 , 33 ] ( Figure 2 ).

Additionally, in vivo studies have concluded that the co-blockage of CEACAM1 and TIM-3 leads to the enhancement of the anti-tumor immune responses in colon cancer. With regard to other neoplasms, Tim-3 also plays a significant role in the development and progression of gastric cancer [ 34 ]. Its expression levels on CD4+ T cells are a deciding factor for clinicopathological parameters such as tumor size, lymph node involvement, and depth of tumor invasion. Combined Gal-9/Tim-3 signaling can promote the secretion of IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 from monocytes, which has been found to be correlated with poor treatment response [ 35 ]. Currently researched TIM-3 inhibitors are being developed for cancer immunotherapy. The idea behind these drug candidates is to provide potential therapies to overcome immune suppression and enhance anti-tumor immune responses in various cancers. Antibodies against TIM-3 also utilize the pharmacological inhibition of the MAPK pathway. Experiments with T cell-deficient mice revealed that an extent of reversal of Tim-3 Ab-induced tumorigenesis occurred. Upon blockage of TIM-3, it was noted that MAPK pathway proliferative mediators were prevented from phosphorylation, thereby enhancing anti-tumor activity [ 34 ].

2.4. Targeting the NF-κB Pathway

Hematopoietic stem cells’ (HSCs) self-renewal and differentiation into myeloid and lymphoid lineages are regulated by NF-κB, a critical biological regulator that controls a variety of processes including cell survival, apoptosis, invasion, and hematopoiesis [ 36 ]. The NF-κB family comprises five members: p65 (RelA), RelB, Rel (c-Rel), and the precursor proteins NF-κB1 (p105) and NF-κB2 (p100), which undergo processing to become their active forms, p50 and p52, respectively. These transcription factors typically function as homodimers or heterodimers, and translocate to the nucleus where they bind to non-canonical sequences or classical κB sites to either stimulate or repress gene expression. The most prevalent active NF-κB complex in mammalian cells is the p65/p50 heterodimer [ 37 ]. Under normal physiological conditions, NF-κB interacts with NF-κB inhibitory proteins (IκBs) to remain inactive in the cytoplasm [ 38 ].

The activation of NF-κB involves two distinct pathways: the canonical and the non-canonical (alternative) ( Figure 3 ) pathways. Both pathways are crucial for controlling inflammatory and immunological responses [ 39 ]. The canonical NF-κB pathway responds to a wide range of stimuli, such as B-cell and T-cell receptors, TNF receptor (TNFR) superfamily members, pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs), and ligands of other cytokine receptors. The primary process of canonical NF-κB activation occurs via the inducible degradation of NF-κB which is initiated by the site-specific phosphorylation by the IκB kinase (IKK) complex [ 40 ]. Upon activation, the IKK complex phosphorylates IκBα at two N-terminal serines, leading to its ubiquitin-dependent degradation in the proteasome. This degradation releases the NF-κB dimers, primarily p50/RelA and p50/c-Rel, which then translocate to the nucleus to regulate gene expression [ 41 ].

The non-canonical NF-κB pathway reacts preferentially to a specific set of stimuli, such as ligands of a certain TNFR superfamily member, including LTβR, BAFFR, CD40, and RANK. Unlike the canonical NF-κB pathway, which relies on IκBα degradation, non-canonical NF-κB activation depends on the processing of the NF-κB2 precursor protein, p100 [ 42 ]. NF-κB-inducing kinase (NIK) is a key signaling protein in this pathway, functioning alongside IKKα to promote p100 phosphorylation. This phosphorylation triggers p100 ubiquitination and subsequent processing [ 43 ]. Degradation of the C-terminal IκB-like structure of p100 leads to the maturation of NF-κB2 p52 and nuclear translocation of the non-canonical NF-κB complex p52/RelB [ 44 ].

Modulation of NF-κB signaling cascades can occur at various stages, including gene transcription, post-translation, IKK complex activation, or any intermediate stage. Small compounds, peptides, oligonucleotides, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), and small interfering RNA (siRNA) have been utilized to achieve this modulation [ 45 ]. Other small molecules targeting NF-κB activation include Bay 11-7082 and resveratrol. Bay 11-7082 inhibits NF-κB activation by targeting the IκB kinase complex, preventing the phosphorylation and subsequent degradation of IκBα. Resveratrol suppresses the phosphorylation and degradation of IκBα, thereby preventing the translocation of NF-κB to the nucleus and inhibiting its activation [ 46 , 47 ]. (For the overview of inhibitors targeting the NF-κB pathway see Table 5 below).

2.5. CD47 Inhibitors

CD47, also known as cluster differentiation 47, is found in abundance on the surface of cells. Recently, the role of CD47 as a modulator of innate immune surveillance has gained significant attention, particularly when it interacts with the membrane protein SIRPα (SHPS-1/BIT/CD172a) on macrophages and other myeloid cells [ 48 ]. Increasing evidence suggests that disrupting the association between CD47 and SIRPα can enhance the ability of macrophages to eliminate malignant cells [ 49 ].

In the context of hematologic malignancies, such as leukemia and lymphoma, CD47 plays a crucial role in protecting cancer cells from being phagocytosed by macrophages ( Figure 4 ). Tumor cells often overexpress CD47, which sends a “don’t eat me” signal to macrophages via its interaction with SIRPα. By blocking CD47, this protective signal can be disrupted, making cancer cells more susceptible to immune-mediated destruction. This mechanism is particularly relevant in hematologic cancers, where the tumor cells are in direct contact with immune cells in the blood and bone marrow microenvironments [ 50 ].

Clinical trials have shown that targeting CD47 can be an effective therapeutic strategy in treating hematologic malignancies. For example, Hu5F9-G4, a monoclonal antibody against CD47, has demonstrated promising results in early-phase clinical trials for the treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These trials, presented in Table 6 , have reported increased phagocytosis of cancer cells and reduction in tumor burden [ 51 ].

Moreover, combining CD47 blockade with other treatments, such as chemotherapy, monoclonal antibodies (e.g., rituximab for B-cell lymphomas), or immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors), can further enhance anti-tumor efficacy. The combination therapies aim to synergistically boost the immune system’s ability to target and eliminate cancer cells, while also overcoming resistance mechanisms that tumors may develop [ 52 ].

2.6. Neddylation Inhibitors

Neddylation inhibitors, such as MLN4924 and TAS4464, target the NEDD8-activating enzyme (NAE) to disrupt the neddylation pathway, a post-translational modification crucial in regulating protein functions and homeostasis [ 53 , 54 ]. NEDD8 (neural precursor cell expressed developmentally downregulated-8) is an 81-amino acid peptide similar to ubiquitin. In hematological malignancies like AML, overactivation of neddylation, indicated by upregulated NEDD8, UBA3, UBE2M, and RBX1, correlates with poor patient outcomes [ 54 ]. Inhibition of neddylation by MLN4924 triggers anti-leukemia effects by inducing cell apoptosis, senescence, and autophagy, while activating the p53 signaling pathway, thus serving as a potential therapeutic strategy in AML treatment [ 54 ]. Additionally, neddylation inhibition impacts the tumor microenvironment, influencing immune cells and other components crucial for tumorigenesis, highlighting the broader anticancer efficacy of targeting neddylation in hematological malignancies [ 55 ].

It functions through NAE, which catalyzes the linkage of NEDD8 to lysine residues on target proteins, a process known as neddylation. Overexpression of neddylation-related proteins, such as NEDD8, UBA3, UBE2M, and RBX1, is associated with tumor progression and poor prognosis in hematological malignancies like MM and Myelodysplastic Syndromes [ 56 ].

Inhibition of neddylation by MLN4924 triggers anti-leukemia effects by inducing cell apoptosis, senescence, and autophagy while activating the p53 signaling pathway [ 54 ]. This inhibition impacts the tumor microenvironment, influencing immune cells and other components crucial for tumorigenesis, highlighting the broader anticancer efficacy of targeting neddylation in hematological malignancies. Additionally, TAS4464, a highly potent NAE inhibitor, selectively inhibits NAE, inducing cullin neddylation inhibition and the accumulation of CRL substrates. This results in widespread antiproliferative activity in cancer cell lines and patient-derived tumor cells, making it a promising agent for hematologic tumors [ 57 ].

Combining neddylation inhibitors with molecular therapy to target the tumor microenvironment, as well as with hormonal therapy, immunotherapy-based biological therapy, and CD47 receptor blockade (“don’t eat me” action) may enhance treatment efficacy. This combination could stimulate cancer cell phagocytosis by macrophages and eliminate chemo and immunotherapy resistance [ 50 ]. Neddylation inhibitors, thus, represent promising candidates for cancer therapy by targeting the ubiquitin–proteasome system and disrupting the proteostasis of cancer cells. Ongoing preclinical and clinical studies aim to elucidate their efficacy and safety profiles in various cancer types [ 58 ].

Further research into these neddylation inhibitors and related compounds holds promise for the development of novel cancer therapeutics targeting the ubiquitin–proteasome system. Preclinical and clinical studies, represented in Table 7 , are underway to evaluate their efficacy, safety, and therapeutic potential in cancer treatment. Overall, compounds impeding neddylation, such as pevonedistat (MLN4924) and TAS4464, could be valuable in treating hematologic cancers by governing and interfering with the physiological protein degradation processes [ 59 ] ( Figure 5 and Table 7 ).

2.7. PD-1 Inhibitors

PD-1 (programmed cell death protein 1) is a common immunosuppressive component found on the surface of T cells. It is essential for promoting self-tolerance and suppressing the immune system. On the surface of malignant tumor cells, its ligand programmed cell death ligand 1 and 2 (PDL-1 and PDL-2) is overexpressed. The binding of PD-1 to its ligands slows the growth of PD1-positive cells and aids in the immune evasion of malignancies, resulting in treatment failure [ 60 ]. These PD-1 inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment of various cancers and have demonstrated durable responses and improved survival outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic disease [ 61 ]. They are often used as monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer therapies ( Table 8 ), such as chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or other immunotherapy agents ( Figure 4 ).

Although, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors exhibit potent anti-tumor activity, most patients could not benefit from this treatment, resulting in primary or acquired treatment resistance. In recent years, combining PD1 therapy with other treatments has been considered a rational and most feasible approach [ 62 ]. The PD1/PDL1 interaction is inhibited by monoclonal antibodies (mAb), also referred to as checkpoint inhibitors, which alleviate the drawbacks of conventional anticancer therapy ( Figure 4 ). Lussier et al. have discovered that T cell function can be improved by inhibiting PD1 using antibodies based on both in vitro and in vivo experiments. Monoclonal antibodies have the potential to greatly reduce toxicity, decrease the size of solid tumors, block advanced cancers and metastases, and increase patient survival rates [ 63 ].

Monoclonal antibodies (MA) have significantly advanced the treatment of hematological malignancies, providing targeted therapies that reduce toxicity, enhance efficacy, and improve patient outcomes. The continued development of MA, including newer antibody-drug conjugates and bispecific antibodies, holds promise for even more effective treatments in the future and are presented in Table 9 .

2.8. CTL-4 Inhibitors

CTL-4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4) is considered one of the most important immune checkpoint receptors. As a class of inhibitory receptors, immunological checkpoints are essential for controlling effector immune cells, preventing them from eradicating healthy cells and triggering autoimmune disorders. However, malignant cells exploit this mechanism to evade the immune system and suppress the effector activities, which can lead to immunosurveillance. Therefore, blocking CTLA-4 can help control immune escape and promote the anti-tumor activity [ 70 ].

The CTLA-4 blockade influences the immune priming phase by promoting the activation and proliferation of a greater number of effector T cells, independent of TCR specificity, and by diminishing the Treg-mediated suppression of T cell responses [ 71 ]. These inhibitors target CTLA-4, a key regulator of T cell activation, and have shown promise in enhancing the immune response against cancer cells. They are being studied either as a monotherapy or in combination with other immunotherapies in various clinical settings ( Table 10 ).

2.9. T Cell and NK-Cell Therapy

Immunotherapies based on NK (natural killer) and T cells are gaining fresh impetus in contemporary treatment methods ( Figure 6 ). Due to their unique ability to recognize and eliminate target cells without antigen-specific activation, they are of significant interest to researchers [ 72 ]. Recent improvements using these cells have revealed their significant therapeutic potential as both a combined therapy and a monotherapy. Additionally, a variety of novel approaches have been developed, drawing inspiration from the properties of NK and T cells. These approaches include the use of NK or T cells in combination with immune checkpoint blockade, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-expressing NK or T cell treatment, and artificial adjuvant vector cells [ 73 ]. Some of these approaches are listed in Table 11 .

2.10. Macrophages

Macrophages are known to be the most important effector cells of the innate immune system. The activation of macrophages depends upon their location and specific microenvironmental stimuli and signaling. Their fate can be determined based on these events, classifying them as either classically activated (M1) or alternatively activated (M2) polarization types [ 74 ]. M1 macrophages are pro-inflammatory and tumor-inhibiting, whereas M2 macrophages are anti-inflammatory and tumor-supporting. Macrophages which infiltrate the tumor microenvironment (TME) are referred to as tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) [ 75 ].

Specifically, CSF-1 and IL-10 are two tumor-derived molecules that encourage a significant percentage of TAMs to develop into M2 macrophages [ 76 ]. While TAMs can contribute to tumor surveillance and eradication, recent research reveals that they may paradoxically play a pivotal role in tumorigenesis by encouraging angiogenesis, metastasis, cancer stemness, and local immunosuppression within the TME, thus contributing to neoplastic progression [ 77 ].

Recent research highlights the crucial role of TAMs in hematological malignancies. In hematological malignancies such as leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, macrophages infiltrate the disease microenvironment, develop specific activation attributes, and contribute to disease progression. Macrophages in the leukemic microenvironment is referred to as leukemic-associated macrophages (LAMs) [ 78 ]. These malignancies exhibit defense mechanisms against the immune system, and, by comprehending these mechanisms, novel strategies to trigger the immune system to perceive cancer as alien can be developed [ 78 ].

Over the past decade, rigorous efforts have been made to target checkpoint blockade immunotherapy by expressing inhibitory receptors, which include PD-L1, SIRPα, CTLA-4, ultimately resulting in the activation of immune response [ 79 ]. These strategies utilize the activation of macrophages as a promising agent towards hematological malignancies ( Figure 4 ) ( Table 12 ).

Macrophages are a double-edged sword in cancer. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) can either support tumor growth by promoting angiogenesis, suppressing the immune response and aiding metastasis, or they can help fight tumors by presenting antigens and activating cytotoxic T cells. Therapeutic strategies are being developed to reprogram TAMs from a tumor-promoting (M2) phenotype to a tumor-fighting (M1) phenotype. Approaches include the use of cytokines, small molecules, and antibodies to modulate macrophage function [ 80 ]. Macrophages play a key role in tissue repair and regeneration. They can promote the healing process by clearing dead cells and debris, and by releasing growth factors that stimulate tissue repair. Therapies that harness macrophages are being explored to improve wound healing and treat chronic wounds [ 81 ]. In autoimmune diseases, these cells can contribute to tissue damage by producing inflammatory cytokines. Therapies targeting macrophages aim to reduce inflammation and tissue destruction by inhibiting the activation of pro-inflammatory macrophages [ 82 ].

Chimeric antigen receptor macrophages (CAR-M) are genetically engineered macrophages that express chimeric antigen receptors (CARs), similar to CAR-T cells used in cancer therapy. CAR-Ms are designed to target specific antigens on the surface of cancer cells. Upon binding to their target, CAR-Ms can engulf and digest cancer cells, as well as initiate a broader immune response by presenting tumor antigens to other immune cells, such as T cells [ 80 ]. Unlike CAR-T cells, CAR-Ms can directly phagocytose (engulf and digest) cancer cells. This gives them a unique advantage in directly eliminating tumor cells [ 83 ]. CAR-Ms can process and present tumor antigens to T cells, potentially triggering a broader and more sustained immune response against the tumor [ 83 ]. CAR-Ms can modulate the tumor microenvironment, converting it from an immunosuppressive state to one that supports anti-tumor immunity. This is particularly important in solid tumors, which often have a hostile microenvironment that impedes the effectiveness of traditional immunotherapies [ 80 ].

One of the challenges in developing CAR-M therapies is ensuring that the engineered macrophages can be effectively delivered to the tumor site, and that they persist long enough to exert their therapeutic effects [ 83 , 84 ]. Like all cell-based therapies, there is a concern about potential off-target effects or unintended immune reactions. Ensuring the safety of CAR-M therapies will be crucial as they move toward clinical trials [ 83 , 84 ]. The production of CAR-Ms involves complex genetic engineering and cell culture processes. Optimizing the manufacturing process to produce CAR-Ms at scale and at a reasonable cost is an ongoing challenge [ 80 , 83 ]. CAR-M therapies are currently in the preclinical stages and early-phase clinical trials. Early results have shown promise in terms of efficacy against solid tumors, which are traditionally more resistant to other forms of immunotherapy, such as CAR-T cells [ 83 ]. There is growing interest in combining CAR-M therapy with other treatments, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors or conventional chemotherapy, to enhance overall treatment efficacy. These combinations could potentially overcome resistance mechanisms and improve patient outcomes [ 84 ]. Macrophages, particularly in the form of CAR-M therapies, represent a promising frontier in cancer immunotherapy and other clinical applications. Their ability to directly target and eliminate tumor cells, reprogram the tumor microenvironment, and stimulate a broad immune response gives them unique advantages over existing therapies. However, challenges related to delivery, safety, and manufacturing need to be addressed before CAR-Ms can become a standard part of clinical practice. As research progresses, CAR-M therapies could play an important role in the treatment of cancers and potentially other diseases where macrophages are key players [ 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 ].

2.11. Summary the Proposed Therapies

Extended literature: TIM-3 [ 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 ], TIGIT [ 90 , 91 ], small molecule inhibitors [ 19 , 23 , 92 ], PI3K inhibitors [ 93 ], NFkB inhibitors [ 47 , 94 ], CD47 Inhibitors [ 52 , 95 ], Neddylation Inhibitors [ 57 , 96 ]. A final Table 13 is presented to outline the strengths and weaknesses of each therapeutic strategy in comparison to the others.

3. Innovative Combination Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies: Enhancing Treatment Efficacy and Overcoming Resistance

3.1. PI3K Inhibitors in Combination Therapies

The constitutively active PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway significantly contributes to the growth and survival of malignant cells by promoting the activation of several pro-survival and proliferative genes [ 24 ]. Combining a proteasome-inhibiting peptide like bortezomib with a PI3K inhibitor like idelalisib may result in a synergistic anti-cancer impact [ 97 ]. PI3K inhibitors can impede the signaling pathway, regulating cancer cell growth and proliferation, while proteasome inhibitors target the degradation of key proteins vital for cancer cell survival [ 98 ].

Pairing an immunological checkpoint inhibitor, like TIM-3 or TIGIT, with a PI3K inhibitor could boost the activation of the immune response against tumor cells and suppress their proliferation [ 61 ]. PI3K inhibitors may mitigate the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, while immunological checkpoint inhibitors may enhance T lymphocyte activation against tumor cells. Another discussed possibility is a regimen including a PI3K Inhibitor with a TIM-3 Inhibitor, where the PI3K inhibitor opposes cell signaling crucial for tumor cell survival, while the TIM-3 inhibitor promotes increased tumor cell apoptosis and enhanced activation of T lymphocytes against tumor cells [ 99 ].

Recent research has highlighted combining PI3K inhibitors with CAR-T cell therapy [ 100 ]. Idealisib, a potential inhibitor of PI3K, is also involved in the proliferation and function of T cells, both in vitro and in vivo. This small molecule inhibitor is also known to enhance the quality and function of T cells. Considering these results, it is feasible to utilize a PI3K inhibitor, which can regulate cancer cell proliferation, alongside CAR-T therapy that modifies patient T cells to target and eliminate tumor cells with enhanced efficacy. Furthermore, additional assistance from activated neutrophils could potentially enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy through synergistic neutrophil-mediated tumor elimination [ 100 ].

3.2. Immunological Checkpoint Inhibitors in Combination Therapies

Utilizing immune checkpoint inhibitors alongside proteasome inhibitors has been suggested in the literature. For instance, pairing an immunological checkpoint inhibitor, like PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitor, with a proteasome inhibitor such as bortezomib, holds promise for boosting the immune response against tumor cells and augmenting tumor cell apoptosis through the regulation of apoptosis-controlling protein expression [ 101 ].

Another potential approach to avoid resistance or functional dysregulation includes the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with signaling pathway inhibitors. Published data reveal that ibrutinib developed resistance in tumor-bearing mice, however, the combination of ibrutinib with an anti PD-L1 antibody inhibited cancer growth [ 102 ]. Similarly, an investigation employing the Eµ-TCL1 adoptive transfer mice model of CLL found that ibrutinib, in conjunction with antibodies that block the PD-1/PD-L1 axis, enhanced the activity of CD8 T cell effectors and the regulation of lymphocyte proliferation in vivo. This study indicated that ibrutinib’s potent immunomodulatory effects, combined with immune checkpoint inhibition, represent a promising treatment strategy for CLL [ 103 ] ( Figure 4 ).

Additional evidence from research on chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) indicates that dasatinib treatment leads to Treg inhibition, a decreased abundance of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and augmented NK cell differentiation and Granzyme B-expressing CD4+ and CD8+ memory T cells. This suggests Src family kinases (SFKs) play a role in immunosuppression during cancer progression. Based on these preclinical findings, anti-SFK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), in combination with anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 ICIs, are currently being investigated in clinical trials for CML patients. Furthermore, dasatinib treatment boosted CD8+ T cell infiltration, decreased intra-tumoral Treg accumulation, and slowed tumor growth in syngeneic animal models of melanoma, sarcoma, colon, and breast cancer [ 104 ].

3.3. NF-κB Inhibitors in Combination Therapies

Combining NF-κB inhibitors with various therapeutic approaches offers a promising strategy for enhancing cancer treatment efficacy by targeting multiple pathways involved in tumor growth and survival. For example, combining an NF-κB inhibitor with TIGIT inhibitors can diminish tumor cell proliferation by regulating signaling pathways and inhibiting the immunosuppressive effects of regulatory T cells, resulting in heightened activation of the immune response against tumor cells [ 105 ].

Utilizing an NF-κB inhibitor to impede signaling pathways promoting cancer cell survival, in conjunction with monoclonal antibody therapy targeting tumor cell receptors, is also considered an efficient mechanism for tumor eradication. Sum et al. recently designed a bispecific anti-CD40 agonistic antibody that promotes T-cell priming via a dual mode of action by augmenting antigen delivery to macrophages, eventually resulting in their activation and tumor eradication [ 106 ]. Overall, with additional support from activated macrophages, this approach may amplify the effectiveness of anti-tumor therapy through enhanced macrophage-mediated tumor cell destruction. Tumor cell apoptosis may be enhanced, and an immune response against the tumor may be triggered by using a neddylation inhibitor. This can be achieved by suppressing the growth of malignant cells by triggering G2 cell cycle arrest and inducing DNA damage [ 107 ]. Furthermore, this strategy could boost tumor cell apoptosis and trigger an immune response against the tumor by impeding cancer cell growth and replication.

Combining NF-κB inhibitors with proteasome inhibitors, such as bortezomib, impedes signaling pathways supporting cancer cell survival while targeting cancer cell surface receptors. This regimen may yield a synergistic anti-tumor impact [ 108 ]. Similarly, combining NF-κB inhibitors with hyperthermia therapy and gene therapy increases treatment sensitivity and induces apoptosis, providing a multi-faceted approach to limiting tumor growth [ 109 ].

NF-κB inhibitors also play a significant role in targeting angiogenesis. They regulate the transcription of several genes involved in vascular differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis, and tumorigenesis. By modulating angiogenic factor expression levels, particularly VEGF, NF-κB controls the development of several carcinomas. Blocking NF-κB signals greatly reduces VEGF, IL-8, and MMP-9-induced tumor angiogenesis, both in vitro and in vivo. Combining an NF-κB inhibitor, which blocks signaling pathways promoting tumor cell survival, with hyperthermic therapy, gene therapy, and biological therapies focused on angiogenesis inhibition, could prove a potential anti-angiogenesis therapy for certain malignancies [ 41 ].

Apart from NF-κB signaling inhibitor, the neddylation inhibitor MLN4924 can also inhibit cell proliferation by interfering with cell cycle checkpoint regulators, p21, p27, and phospho-histone H3 [ 110 ]. Moreover, recent research reveals that MLN4924, in combination with ibrutinib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor), demonstrated safety and promising efficacy towards NHL and CLL [ 110 ]. Overall, using a neddylation inhibitor, which prevents the degradation of proteins regulating tumor cell growth, along with an immunotherapy, could potentially improve treatment efficacy and therapeutic outcomes [ 111 ].

Combining NF-κB inhibitors with TIGIT inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, proteasome inhibitors, hyperthermia therapy, gene therapy, and neddylation inhibitors, as well as targeting angiogenesis, presents multiple synergistic strategies to enhance cancer treatment efficacy and overcome resistance mechanisms.

3.4. Neddylation Inhibitors in Combination Therapies

Using neddylation inhibitors in combination therapies presents a promising approach to enhance the efficacy of cancer treatments by targeting multiple pathways crucial for tumor cell survival and proliferation. Neddylation inhibitors, which block the degradation of protein crucial for tumor cell survival, can be combined with various other therapeutic agents to improve treatment outcomes [ Figure 5 ].

Combining neddylation inhibitors with tumorigenesis inhibitors could enhance tumor cell apoptosis and restrain tumor growth and metastasis. Such combinations are currently in the preliminary stages and necessitate further investigation to evaluate their efficacy and safety, particularly in patients with hematologic malignancies. These combinations might unveil novel avenues for treating these diseases [ 112 ].

Another innovative approach involves the combination of neddylation inhibitors with antigen complex therapy and nuclease inhibitors. This combination therapy would block the degradation of cancer survival proteins, involve tumor cell antigen presentation to elicit an immune response, and hinder DNA replication in neoplastic cells. Consequently, tumor cell apoptosis is increased, and an immune response against the tumor can be mounted. While these complex therapeutic combinations represent novel approaches in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, their efficacy and safety require further study [ 113 ].

Furthermore, combining neddylation inhibitors with molecularly targeted therapy for the tumor microenvironment and hormonal therapy offers unique benefits. This regimen utilizes molecularly targeted therapy to interact with the tumor microenvironment, reducing metabolic stress in surrounding cells. When supplemented with hormonal therapy, tumor cell growth is impeded, and treatment efficacy is enhanced [ 96 ].

The combination of neddylation inhibitors with tumorigenesis inhibitors, antigen complex therapy, nuclease inhibitors, molecularly targeted therapy, and/or hormonal therapy represents an innovative strategy to enhance cancer treatment efficacy. These combinations hold potential for improving therapeutic outcomes by targeting multiple pathways involved in tumor cell survival and proliferation ( Figure 5 ).

3.5. Summary of Combination Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies

Table 14 provides a summary of combination therapies used in the treatment of hematologic malignancies.

4. Other Innovative Combination Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies

Combining CAR-T cell therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1), has been shown to enhance the persistence and function of CAR-T cells. This approach addresses challenges like T cell exhaustion and improves the overall anti-tumor efficacy. Patients with hematological malignancies benefit from a more robust immune response against cancer cells when these therapies are combined [ 114 , 115 ].

Radioimmunotherapy, which integrates radiotherapy with immunotherapy by using radioactive substances attached to antibodies, specifically targets cancer cells. This combination not only destroys tumor cells but also enhances the immunogenicity of the tumor microenvironment, making it more susceptible to immune attack. The addition of CAR-T cells and immune checkpoint inhibitors further amplifies this effect, leading to improved tumor control [ 116 ].

Interferon-based treatments, particularly interferon-alpha, boost the immune system’s response to cancer by stimulating immune cells, increasing antigen presentation, and inhibiting tumor cell proliferation. When combined with CAR-T cells and checkpoint inhibitors, interferons significantly enhance the anti-tumor immune response, improving treatment outcomes [ 115 ].

The CD47 “Don’t Eat Me” blockade enhances the phagocytosis of cancer cells through macrophages, overcoming a key immune evasion mechanism used by tumors. Combining CD47 inhibitors with CAR-T cells and checkpoint inhibitors has shown promising results in preclinical studies, enhancing both innate and adaptive immune responses against tumors. This multifaceted approach helps with the effective elimination of cancer cells [ 117 , 118 ].

Combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with signaling pathway inhibitors, such as ibrutinib, addresses resistance mechanisms in hematologic malignancies. For example, ibrutinib combined with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade enhances the activity of CD8 T cells and regulates lymphocyte proliferation, offering a potent treatment strategy for CLL and other cancers [ 115 ].

Using metabolic inhibitors and epigenetic modifiers in conjunction with immunotherapies can improve tumor antigen expression and disrupt cancer cell metabolism. This approach enhances immune recognition and response, making tumors more susceptible to immune-mediated destruction [ 118 ].

Combining angiogenesis inhibitors with immune checkpoint inhibitors reduces tumor vascularization and enhances immune cell infiltration. Additionally, TLR agonists can activate both innate and adaptive immune responses, further improving the efficacy of immunotherapies. These innovative combination therapies provide a comprehensive approach to tackling hematologic malignancies, aiming to improve patient outcomes through enhanced therapeutic efficacy and overcoming resistance mechanisms [ 115 , 118 ].

Summary Table

For other potential combination therapies for hematologic malignancies, please refer to Table 15 below.

5. Potentially Toxic Therapies

Three of the most potentially toxic therapies in cancer treatment are radioimmunotherapy, gene therapy, and hyperthermic therapy. While these treatments offer significant therapeutic benefits, they carry inherent risks that necessitate vigilant monitoring to mitigate potential adverse effects. Radioimmunotherapy can cause radiation-induced damage to surround healthy tissues, leading to side effects such as fatigue, nausea, and an increased risk of secondary cancers [ 119 ]. Gene therapy carries risks of unintended consequences such as the development of new malignancies or immune reactions, and the vectors used may provoke immune responses or cause other side effects [ 120 ]. Hyperthermic therapy can lead to potential risks including damage to normal tissues and organs, dehydration, and heat stroke, with side effects such as pain, swelling, and burns at the treatment site [ 121 ].

In addition to these therapies, other potentially toxic or combined therapies include stem cell transplantation, combination chemotherapy, and targeted therapy with immunotherapy combinations. Stem cell transplantation poses toxicity risks including infections, graft-versus-host disease, and organ damage, requiring rigorous patient monitoring and supportive care [ 122 ]. Combination chemotherapy can increase toxicity with severe side effects including bone marrow suppression, gastrointestinal disturbances, and cardiotoxicity, necessitating dose adjustments and supportive therapies. Combining targeted therapies with immunotherapies can exacerbate immune-related adverse effects such as severe skin reactions, colitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis, requiring continuous monitoring and prompt management of side effects [ 123 ].

In conclusion, while these innovative therapies offer promising approaches to cancer treatment, they present significant potential toxicities ( Table 16 ). Ensuring patient safety requires meticulous planning, precise delivery of therapy, and continuous monitoring to manage and mitigate these risks effectively.

6. Discussion

The advent of combination therapies represents a paradigm shift in the management of hematologic malignancies, offering new avenues to address treatment resistance and improve patient outcomes. By strategically integrating targeted agents, immunotherapies, and conventional treatments, approaches capitalize on synergistic interactions to enhance efficacy and overcome tumor evasion mechanisms. Combination therapies have significantly advanced the management of hematologic malignancies by integrating targeted agents, immunotherapies, and conventional treatments to enhance patient outcomes and combat treatment resistance [ 6 , 124 ]. For example, the combination of histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors and Enhancer of Zeste Homologue 2 (EZH2) inhibitors has shown promise in hematological malignancies [ 124 ]. Additionally, the integration of therapies such as chemotherapy, stem cell transplantation, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy has notably improved the prognosis of hematologic malignancies [ 6 ].

One of the challenges in optimizing combination therapies is addressing therapy resistance mechanisms. For instance, BCL2 inhibition by venetoclax has emerged as a new treatment approach in various hematological malignancies, underscoring the importance of understanding and overcoming resistance mechanisms [ 125 ]. Moreover, the use of monoclonal antibodies against Eph family receptors has gained attention as an effective therapeutic strategy in hematological tumors, emphasizing the significance of targeted therapies in addressing resistance and improving outcomes [ 126 ]. The exploration of epigenetic drugs and their combinations in myeloid malignancies highlights the trend towards combination therapies to enhance drug synergy and overcome resistance [ 127 ].

Combining a neddylation inhibitor with complex antigen therapy and a nuclease inhibitor, bolstered by macrophages: employing a neddylation inhibitor to prevent the degradation of proteins regulating tumor cell growth, along with complex antigen therapy presenting tumor antigens to the immune system and a nuclease inhibitor hindering DNA replication in cancer cells, with added support from activated macrophages, might augment the efficacy of anti-tumor therapy through heightened macrophage-mediated tumor cell elimination [ 107 ].

Innovative combination therapies for hematologic malignancies present an opportunity to significantly improve treatment outcomes by targeting cancer cells from multiple angles. One such proposed combination includes the use of PI3K inhibitors, autophagy inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Idelalisib, a PI3K inhibitor, disrupts a crucial pathway for cancer cell growth and survival. Chloroquine, an autophagy inhibitor, blocks the process cancer cells use to survive under metabolic stress. Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, enhances the immune response by preventing the PD-1 receptor on T cells from being activated, thus allowing the immune system to more effectively target cancer cells. This combination aims to increase cancer cell death by targeting their metabolic pathways, survival mechanisms, and immune evasion strategies. Currently, no clinical trials have tested this specific combination, making it a novel approach in the treatment of hematologic cancers.

Another promising combination includes NF-κB inhibitors, neddylation inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Bay 11-7082, an NF-κB inhibitor, reduces cancer cell survival and proliferation by blocking the NF-κB pathway. Pevonedistat, a neddylation inhibitor, disrupts protein degradation and promotes apoptosis. Nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, enhances the immune response by blocking the PD-1 receptor on T cells. This combination targets multiple pathways crucial for cancer cell survival and proliferation, providing a multifaceted approach to treating cancer and potentially overcoming resistance. To date, no clinical trials have tested this specific combination.

Lastly, the combination of CD47 blockade, MET inhibitors, and anti-CTLA-4 therapy holds promise. Hu5F9-G4, a CD47 inhibitor, enhances the phagocytosis of cancer cells through macrophages. Tepotinib, a MET inhibitor, targets the MET pathway involved in tumor growth and metastasis. Ipilimumab, a CTLA-4 inhibitor, increases T cell activity against cancer cells by blocking CTLA-4. This combination aims to engage both the innate and adaptive immune systems, leading to enhanced phagocytosis, reduced tumor growth and metastasis, and a stronger immune response. This combination is theoretically robust but has not been studied in clinical trials.

These proposed combinations leverage multiple therapeutic strategies to improve efficacy and overcome resistance mechanisms in hematologic malignancies. While individual components have been tested in various contexts, these specific combinations remain unexplored, presenting opportunities for innovative research.

Combination chemotherapy regimens pose a notable challenge due to the potential for increased toxicity resulting from the additive or synergistic effects of individual agents, which may lead to heightened adverse events [ 128 ]. The toxicity associated with these regimens can be substantial, with reports of up to 50–70% of grade 3–4 neutropenia [ 129 ]. To address these challenges, careful patient selection, dose optimization, and monitoring strategies are crucial to mitigate risks and ensure tolerability while maximizing therapeutic benefit. Moreover, the identification of predictive biomarkers and the development of personalized treatment algorithms are essential to tailor combination therapies to individual patient profiles, optimizing efficacy and minimizing toxicity [ 130 ]. The development of combination regimens, although desirable for enhanced efficacy, poses unique challenges, particularly in managing toxicities. Rigorously conducted comparative studies or network meta-analyses of patient-level data are necessary to fully understand the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens [ 131 ]. Researchers aim to combine drugs that are effective as single agents and exhibit synergistic behavior when combined, avoiding combinations of drugs that cause similar toxic effects or have the same patterns of resistance [ 132 ]. While combination regimens have shown superiority over sequential single regimens, it is crucial to balance the increased efficacy with the potential for greater toxicity. Quadruplet combinations in certain contexts have been associated with greater toxicity without additional therapeutic benefits [ 133 ]. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the toxicity profiles of different regimens is essential for informing optimal supportive care and future clinical trial design [ 134 ].

The optimization of combination chemotherapy regimens requires a delicate balance between maximizing therapeutic efficacy and minimizing toxicity. Careful consideration of patient characteristics, dose adjustments, monitoring strategies, and the identification of predictive biomarkers are vital components in tailoring combination therapies to individual patients, ensuring the best possible outcomes while managing potential toxicities. Our discussion underscores the transformative potential of integrating diverse therapeutic strategies, encompassing immunotherapies, molecular therapies, and interventions targeting the tumor microenvironment. Incorporating CD47 receptor inhibitors into these therapeutic regimens may engender a synergistic anti-tumor effect, bolstering the immune system’s capacity to eradicate cancer cells [ 135 ].

The interplay between local nanomechanical properties and the red blood cell (RBC) cytoskeleton is crucial for understanding the biomechanical behavior of cells and how they can be affected by therapeutic interventions, particularly in the context of hematologic diseases and treatments like CAR-T therapy [ 136 , 137 ]. Local nanomechanical properties refer to the mechanical characteristics at the nanoscale, such as stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity, which can be measured using techniques like atomic force microscopy (AFM) and optical tweezers. These properties are essential for determining how cells respond to external forces, interact with their environment, and maintain their structural integrity [ 136 , 137 ]. Monitoring these properties can provide insights into the disease state and the effectiveness of treatment. The RBC cytoskeleton, composed mainly of spectrin, actin, and ankyrin, among other proteins, is a complex network of proteins that provides structural support, maintains the biconcave shape of RBCs, and allows for their deformability, which is crucial for their function in microcirculation [ 138 ]. Disruptions in the cytoskeleton, as seen in various hematologic disorders (e.g., hereditary spherocytosis, elliptocytosis, and sickle cell disease), lead to altered mechanical properties such as increased stiffness or reduced deformability. These changes can be detected using AFM, providing a non-invasive way to assess the state of the cytoskeleton [ 136 , 137 ].

CAR-T therapy, a form of immunotherapy where T cells are engineered to target and destroy cancer cells, has revolutionized the treatment of certain hematologic malignancies like leukemia and lymphoma [ 138 ]. Changes in the nanomechanical properties of RBCs and other cells in the blood could serve as early biomarkers for the onset and proliferation of hematolytic diseases or for monitoring the effects of therapies like CAR-T [ 139 ]. If these nanomechanical changes can be quantitatively linked to specific stages of disease or responses to therapy, they could be used to personalize treatment plans, improving outcomes by adjusting therapies before significant side effects or disease progression occurs [ 136 , 137 ].

Nevertheless, as we embrace these novel discoveries, we also encounter fresh challenges, including the need to monitor and mitigate adverse effects while customizing treatments to suit individual patient profiles. Further clinical investigations are imperative to ascertain the efficacy and safety profiles of these innovative therapeutic combinations, thereby delineating optimal treatment modalities for distinct cancer subtypes.

The integration of real-world evidence and patient-centered approaches are also critical aspects of advancing combination therapies. Real-world data can provide insights into how therapies perform outside the controlled environment of clinical trials, reflecting long-term effectiveness and safety across diverse patient populations [ 140 ]. Furthermore, engaging patients in the treatment planning process improves adherence to therapy and satisfaction with outcomes, as patient preferences and quality of life measures are increasingly considered in clinical trial designs [ 141 ].

In conclusion, the advent of combination therapies represents a significant advancement in the field of hematologic malignancies, providing a comprehensive approach to address treatment resistance and improve patient prognosis. By strategically integrating various treatment modalities, researchers and clinicians aim to capitalize on synergistic interactions, overcome resistance mechanisms, and ultimately enhance the efficacy of therapeutic interventions.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, combination therapies hold tremendous promise in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, offering novel strategies to overcome resistance and improve outcomes for patients. By integrating targeted agents, immunotherapies, and conventional treatments, these approaches capitalize on synergistic interactions to enhance efficacy and combat tumor evasion mechanisms. For instance, combining PI3K inhibitors, autophagy inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors presents a multifaceted attack on cancer cells, disrupting their survival pathways, metabolic processes, and immune evasion strategies. Similarly, the combination of NF-κB inhibitors, neddylation inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors targets multiple survival pathways, potentially overcoming resistance mechanisms. Furthermore, the integration of CD47 blockade, MET inhibitors, and anti-CTLA-4 therapy engages both the innate and adaptive immune systems, enhancing phagocytosis, reducing tumor growth, and strengthening immune responses.

While combination therapies show significant potential, challenges such as toxicity and therapy resistance remain. Careful patient selection, dose optimization, and monitoring strategies are essential to mitigate these risks.

Moreover, incorporating real-world evidence and patient-centered approaches into combination therapy development is essential. Real-world data provide insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of therapies across diverse patient populations [ 140 ], while patients engaging in treatment planning improves adherence and satisfaction with outcomes [ 141 ].

By addressing these challenges and leveraging interdisciplinary collaboration, we can unlock the full potential of combination therapies, ushering in a new era of precision medicine in hematologic oncology. Further clinical investigations are imperative to validate the efficacy and safety profiles of these innovative combinations, delineating optimal treatment modalities for distinct cancer subtypes.

The transformative potential of these approaches lies in their ability to integrate diverse therapeutic strategies, encompassing immunotherapies, molecular therapies, and interventions targeting the tumor microenvironment, ultimately enhancing the efficacy of therapeutic interventions in hematologic malignancies.

The future of combinational therapies in hematological malignancies is promising, with advances in personalized medicine, immunotherapy, and targeted drug development leading the way. By leveraging cutting-edge technologies and a deeper understanding of cancer biology, these therapies are expected to offer more effective, less toxic, and highly personalized treatment options for patients with hematologic cancers. Combinational therapies in hematological malignancies have become a cornerstone of treatment strategies, offering improved efficacy, reduced resistance, and better patient outcomes. The future directions for combinational therapies in these diseases are likely to be shaped by advances in personalized medicine, novel drug development, and a deeper understanding of the molecular and immune landscapes of these cancers. Here in Table 17 we present some of the future directions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J.L., B.P., K.S., J.J.-B. and A.H.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J.L., B.P., K.S., J.J.-B. and A.H.; writing—review and editing, J.J.L., B.P., K.S., J.J.-B. and A.H.; visualization, J.J.-B. and B.P.; funding acquisition, J.J.L. and J.J.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Figures included in our manuscript were created using the Biorender ( https://www.biorender.com/ ) free trial program and subsequently supplemented with our own interpretations and analyses.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding Statement

The APC was funded by Molecules (MDPI, Basel).

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

References

1. Zhang N., Wu J., Wang Q., Liang Y., Li X., Chen G., Ma L., Liu X., Zhou F. Global Burden of Hematologic Malignancies and Evolution Patterns over the Past 30 Years. Blood Cancer J. 2023;13:82. doi: 10.1038/s41408-023-00853-3.

2. Greim H., Kaden D.A., Larson R.A., Palermo C.M., Rice J.M., Ross D., Snyder R. The Bone Marrow Niche, Stem Cells, and Leukemia: Impact of Drugs, Chemicals, and the Environment. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014;1310:7–31. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12362.

3. Huang J., Chan S.C., Ngai C.H., Lok V., Zhang L., Lucero-Prisno D.E., Xu W., Zheng Z.J., Elcarte E., Withers M., et al. Disease Burden, Risk Factors, and Trends of Leukaemia: A Global Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2022;12:904292. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.904292.

4. Chu Y., Liu Y., Fang X., Jiang Y., Ding M., Ge X., Yuan D., Lu K., Li P., Li Y., et al. The Epidemiological Patterns of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Global Estimates of Disease Burden, Risk Factors, and Temporal Trends. Front. Oncol. 2023;13:1059914. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1059914.

5. Sochacka-ćwikła A., Mączyński M., Regiec A. FDA-Approved Drugs for Hematological Malignancies—The Last Decade Review. Cancers. 2022;14:87. doi: 10.3390/cancers14010087.

6. Tang L., Huang Z., Mei H., Hu Y. Immunotherapy in Hematologic Malignancies: Achievements, Challenges and Future Prospects. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2023;8:306. doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01521-5.

7. Yin Q., Wu L., Han L., Zheng X., Tong R., Li L., Bai L., Bian Y. Immune-Related Adverse Events of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Review. Front. Immunol. 2023;14:1167975. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1167975.

8. Shalata W., Abu-salman A., Steckbeck R., Jacob B.M., Massalha I., Yakobson A. Cardiac Toxicity Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Systematic Review. Cancers. 2021;13:5218. doi: 10.3390/cancers13205218.

9. Skarbnik A.P., Faderl S. The Role of Combined Fludarabine, Cyclophosphamide and Rituximab Chemoimmunotherapy in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Current Evidence and Controversies. Ther. Adv. Hematol. 2017;8:99. doi: 10.1177/2040620716681749.

10. Seipel K., Brügger Y., Mandhair H., Bacher U., Pabst T. Rationale for Combining the BCL2 Inhibitor Venetoclax with the PI3K Inhibitor Bimiralisib in the Treatment of IDH2- and FLT3-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022;23:12587. doi: 10.3390/ijms232012587.

11. Muenzen R.M., Hughes M.E., Dwivedy Nasta S., Svoboda J., Landsburg D.J., Barta S.K., Tsai D., Schuster S.J., Chong E.A. Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Etoposide and Prednisone for the Treatment of Post-Transplantation Lymphoproliferative Disorder. Blood. 2022;140:6715–6716. doi: 10.1182/blood-2022-169764.

12. Nogami A., Sasaki K. Therapeutic Advances in Immunotherapies for Hematological Malignancies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022;23:11526. doi: 10.3390/ijms231911526.

13. Allegra A., Petrarca C., Di Gioacchino M., Casciaro M., Musolino C., Gangemi S. Exosome-Mediated Therapeutic Strategies for Management of Solid and Hematological Malignancies. Cells. 2022;11:1128. doi: 10.3390/cells11071128.

14. Han Y., Liu Z., Liu J., Yan W., Xia Y., Yue S., Yu J. Antibody-Based Immunotherapeutic Strategies for the Treatment of Hematological Malignancies. Biomed. Res. Int. 2020;2020:4956946. doi: 10.1155/2020/4956946.

15. Lin A.Y., Schnitter J.M., Gordon L.I. Immune Checkpoint Blockade for the Treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma. Immunotargets Ther. 2022;11:1–10. doi: 10.2147/ITT.S284988.

16. Wojtukiewicz M.Z., Rek M.M., Karpowicz K., Górska M., Polityńska B., Wojtukiewicz A.M., Moniuszko M., Radziwon P., Tucker S.C., Honn K.V. Inhibitors of Immune Checkpoints—PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4—New Opportunities for Cancer Patients and a New Challenge for Internists and General Practitioners. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2021;40:949. doi: 10.1007/s10555-021-09976-0.

17. Joller N., Anderson A.C., Kuchroo V.K. LAG-3, TIM-3, and TIGIT: Distinct Functions in Immune Regulation. Immunity. 2024;57:206–222. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2024.01.010.

18. Wolf Y., Anderson A.C., Kuchroo V.K. TIM3 Comes of Age as an Inhibitory Receptor. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2019;20:173–185. doi: 10.1038/s41577-019-0224-6.

19. Rowinsky E.K., Paner A., Berdeja J.G., Paba-Prada C., Venugopal P., Porkka K., Gullbo J., Linder S., Loskog A., Richardson P.G., et al. Phase 1 Study of the Protein Deubiquitinase Inhibitor VLX1570 in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Investig. New Drugs. 2020;38:1448–1453. doi: 10.1007/s10637-020-00915-4.

20. Peng Y., Wang Y., Zhou C., Mei W., Zeng C. PI3K/Akt/MTOR Pathway and Its Role in Cancer Therapeutics: Are We Making Headway? Front. Oncol. 2022;12:819128. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.819128.

21. Annese T., Tamma R., Ribatti D. Update in TIGIT Immune-Checkpoint Role in Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2022;12:871085. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.871085.

22. Lang T.J.L., Damm F., Bullinger L., Frick M. Mechanisms of Resistance to Small Molecules in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Cancers. 2023;15:4573. doi: 10.3390/cancers15184573.

23. Di Costanzo A., Del Gaudio N., Conte L., Altucci L. The Ubiquitin Proteasome System in Hematological Malignancies: New Insight into Its Functional Role and Therapeutic Options. Cancers. 2020;12:1898. doi: 10.3390/cancers12071898.

24. Wiese W., Barczuk J., Racinska O., Siwecka N., Rozpedek-Kaminska W., Slupianek A., Sierpinski R., Majsterek I. PI3K/Akt/MTOR Signaling Pathway in Blood Malignancies—New Therapeutic Possibilities. Cancers. 2023;15:5297. doi: 10.3390/cancers15215297.

25. Hus I., Puła B., Robak T. PI3K Inhibitors for the Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Cancers. 2022;14:1571. doi: 10.3390/cancers14061571.

26. Mattsson A., Sylvan S.E., Axelsson P., Ellin F., Kjellander C., Larsson K., Lauri B., Lewerin C., Scharenberg C., Tätting L., et al. Idelalisib (PI3Kδ Inhibitor) Therapy for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: A Swedish Nation-Wide Real-World Report on Consecutively Identified Patients. Eur. J. Haematol. 2023;111:715–721. doi: 10.1111/ejh.14065.

27. BASELINE HISTOLOGY Mehta-Shah B.N., Jacobsen E.D., Zinzani P.L., Zain J., Mead M., Casulo C., Gritti G., Pinter-Brown L., Izutsu K., Waters S., et al. Duvelisib in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma from the Phase 2 PRIMO Trial Expansion Phase: Outcomes by Baseline Histology. Hematol. Oncol. 2023;41:499–500. doi: 10.1002/hon.3164_367.

28. Randall J., Evans K., Watts B., Smith C.M., Hughes K., Earley E.J., Erickson S.W., Pachter J.A., Teicher B.A., Smith M.A., et al. In Vivo Activity of the Dual PI3Kδ and PI3Kγ Inhibitor Duvelisib against Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Xenografts. Pediatr. Blood Cancer. 2023;70:e30398. doi: 10.1002/pbc.30398.

29. Schweitzer J., Hoffman M., Graf S.A. The Evidence to Date on Umbralisib for the Treatment of Refractory Marginal Zone Lymphoma and Follicular Lymphoma. Expert Opin. Pharmacother. 2022;23:535–541. doi: 10.1080/14656566.2022.2043273.

30. Dhillon S., Keam S.J. Umbralisib: First Approval. Drugs. 2021;81:857–866. doi: 10.1007/s40265-021-01504-2.

31. Davids M.S., O’Connor O.A., Jurczak W., Samaniego F., Fenske T.S., Zinzani P.L., Patel M.R., Ghosh N., Cheson B.D., Derenzini E., et al. Integrated Safety Analysis of Umbralisib, a Dual PI3Kδ/CK1ε Inhibitor, in Relapsed/Refractory Lymphoid Malignancies. Blood Adv. 2021;5:5332–5343. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005132.

32. Study Details|Phase 3 Study of Zandelisib (ME-401) in Combination With Rituximab in Patients With INHL-(COASTAL)|ClinicalTrials.Gov. [(accessed on 1 July 2024)]; Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04745832 .

33. Belli C., Repetto M., Anand S., Porta C., Subbiah V., Curigliano G. The Emerging Role of PI3K Inhibitors for Solid Tumour Treatment and Beyond. Br. J. Cancer. 2023;128:2150. doi: 10.1038/s41416-023-02221-1.

34. Sauer N., Janicka N., Szlasa W., Skinderowicz B., Kołodzińska K., Dwernicka W., Oślizło M., Kulbacka J., Novickij V., Karłowicz-Bodalska K. TIM-3 as a Promising Target for Cancer Immunotherapy in a Wide Range of Tumors. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2023;72:3405–3425. doi: 10.1007/s00262-023-03516-1.

35. Yang R., Sun L., Li C.F., Wang Y.H., Yao J., Li H., Yan M., Chang W.C., Hsu J.M., Cha J.H., et al. Galectin-9 Interacts with PD-1 and TIM-3 to Regulate T Cell Death and Is a Target for Cancer Immunotherapy. Nat. Commun. 2021;12:832. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21099-2.

36. Cho H.J., Lee J., Yoon S.R., Lee H.G., Jung H. Regulation of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Fate and Malignancy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020;21:4780. doi: 10.3390/ijms21134780.

37. Savinova O.V., Hoffmann A., Ghosh G. The Nfkb1 and Nfkb2 Proteins P105 and P100 Function as the Core of High-Molecular-Weight Heterogeneous Complexes. Mol. Cell. 2009;34:591–602. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.04.033.

38. Anilkumar S., Wright-Jin E. NF-ΚB as an Inducible Regulator of Inflammation in the Central Nervous System. Cells. 2024;13:485. doi: 10.3390/cells13060485.

39. Yu H., Lin L., Zhang Z., Zhang H., Hu H. Targeting NF-ΚB Pathway for the Therapy of Diseases: Mechanism and Clinical Study. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2020;5:209. doi: 10.1038/s41392-020-00312-6.

40. Prescott J.A., Mitchell J.P., Cook S.J. Inhibitory Feedback Control of NF-ΚB Signalling in Health and Disease. Biochem. J. 2021;478:2619–2664. doi: 10.1042/BCJ20210139.

41. Guo Q., Jin Y., Chen X., Ye X., Shen X., Lin M., Zeng C., Zhou T., Zhang J. NF-ΚB in Biology and Targeted Therapy: New Insights and Translational Implications. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024;9:53. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01757-9.

42. Cildir G., Low K.C., Tergaonkar V. Noncanonical NF-ΚB Signaling in Health and Disease. Trends Mol. Med. 2016;22:414–429. doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2016.03.002.

43. Salvi M., Abdrabou A.M. The Yin and Yang of IκB Kinases in Cancer. Kinases Phosphatases. 2023;2:9–27. doi: 10.3390/kinasesphosphatases2010002.

44. Ghosh G., Wang V.Y.F. Origin of the Functional Distinctiveness of NF-ΚB/P52. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021;9:764164. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.764164.

45. Ramadass V., Vaiyapuri T., Tergaonkar V. Small Molecule NF-ΚB Pathway Inhibitors in Clinic. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020;21:5164. doi: 10.3390/ijms21145164.

46. BAY11-7082 Inhibits the Expression of Tissue Factor and Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor-1 in Type-II Alveolar Epithelial Cells Following TNF-α Stimulation via the NF-κB Pathway. [(accessed on 1 July 2024)]. Available online: https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/etm.2020.9608 .

47. Meng T., Xiao D., Muhammed A., Deng J., Chen L., He J. Anti-Inflammatory Action and Mechanisms of Resveratrol. Molecules. 2021;26:229. doi: 10.3390/molecules26010229.

48. Xiao A., Akilov O.E., Xiao A., Akilov O.E. Targeting the CD47-SIRPα Axis: Present Therapies and the Future for Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma. Cells. 2022;11:3591. doi: 10.3390/cells11223591.

49. Maute R., Xu J., Weissman I.L. CD47–SIRPα-Targeted Therapeutics: Status and Prospects. Immuno-Oncol. Technol. 2022;13:100070. doi: 10.1016/j.iotech.2022.100070.

50. Khalaji A., Yancheshmeh F.B., Farham F., Khorram A., Sheshbolouki S., Zokaei M., Vatankhah F., Soleymani-Goloujeh M. Don’t Eat Me/Eat Me Signals as a Novel Strategy in Cancer Immunotherapy. Heliyon. 2023;9:e20507. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20507.

51. Sun J., Chen Y., Lubben B., Adebayo O., Muz B., Azab A.K. CD47-Targeting Antibodies as a Novel Therapeutic Strategy in Hematologic Malignancies. Leuk. Res. Rep. 2021;16:100268. doi: 10.1016/j.lrr.2021.100268.

52. Ye Z.H., Yu W.B., Huang M.Y., Chen J., Lu J.J. Building on the Backbone of CD47-Based Therapy in Cancer: Combination Strategies, Mechanisms, and Future Perspectives. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2023;13:1467. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2022.12.016.

53. Jiang Y., Jia L. Neddylation Pathway as a Novel Anti-Cancer Target: Mechanistic Investigation and Therapeutic Implication. Anticancer Agents Med. Chem. 2015;15:1127–1133. doi: 10.2174/1871520615666150305111257.

54. Chen Y., Sun L. Inhibition of NEDD8 NEDDylation Induced Apoptosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cells via P53 Signaling Pathway. Biosci. Rep. 2022;42:BSR20220994. doi: 10.1042/BSR20220994.

55. Zhou L., Jiang Y., Luo Q., Li L., Jia L. Neddylation: A Novel Modulator of the Tumor Microenvironment. Mol. Cancer. 2019;18:77. doi: 10.1186/s12943-019-0979-1.

56. Liu D., Che X., Wu G. Deciphering the Role of Neddylation in Tumor Microenvironment Modulation: Common Outcome of Multiple Signaling Pathways. Biomark. Res. 2024;12:5. doi: 10.1186/s40364-023-00545-x.

57. Ochiiwa H., Ailiken G., Yokoyama M., Yamagata K., Nagano H., Yoshimura C., Muraoka H., Ishida K., Haruma T., Nakayama A., et al. TAS4464, a NEDD8-Activating Enzyme Inhibitor, Activates Both Intrinsic and Extrinsic Apoptotic Pathways via c-Myc-Mediated Regulation in Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Oncogene. 2021;40:1217–1230. doi: 10.1038/s41388-020-01586-4.

58. Yu Q., Jiang Y., Sun Y. Anticancer Drug Discovery by Targeting Cullin Neddylation. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2020;10:746. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2019.09.005.

59. Zhang S., Yu Q., Li Z., Zhao Y., Sun Y. Protein Neddylation and Its Role in Health and Diseases. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024;9:85. doi: 10.1038/s41392-024-01800-9.

60. Solinas C., Aiello M., Rozali E., Lambertini M., Willard-Gallo K., Migliori E. Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 2: A Neglected But Important Target in the Immune Response to Cancer? Transl. Oncol. 2020;13:100811. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2020.100811.

61. Shiravand Y., Khodadadi F., Kashani S.M.A., Hosseini-Fard S.R., Hosseini S., Sadeghirad H., Ladwa R., O’byrne K., Kulasinghe A. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy. Curr. Oncol. 2022;29:3044. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29050247.

62. Yi M., Zheng X., Niu M., Zhu S., Ge H., Wu K. Combination Strategies with PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade: Current Advances and Future Directions. Mol. Cancer. 2022;21:28. doi: 10.1186/s12943-021-01489-2.

63. Lussier D.M., Johnson J.L., Hingorani P., Blattman J.N. Combination Immunotherapy with α-CTLA-4 and α-PD-L1 Antibody Blockade Prevents Immune Escape and Leads to Complete Control of Metastatic Osteosarcoma. J. Immunother. Cancer. 2015;3:21. doi: 10.1186/s40425-015-0067-z.

64. Coiffier B., Lepage E., Brière J., Herbrecht R., Tilly H., Bouabdallah R., Morel P., Van Den Neste E., Salles G., Gaulard P., et al. CHOP Chemotherapy plus Rituximab Compared with CHOP Alone in Elderly Patients with Diffuse Large-B-Cell Lymphoma. N. Eng. J. Med. 2002;346:235–242. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa011795.

65. Lonial S., Weiss B.M., Usmani S.Z., Singhal S., Chari A., Bahlis N.J., Belch A., Krishnan A., Vescio R.A., Mateos M.V., et al. Daratumumab Monotherapy in Patients with Treatment-Refractory Multiple Myeloma (SIRIUS): An Open-Label, Randomised, Phase 2 Trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1551–1560. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01120-4.

66. Younes A., Bartlett N.L., Leonard J.P., Kennedy D.A., Lynch C.M., Sievers E.L., Forero-Torres A. Brentuximab Vedotin (SGN-35) for Relapsed CD30-Positive Lymphomas. N. Eng. J. Med. 2010;363:1812–1821. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1002965.

67. Kantarjian H.M., DeAngelo D.J., Stelljes M., Martinelli G., Liedtke M., Stock W., Gökbuget N., O’Brien S., Wang K., Wang T., et al. Inotuzumab Ozogamicin versus Standard Therapy for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. N. Eng. J. Med. 2016;375:740–753. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1509277.

68. Lonial S., Dimopoulos M., Palumbo A., White D., Grosicki S., Spicka I., Walter-Croneck A., Moreau P., Mateos M.-V., Magen H., et al. Elotuzumab Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma. N. Eng. J. Med. 2015;373:621–631. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1505654.

69. Fraser G., Smith C.A., Imrie K., Meyer R. Alemtuzumab in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Curr. Oncol. 2007;14:96. doi: 10.3747/co.2007.118.

70. Babamohamadi M., Mohammadi N., Faryadi E., Haddadi M., Merati A., Ghobadinezhad F., Amirian R., Izadi Z., Hadjati J. Anti-CTLA-4 Nanobody as a Promising Approach in Cancer Immunotherapy. Cell Death Dis. 2024;15:17. doi: 10.1038/s41419-023-06391-x.

71. Sobhani N., Tardiel-Cyril D.R., Davtyan A., Generali D., Roudi R., Li Y. CTLA-4 in Regulatory T Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy. Cancers. 2021;13:1440. doi: 10.3390/cancers13061440.

72. Rossi F., Fredericks N., Snowden A., Allegrezza M.J., Moreno-Nieves U.Y. Next Generation Natural Killer Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy. Front. Immunol. 2022;13:886429. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.886429.

73. Jogalekar M.P., Rajendran R.L., Khan F., Dmello C., Gangadaran P., Ahn B.C. CAR T-Cell-Based Gene Therapy for Cancers: New Perspectives, Challenges, and Clinical Developments. Front. Immunol. 2022;13:925985. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.925985.

74. Rasheed A., Rayner K.J. Macrophage Responses to Environmental Stimuli During Homeostasis and Disease. Endocr. Rev. 2021;42:407. doi: 10.1210/endrev/bnab004.

75. Yang Q., Guo N., Zhou Y., Chen J., Wei Q., Han M. The Role of Tumor-Associated Macrophages (TAMs) in Tumor Progression and Relevant Advance in Targeted Therapy. Acta Pharm. Sin. B. 2020;10:2156. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2020.04.004.

76. Xie Y., Yang H., Yang C., He L., Zhang X., Peng L., Zhu H., Gao L. Role and Mechanisms of Tumor-Associated Macrophages in Hematological Malignancies. Front. Oncol. 2022;12:933666. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.933666.

77. Abdul-Rahman T., Ghosh S., Badar S.M., Nazir A., Bamigbade G.B., Aji N., Roy P., Kachani H., Garg N., Lawal L., et al. The Paradoxical Role of Cytokines and Chemokines at the Tumor Microenvironment: A Comprehensive Review. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2024;29:124. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01711-z.

78. Wang L., Zheng G. Macrophages in Leukemia Microenvironment. Blood Sci. 2019;1:29–33. doi: 10.1097/BS9.0000000000000014.

79. Sun Q., Hong Z., Zhang C., Wang L., Han Z., Ma D. Immune Checkpoint Therapy for Solid Tumours: Clinical Dilemmas and Future Trends. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2023;8:320. doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01522-4.

80. Mantovani A., Allavena P., Marchesi F., Garlanda C. Macrophages as Tools and Targets in Cancer Therapy. Nature Reviews Drug Discov. 2022;21:799–820. doi: 10.1038/s41573-022-00520-5.

81. Koh T.J., DiPietro L.A. Inflammation and Wound Healing: The Role of the Macrophage. Expert Rev. Mol. Med. 2011;13:e23. doi: 10.1017/S1462399411001943.

82. Yang S., Zhao M., Jia S. Macrophage: Key Player in the Pathogenesis of Autoimmune Diseases. Front. Immunol. 2023;14:1080310. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1080310.

83. Pan K., Farrukh H., Chittepu V.C.S.R., Xu H., Pan C.X., Zhu Z. CAR Race to Cancer Immunotherapy: From CAR T, CAR NK to CAR Macrophage Therapy. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022;41:119. doi: 10.1186/s13046-022-02327-z.

84. Chen K., Liu M.L., Wang J.C., Fang S. CAR-Macrophage versus CAR-T for Solid Tumors: The Race between a Rising Star and a Superstar. Biomol. Biomed. 2024;24:465–476. doi: 10.17305/bb.2023.9675.

85. Zhou Q., Munger M.E., Veenstra R.G., Weigel B.J., Hirashima M., Munn D.H., Murphy W.J., Azuma M., Anderson A.C., Kuchroo V.K., et al. Coexpression of Tim-3 and PD-1 Identifies a CD8+ T-Cell Exhaustion Phenotype in Mice with Disseminated Acute Myelogenous Leukemia. Blood. 2011;117:4501–4510. doi: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-310425.

86. Fourcade J., Sun Z., Pagliano O., Chauvin J.M., Sander C., Janjic B., Tarhini A.A., Tawbi H.A., Kirkwood J.M., Moschos S., et al. PD-1 and Tim-3 Regulate the Expansion of Tumor Antigen-Specific CD8+ T Cells Induced by Melanoma Vaccines. Cancer Res. 2014;74:1045–1055. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2908.

87. Kikushige Y., Miyamoto T. TIM-3 as a Novel Therapeutic Target for Eradicating Acute Myelogenous Leukemia Stem Cells. Int. J. Hematol. 2013;98:627–633. doi: 10.1007/s12185-013-1433-6.

88. Kok V.C. Current Understanding of the Mechanisms Underlying Immune Evasion From PD-1/PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Head and Neck Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2020;10:268. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00268.

89. Tian T., Li Z. Targeting Tim-3 in Cancer with Resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade. Front. Oncol. 2021;11:731175. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.731175.

90. Tang W., Chen J., Ji T., Cong X. TIGIT, a Novel Immune Checkpoint Therapy for Melanoma. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14:466. doi: 10.1038/s41419-023-05961-3.

91. Zhang P., Liu X., Gu Z., Jiang Z., Zhao S., Song Y., Yu J. Targeting TIGIT for Cancer Immunotherapy: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Biomark. Res. 2024;12:7. doi: 10.1186/s40364-023-00543-z.

92. Nininahazwe L., Liu B., He C., Zhang H., Chen Z.S. The Emerging Nature of Ubiquitin-Specific Protease 7 (USP7): A New Target in Cancer Therapy. Drug Discov. Today. 2021;26:490–502. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.10.028.

93. Yu M., Chen J., Xu Z., Yang B., He Q., Luo P., Yan H., Yang X. Development and Safety of PI3K Inhibitors in Cancer. Arch. Toxicol. 2023;97:635. doi: 10.1007/s00204-023-03440-4.

94. Zhu S., Sun P., Bennett S., Charlesworth O., Tan R., Peng X., Gu Q., Kujan O., Xu J. The Therapeutic Effect and Mechanism of Parthenolide in Skeletal Disease, Cancers, and Cytokine Storm. Front. Pharmacol. 2023;14:1111218. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1111218.

95. Chen Q., Guo X., Ma W. Opportunities and Challenges of CD47-Targeted Therapy in Cancer Immunotherapy. Oncol. Res. 2024;32:49. doi: 10.32604/or.2023.042383.

96. Gai W., Peng Z., Liu C.H., Zhang L., Jiang H. Advances in Cancer Treatment by Targeting the Neddylation Pathway. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021;9:653882. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.653882.

97. Ojeda-Uribe M., Rimelen V., Marzullo C. Good Profile of Efficacy/Tolerance of Bortezomib or Idelalisib in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia Associated with Acquired Von Willebrand Syndrome. J. Blood Med. 2020;11:67. doi: 10.2147/JBM.S233059.

98. Castel P., Toska E., Engelman J.A., Scaltriti M. The Present and Future of PI3K Inhibitors for Cancer Therapy. Nat. Cancer. 2021;2:587. doi: 10.1038/s43018-021-00218-4.

99. Shayan G., Srivastava R., Li J., Schmitt N., Kane L.P., Ferris R.L. Adaptive Resistance to Anti-PD1 Therapy by Tim-3 Upregulation Is Mediated by the PI3K-Akt Pathway in Head and Neck Cancer. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6:e1261779. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1261779.

100. Cao X., Jin X., Zhang X., Utsav P., Zhang Y., Guo R., Lu W., Zhao M. Small-Molecule Compounds Boost CAR-T Cell Therapy in Hematological Malignancies. Cur.r Treat Options Oncol. 2023;24:184–211. doi: 10.1007/s11864-023-01049-4.

101. Varayathu H., Sarathy V., Thomas B.E., Mufti S.S., Naik R. Combination Strategies to Augment Immune Check Point Inhibitors Efficacy-Implications for Translational Research. Front. Oncol. 2021;11:559161. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.559161.

102. Sagiv-Barfi I., Kohrt H.E.K., Czerwinski D.K., Ng P.P., Chang B.Y., Levy R. Therapeutic Antitumor Immunity by Checkpoint Blockade Is Enhanced by Ibrutinib, an Inhibitor of Both BTK and ITK. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2015;112:E966–E972. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1500712112.

103. Hanna B.S., Yazdanparast H., Demerdash Y., Roessner P.M., Schulz R., Lichter P., Stilgenbauer S., Seiffert M. Combining Ibrutinib and Checkpoint Blockade Improves CD8+ T-Cell Function and Control of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Em-TCL1 Mice. Haematologica. 2021;106:968–977. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2019.238154.

104. Petrazzuolo A., Maiuri M.C., Zitvogel L., Kroemer G., Kepp O. Trial Watch: Combination of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs) and Immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology. 2022;11:2077898. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2022.2077898.

105. Ebrahimi N., Abdulwahid A.H.R.R., Mansouri A., Karimi N., Bostani R.J., Beiranvand S., Adelian S., Khorram R., Vafadar R., Hamblin M.R., et al. Targeting the NF-ΚB Pathway as a Potential Regulator of Immune Checkpoints in Cancer Immunotherapy. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2024;81:106. doi: 10.1007/s00018-023-05098-8.

106. Sum E., Rapp M., Dürr H., Mazumdar A., Romero P.J., Trumpfheller C., Umaña P. The Tumor-Targeted CD40 Agonist CEA-CD40 Promotes T Cell Priming via a Dual Mode of Action by Increasing Antigen Delivery to Dendritic Cells and Enhancing Their Activation. J. Immunother. Cancer. 2022;10:3264. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003264.

107. Jiang Y., Li L., Li Y., Liu G., Hoffman R.M., Jia L. Neddylation Regulates Macrophages and Implications for Cancer Therapy. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021;9:681186. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.681186.

108. Pakjoo M., Ahmadi S.E., Zahedi M., Jaafari N., Khademi R., Amini A., Safa M. Interplay between Proteasome Inhibitors and NF-ΚB Pathway in Leukemia and Lymphoma: A Comprehensive Review on Challenges Ahead of Proteasome Inhibitors. Cell Commun. Signal. 2024;22:105. doi: 10.1186/s12964-023-01433-5.

109. Logghe T., van Zwol E., Immordino B., Van den Cruys K., Peeters M., Giovannetti E., Bogers J. Hyperthermia in Combination with Emerging Targeted and Immunotherapies as a New Approach in Cancer Treatment. Cancers. 2024;16:505. doi: 10.3390/cancers16030505.

110. Shi C.-S., Kuo K.-L., Lin W.-C., Chen M.-S., Liu S.-H., Liao S.-M., Hsu C.-H., Chang Y.-W., Chang H.-C., Huang K.-H. Neddylation Inhibitor, MLN4924 Suppresses Angiogenesis in Huvecs and Solid Cancers: In Vitro and in Vivo Study. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2020;10:953.

111. Huntoon K., Jiang W., Kim B.Y.S. Waking Immune-Resistant Tumors with Neddylation. J. Clin. Investig. 2023;133:e167894. doi: 10.1172/JCI167894.

112. Fu D.J., Wang T. Targeting NEDD8-Activating Enzyme for Cancer Therapy: Developments, Clinical Trials, Challenges and Future Research Directions. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2023;16:87. doi: 10.1186/s13045-023-01485-7.

113. Sun Y., Baechler S.A., Zhang X., Kumar S., Factor V.M., Arakawa Y., Chau C.H., Okamoto K., Parikh A., Walker B., et al. Targeting Neddylation Sensitizes Colorectal Cancer to Topoisomerase I Inhibitors by Inactivating the DCAF13-CRL4 Ubiquitin Ligase Complex. Nat. Commun. 2023;14:3762. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39374-9.

114. Al-Haideri M., Tondok S.B., Safa S.H., Maleki A.H., Rostami S., Jalil A.T., Al-Gazally M.E., Alsaikhan F., Rizaev J.A., Mohammad T.A.M., et al. CAR-T Cell Combination Therapy: The next Revolution in Cancer Treatment. Cancer Cell Int. 2022;22:365. doi: 10.1186/s12935-022-02778-6.

115. Pérez-Moreno M.A., Ciudad-Gutiérrez P., Jaramillo-Ruiz D., Reguera-Ortega J.L., Abdel-kader Martín L., Flores-Moreno S. Combined or Sequential Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Car-T Cell Therapies for the Management of Haematological Malignancies: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023;24:14780. doi: 10.3390/ijms241914780.

116. Kleinendorst S.C., Oosterwijk E., Bussink J., Westdorp H., Konijnenberg M.W., Heskamp S. Combining Targeted Radionuclide Therapy and Immune Checkpoint Inhibition for Cancer Treatment. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022;28:3652–3657. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-4332.

117. Lu Q., Li H., Wu Z., Zhu Z., Zhang Z., Yang D., Tong A. BCMA/CD47-Directed Universal CAR-T Cells Exhibit Excellent Antitumor Activity in Multiple Myeloma. J. Nanobiotechnology. 2024;22:279. doi: 10.1186/s12951-024-02512-6.

118. Van Duijn A., Van Der Burg S.H., Scheeren F.A. CD47/SIRPα Axis: Bridging Innate and Adaptive Immunity. J. Immunother. Cancer. 2022;10:e004589. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2022-004589.

119. Ahire V., Ahmadi Bidakhvidi N., Boterberg T., Chaudhary P., Chevalier F., Daems N., Delbart W., Baatout S., Deroose C.M., Fernandez-Palomo C., et al. Radiobiology Textbook. Springer; Cham, Switzerland: 2023. Radiobiology of Combining Radiotherapy with Other Cancer Treatment Modalities; pp. 311–386.

120. Vaz De Freitas M., Frâncio L., Haleva L., Da Silveira Matte U. Protection Is Not Always a Good Thing: The Immune System’s Impact on Gene Therapy. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2022;45:e20220046. doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2022-0046.

121. Jha S., Sharma P.K., Malviya R. Hyperthermia: Role and Risk Factor for Cancer Treatment. Achiev. Life Sci. 2016;10:161–167. doi: 10.1016/j.als.2016.11.004.

122. Agarwal N., Rotz S., Hanna R. Medical Emergencies in Pediatric Blood & Marrow Transplant and Cellular Therapies. Front. Pediatr. 2023;11:1075644. doi: 10.3389/FPED.2023.1075644.

123. Wang E.S., Baron J. Management of Toxicities Associated with Targeted Therapies for Acute Myeloid Leukemia: When to Push through and When to Stop. Hematology. 2020;2020:57–66. doi: 10.1182/hematology.2020000089.

124. Lu D., Wang C., Qu L., Yin F., Li S., Luo H., Zhang Y., Liu X., Chen X., Luo Z., et al. Histone Deacetylase and Enhancer of Zeste Homologue 2 Dual Inhibitors Presenting a Synergistic Effect for the Treatment of Hematological Malignancies. J. Med. Chem. 2022;65:12838–12859. doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c00673.

125. Xu J., Dong X., Huang D.C.S., Xu P., Zhao Q., Chen B. Current Advances and Future Strategies for BCL-2 Inhibitors: Potent Weapons against Cancers. Cancers. 2023;15:4957. doi: 10.3390/cancers15204957.

126. Charmsaz S., Scott A.M., Boyd A.W. Targeted Therapies in Hematological Malignancies Using Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibodies against Eph Family Receptors. Exp. Hematol. 2017;54:31–39. doi: 10.1016/j.exphem.2017.07.003.

127. Chandhok N.S., Prebet T. Insights into Novel Emerging Epigenetic Drugs in Myeloid Malignancies. Ther. Adv. Hematol. 2019;10:2040620719866081. doi: 10.1177/2040620719866081.

128. Stuver R.N., Khan N., Schwartz M., Acosta M., Federico M., Gisselbrecht C., Horwitz S.M., Lansigan F., Pinter-Brown L.C., Pro B., et al. Single Agents vs Combination Chemotherapy in Relapsed and Refractory Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma: Results from the Comprehensive Oncology Measures for Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Treatment (COMPLETE) Registry. Am. J. Hematol. 2019;94:641–649. doi: 10.1002/ajh.25463.

129. Uson Junior P.L.S., Santos V.M., Bugano D.D.G., Victor E.D.S., Rother E.T., Maluf F.C. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Docetaxel Perioperative Chemotherapy Regimens in Gastric and Esophagogastric Tumors. Sci. Rep. 2019;9:15806. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-52334-y.

130. Wagner A.D., Syn N.L.X., Moehler M., Grothe W., Yong W.P., Tai B.C., Ho J., Unverzagt S. Chemotherapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017;8:CD004064. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004064.pub4.

131. Gresham G.K., Wells G.A., Gill S., Cameron C., Jonker D.J. Chemotherapy Regimens for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:471. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-471.

132. Bertsimas D., O’Hair A., Relyea S., Silberholz J. An Analytics Approach to Designing Combination Chemotherapy Regimens for Cancer. Manag. Sci. 2016;62:1511–1531. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2363.

133. Lonial S., Nooka A.K. Novel Combination Approaches for Myeloma. Hematol. Am. Soc. Hematol. Educ. Program. 2015;2015:286–293. doi: 10.1182/asheducation-2015.1.286.

134. Gupta A., Eisenhauer E.A., Booth C.M. The Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022;40:1611–1615. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02810.

135. Bottino D.C., Patel M., Kadakia E., Zhou J., Patel C., Neuwirth R., Iartchouk N., Brake R., Venkatakrishnan K., Chakravarty A. Dose Optimization for Anticancer Drug Combinations: Maximizing Therapeutic Index via Clinical Exposure-Toxicity/Preclinical Exposure-Efficacy Modeling. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;25:6633–6643. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3882.

136. Sergunova V., Leesment S., Kozlov A., Inozemtsev V., Platitsina P., Lyapunova S., Onufrievich A., Polyakov V., Sherstyukova E. Investigation of Red Blood Cells by Atomic Force Microscopy. Sensors. 2022;22:2055. doi: 10.3390/s22052055.

137. Magazzù A., Marcuello C. Investigation of Soft Matter Nanomechanics by Atomic Force Microscopy and Optical Tweezers: A Comprehensive Review. Nanomaterials. 2023;13:963. doi: 10.3390/nano13060963.

138. Uscanga-Palomeque A.C., Chávez-Escamilla A.K., Alvizo-Báez C.A., Saavedra-Alonso S., Terrazas-Armendáriz L.D., Tamez-Guerra R.S., Rodríguez-Padilla C., Alcocer-González J.M. CAR-T Cell Therapy: From the Shop to Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023;24:15688. doi: 10.3390/ijms242115688.

139. Lekka M. Discrimination Between Normal and Cancerous Cells Using AFM. Bionanoscience. 2016;6:65–80. doi: 10.1007/s12668-016-0191-3.

140. Oehrlein E.M., Schoch S., Burcu M., McBeth J.F., Bright J., Pashos C.L., Willke R., Love T.R., Mattingly T.J., Perfetto E.M. Developing Patient-Centered Real-World Evidence: Emerging Methods Recommendations from a Consensus Process. Value Health. 2023;26:28–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2022.04.1738.

141. Faulkner S.D., Somers F., Boudes M., Nafria B., Robinson P. Using Patient Perspectives to Inform Better Clinical Trial Design and Conduct: Current Trends and Future Directions. Pharm. Med. 2023;37:129–138. doi: 10.1007/s40290-022-00458-4.

142. Yap T.A., Parkes E.E., Peng W., Moyers J.T., Curran M.A., Tawbi H.A. Development of Immunotherapy Combination Strategies in Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:1368. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-1209.

143. Vanneman M., Dranoff G. Combining Immunotherapy and Targeted Therapies in Cancer Treatment. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2012;12:237. doi: 10.1038/nrc3237.

144. Metzeler K.H., Platzbecker U., Winer E.S., Verma A., DeAngelo D.J., Severgnini M., Choudhary G.S., Zhao W., Lane M.E., Gallagher C., et al. Predictive Biomarkers of Response to the IRAK4/FLT3 Inhibitor Emavusertib in Hematological Malignancies. J. Clin. Oncol. 2024;42:6550. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.6550.

145. Kiefer J.D., Neri D. Immunocytokines and Bispecific Antibodies: Two Complementary Strategies for the Selective Activation of Immune Cells at the Tumor Site. Immunol. Rev. 2016;270:178–192. doi: 10.1111/imr.12391.

146. Mun J.Y., Leem S.H., Lee J.H., Kim H.S. Dual Relationship Between Stromal Cells and Immune Cells in the Tumor Microenvironment. Front. Immunol. 2022;13:864739. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.864739.

147. Zhuang Y., Liu K., He Q., Gu X., Jiang C., Wu J. Hypoxia Signaling in Cancer: Implications for Therapeutic Interventions. MedComm. 2023;4:e203. doi: 10.1002/mco2.203.

148. Bewersdorf J.P., Shallis R., Stahl M., Zeidan A.M. Epigenetic Therapy Combinations in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: What Are the Options? Ther. Adv Hematol. 2019;10:2040620718816698. doi: 10.1177/2040620718816698.

149. Saito M., Momma T., Kono K. Targeted Therapy According to next Generation Sequencing-Based Panel Sequencing. Fukushima J. Med. Sci. 2018;64:9. doi: 10.5387/fms.2018-02.

150. Topatana W., Juengpanich S., Li S., Cao J., Hu J., Lee J., Suliyanto K., Ma D., Zhang B., Chen M., et al. Advances in Synthetic Lethality for Cancer Therapy: Cellular Mechanism and Clinical Translation. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2020;13:118. doi: 10.1186/s13045-020-00956-5.

151. El Alaoui Y., Elomri A., Qaraqe M., Padmanabhan R., Taha R.Y., El Omri H., EL Omri A., Aboumarzouk O. A Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Hematology Management: Current Practices and Future Prospects. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022;24:e36490. doi: 10.2196/36490.

152. Jiang Y., Lin W., Zhu L. Targeted Drug Delivery for the Treatment of Blood Cancers. Molecules. 2022;27:1310. doi: 10.3390/molecules27041310.

153. Li M., Mei S., Yang Y., Shen Y., Chen L. Strategies to Mitigate the On- and off-Target Toxicities of Recombinant Immunotoxins: An Antibody Engineering Perspective. Antib. Ther. 2022;5:164. doi: 10.1093/abt/tbac014.

Associated Data

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.