Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts: Heterogeneity, Cancer Pathogenesis, and Therapeutic Targets.

Introduction

Cancer remains a leading cause of mortality worldwide, with incidence and death rates continuing to rise. In 2024, the United States alone is projected to see 2,001,140 new cancer cases and 611,720 cancer‐related deaths [ 1 ]. Cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are a heterogeneous population of activated stromal cells that constitute a major component of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Unlike normal fibroblasts, CAFs adopt a protumorigenic phenotype characterized by enhanced proliferation, migration, and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling [ 2 ]. They originate from diverse sources, including resident fibroblasts, bone marrow‐derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), pericytes, and endothelial cells undergoing EndMT, and are activated by cytokines such as transforming growth factor‐beta (TGF‐β), platelet‐derived growth factor (PDGF), and inflammatory signals [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Once activated, CAFs secrete various bioactive molecules, including growth factors (e.g., vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], hepatocyte growth factor [HGF]), chemokines (e.g., CXCL12, CXCL5), and ECM proteins, thereby promoting tumor cell survival, angiogenesis, and immune evasion [ 6 ]. Additionally, CAFs engage in metabolic crosstalk with cancer cells, supplying metabolites such as acetate and lactate to fuel tumor growth and enhance adaptation to hypoxia [ 7 ].

Several key markers are commonly used to identify CAFs, including alpha‐smooth muscle actin (α‐SMA), fibroblast activation protein (FAP), and PDGF receptors (PDGFR‐α/β) [ 8 , 9 ]. However, due to the heterogeneity of CAFs, no single marker universally defines all CAF subsets. This diversity suggests that distinct CAF subpopulations perform specialized functions within the TME, actively contributing to tumor progression. While most CAFs exhibit tumor‐promoting functions, certain subsets have been reported to exert tumor‐suppressive effects, emphasizing the complexity of CAF biology and the need for further research to elucidate their context‐dependent roles in cancer development and therapy resistance [ 10 ]. Recent advances in single‐cell transcriptomics and lineage tracing techniques have revealed significant CAF heterogeneity, leading to the classification of distinct CAF subtypes based on molecular signatures and functional attributes. Broadly, CAFs can be categorized into myofibroblastic CAFs (myCAFs), inflammatory CAFs (iCAFs), and antigen‐presenting CAFs (apCAFs) [ 11 ]. MyCAFs, characterized by high α‐SMA expression and a contractile phenotype, primarily contribute to ECM remodeling and fibrosis [ 12 ]. In contrast, iCAFs exhibit a secretory phenotype, producing high levels of inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) and IL‐8, thereby modulating immune cell recruitment and tumor‐associated inflammation [ 13 , 14 ]. A recently identified subset, apCAFs, expresses major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecules and has been implicated in antigen presentation, potentially influencing antitumor immune responses, although their precise role remains under investigation [ 15 ]. Additional CAF subtypes with distinct metabolic and signaling properties continue to be identified, highlighting the dynamic and context‐dependent nature of CAF functions across different tumor types [ 16 ].

A critical aspect of CAF biology is their role in facilitating cancer progression and therapy resistance. CAFs promote tumor invasion by remodeling the ECM through MMP‐mediated degradation and collagen crosslinking, thereby creating a fibrotic niche [ 17 , 18 ]. Additionally, CAFs produce a range of protumorigenic factors, including TGF‐β, HGF, and fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), that support cancer cell survival, proliferation, and epithelial‐to‐mesenchymal transition (EMT) [ 19 , 20 ]. Moreover, CAFs modulate immune responses by recruiting immunosuppressive cells such as regulatory T cells (Treg cells) and myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) while simultaneously impairing cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) function, thereby fostering an immune‐evasive TME [ 21 ]. CAFs also contribute to therapeutic resistance by altering drug penetration, promoting metabolic reprogramming, and activating survival pathways in tumor cells, ultimately reducing the efficacy of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted therapies [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Given their pivotal role in tumor biology, CAFs have emerged as promising therapeutic targets [ 26 ]. Strategies to modulate CAF activity include targeting CAF‐specific signaling pathways, reprogramming tumor‐promoting CAFs into tumor‐suppressive phenotypes, and disrupting CAF–cancer cell interactions [ 27 ]. However, therapeutic interventions must consider CAF heterogeneity to avoid unintended consequences, as some CAF subsets may have tumor‐restraining effects [ 28 ]. A deeper understanding of CAF plasticity and their dynamic interactions within the TME is essential for developing precision therapeutics aimed at mitigating CAF‐mediated tumor progression and treatment resistance.

Although numerous reviews in recent years have examined the heterogeneity, pathogenic mechanisms, and therapeutic strategies related to CAFs, there is still a lack of a comprehensive review that systematically integrates these aspects while bridging laboratory discoveries with clinical applications from a translational perspective [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Additionally, the emerging concept of theranostics, stemming from advances in imaging technologies and therapeutic strategies targeting CAFs, has yet to be thoroughly reviewed. Theranostics, which combines diagnostic imaging with targeted therapy, holds great promise for advancing precision oncology [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. We propose that CAFs are a compelling target for theranostic approaches, and that their effective clinical translation depends on a thorough understanding of their heterogeneity and functional roles in the TME. Therefore, a systematic review that integrates these elements is both timely and necessary to guide future research and clinical development.

This review begins by exploring the heterogeneity of CAFs across different tumor types and among subtypes within the same tumor type, as reported in recent studies. We then summarize the functional roles of different CAF subsets in the TME, emphasizing their involvement in immune modulation, stromal remodeling, angiogenesis, and the promotion of EMT. Drawing on these functional insights and related molecular markers, we also review positron emission tomography (PET) and fluorescence imaging modalities developed to target CAFs. Furthermore, we provided a comprehensive overview of therapeutic strategies aimed at CAFs, including targeting CAF‐related molecular pathways, selectively depleting specific phenotypic subpopulations, and reprogramming CAFs into quiescent states. Finally, from a clinical translational perspective, we discussed the challenges and potential solutions associated with imaging and therapeutic interventions targeting CAFs and introduced the concept of CAF‐targeted theranostics as a promising strategy for precision cancer therapy.

Heterogeneity of CAFs

The spatial and temporal heterogeneity of CAFs underlies their multifaceted roles in remodeling the TME. Spatial organization determines niche‐specific functions, such as ECM remodeling and angiogenesis, while temporal plasticity (driven by reversible fibroblast dedifferentiation in response to tumor‐derived cues) enables adaptive transitions between activation states. This functional versatility, rooted in diverse tissue origins and molecular drivers, amplifies CAF heterogeneity and their context‐dependent contributions to tumor progression. Deciphering these dynamics requires integrating single‐cell multiomics, spatial imaging, and functional assays to map the molecular determinants of CAF plasticity and subtype‐specific TME interactions. Such insights are critical for developing precision therapies that disrupt the CAF–TME axis by targeting dedifferentiation pathways or spatially restricted functional specializations, ultimately harnessing CAF heterogeneity as a therapeutic vulnerability.

Cellular Origins of CAFs

MSCs as Precursors of CAFs

MSCs serve as a primary source of CAFs within the TME. These multipotent stromal cells, which originate from bone marrow, adipose tissue, and other mesenchymal tissues, can be actively recruited to tumor sites by cytokines and chemokines, including TGF‐β, PDGF, and stromal cell‐derived factor‐1 [ 36 ]. Upon exposure to these tumor‐derived signals, MSCs differentiate into CAFs, acquiring specific characteristics, such as elevated expression levels of α‐SMA, FAP, and vimentin [ 37 ].

The differentiation of MSCs into CAFs is predominantly driven by the TGF‐β/SMAD, NF‐κB, and JAK/STAT signaling pathways. Among these, TGF‐β plays a particularly critical role by initiating a transcriptional program that enhances the expression of CAF‐associated markers and reinforces their profibrotic [ 38 ]. The activation of the NF‐κB and STAT3 pathways further amplifies the protumorigenic functions of MSC‐derived CAFs, leading to increased cytokine production and therapeutic resistance [ 39 , 40 ]. Additionally, MSCs can undergo functional differentiation regulated by factors such as myocardin‐related transcription factor A, which stabilizes their tumor‐promoting CAF phenotype [ 37 ]. Notably, MSC‐derived CAFs exhibit a high degree of plasticity, contributing to their heterogeneity within tumors.

MSC‐derived CAFs have been identified in various cancer types, including breast, lung, and pancreatic cancers, highlighting their significant role in tumor progression [ 37 , 41 , 42 ]. However, the precise molecular mechanisms governing the recruitment and differentiation of MSCs into CAFs remain incompletely understood, particularly regarding the heterogeneity of CAF subsets and their context‐dependent interactions with immune cells. Elucidating these pathways is critical for a more comprehensive understanding of the contributions of MSCs to CAF heterogeneity and their functional diversity across different tumor contexts [ 43 ].

EndMT in CAF Formation

In addition to MSCs, endothelial cells represent another significant source of CAFs through a process known as EndMT [ 44 ]. EndMT involves a phenotypic conversion in which endothelial cells lose their characteristic markers, such as CD31 and VE‐cadherin, while acquiring mesenchymal traits, including the expression of α‐SMA and FAP [ 45 , 46 ]. This transition facilitates the detachment of endothelial cells from the vascular endothelium, allowing them to integrate into the tumor stroma as functionally active CAFs.

EndMT in the formation of CAFs is primarily driven by key tumor‐derived factors, particularly TGF‐β and IL‐6 [ 47 ]. Among these factors, TGF‐β plays a central role by activating the SMAD‐dependent signaling cascade and interacting with other pathways, such as Notch and Wnt/β‐catenin, thereby reinforcing the mesenchymal phenotype [ 48 , 49 ]. Additionally, hypoxia, a hallmark of the TME, promotes EndMT by upregulating hypoxia‐inducible factor‐1α (HIF‐1α), which enhances the expression of transcription factors that induce EndMT, including Snail, Slug, and Twist [ 50 , 51 ].

Notably, EndMT‐generated CAFs exhibit significant plasticity, enabling them to dynamically respond to environmental cues [ 52 ]. Although the extent of EndMT's contribution to the CAF population varies across different cancer types, it represents a crucial alternative mechanism for fibroblast activation within tumors. Further investigation is necessary to delineate the regulatory networks that govern EndMT and its role in shaping the tumor stroma.

Fibroblast Plasticity and Dedifferentiation in the TME

Beyond the recruitment and transdifferentiation of MSCs and endothelial cells, CAFs can also originate from the phenotypic plasticity and dedifferentiation of resident fibroblasts within the TME [ 53 ]. Traditionally considered terminally differentiated, fibroblasts have been shown to undergo dynamic reprogramming in response to tumor‐derived signals, shifting among quiescent, activated, and CAF‐like states [ 54 ]. This plasticity enables fibroblasts to adapt to the evolving TME and contributes to CAF heterogeneity.

Key regulators of fibroblast plasticity include TGF‐β, PDGF, and FGF, which activate signaling pathways such as TGF‐β/SMAD, JAK/STAT, and Wnt/β‐catenin [ 55 ]. Under persistent stimulation, fibroblasts can lose their homeostatic identity and adopt a more primitive, mesenchymal‐like state. This transition is characterized by the downregulation of quiescence markers, such as caveolin‐1, and the upregulation of CAF markers, including α‐SMA and FAP [ 56 , 57 ]. Additionally, epigenetic modifications, including DNA methylation and histone remodeling, play a crucial role in stabilizing the CAF phenotype [ 58 , 59 ].

Importantly, fibroblast dedifferentiation may serve as a reversible mechanism, allowing cells to transition between different activation states in response to tumor‐derived cues [ 60 ]. This plasticity not only expands the potential sources of CAFs but also reinforces their heterogeneity, as fibroblasts from diverse tissue origins may respond differently to oncogenic signals [ 61 ]. Further investigation into the molecular drivers of fibroblast plasticity and dedifferentiation is essential for understanding CAF diversity and its impact on tumor progression.

Molecular and Functional Diversity of CAFs

CAF Subtypes: MyCAFs, Senescent CAFs, and Activated CAFs

CAFs exhibit profound functional and molecular heterogeneity, with distinct subtypes contributing to tumor progression through various mechanisms. MyCAFs, characterized by the expression of αSMA, play a central role in ECM remodeling and tissue contractility. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), myCAFs promote immunosuppression by recruiting Treg cells and expressing programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1). In contrast, in breast cancer, they enhance tumor invasion by secreting CXCL12 and facilitating collagen contraction [ 62 , 63 ]. Notably, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/ERBB2 signaling in PDAC myCAFs drives metastasis through an autocrine loop involving amphiregulin, highlighting their therapeutic vulnerability [ 12 ].

senCAFs, characterized by a senescence‐associated secretory phenotype (SASP), secrete proinflammatory cytokines and ECM components that suppress antitumor immunity. In breast cancer, senCAFs inhibit natural killer (NK) cell activity through collagen deposition, which correlates with tumor recurrence [ 64 ]. In PDAC, p16⁺ senCAFs localized near ductal structures promote immunosuppression and chemoresistance, effects that can be alleviated by senolytic agents [ 65 ]. Additionally, hypoxia exacerbates their SASP in esophageal cancer, driving cancer stemness through the secretion of insulin‐like growth factor 1 (IGF1) [ 66 ].

Activated CAFs, induced by TGF‐β or inflammatory cytokines, exhibit protumorigenic phenotypes. In colon cancer, these cells reprogram the TME through the induction of EMT and glycolytic remodeling, thereby fostering immunosuppression [ 67 ]. In gastric cancer, activated CAFs secrete paracrine factors that enhance resistance to 5‐fluorouracil [ 68 ]. Additionally, Snail1⁺ fibroblasts in colon cancer stimulate tumor cell migration via MCP‐3‐mediated signaling [ 69 ].

Interactions among CAF subtypes are dynamic and context dependent. For example, hypoxia can reprogram myCAFs into senCAFs, thereby amplifying immunosuppression. Targeting these subtypes offers therapeutic opportunities: senolytic agents can delay tumor growth by eliminating senCAFs, while inhibition of the EGFR preferentially suppresses metastatic myCAFs in PDAC. Additionally, spatial transcriptomics has shown that POSTN⁺ myCAFs in non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) correlate with resistance to immunotherapy [ 70 ]. A deeper understanding of CAF heterogeneity and plasticity will be crucial for refining therapeutic strategies and improving clinical outcomes in cancer treatment (Figure 1 ).

Molecular Signatures of CAFs: Transcriptomic and Proteomic Profiling

The molecular heterogeneity of CAFs has been systematically dissected through transcriptomic and proteomic profiling, revealing distinct functional subtypes and regulatory mechanisms. Single‐cell RNA sequencing (scRNA‐seq) has emerged as a cornerstone technology for classifying CAFs into transcriptionally distinct subsets. For instance, pan‐cancer analyses have identified four major subtypes: iCAFs, matrix CAFs (mCAFs), proliferative CAFs, and metabolic CAFs, each characterized by unique gene expression profiles. iCAFs are enriched in chemokines such as CCL11 and CXCL12, which mediate immune cell recruitment, whereas mCAFs exhibit high expression of ECM remodeling genes, including MMP11 and COL1A1, reflecting their role in tissue remodeling [ 71 ]. Notably, cancer type‐specific CAF subtypes have been reported, such as vascular CAFs, marked by NOTCH3 and COL18A1 in breast cancer, and tumor‐associated CAFs (tCAFs), enriched in MME and NDRG1 in pancreatic cancer [ 72 ].

The functional specialization of CAFs is further elucidated by lineage‐tracing studies. For instance, macrophage–myofibroblast transition, driven by Smad3 signaling, generates CAFs with protumorigenic properties in NSCLC [ 73 ]. In gastric cancer, scRNA‐seq has identified ECM CAFs that promote tumor invasion and correlate with poor prognosis. Similarly, glioblastoma CAFs have been shown to enhance stemness and angiogenesis through growth factor secretion and ECM remodeling [ 74 ].

Proteomic profiling complements transcriptomics by validating functional proteins and revealing spatial dynamics. For instance, periostin and CD36 have been identified as markers of CAFs in ovarian cancer, with their spatial distribution correlating with patient survival [ 75 ]. In pancreatic cancer, the LAMA5/ITGA4 axis drives acinar‐to‐ductal metaplasia, a precursor to carcinogenesis, through STAT3 activation [ 76 ]. Additionally, proteomics has uncovered NNMT as a master metabolic regulator in ovarian CAFs, mediating DNA methylation and contributing to drug resistance [ 59 ]. The integration of multiomics has provided deeper insights into CAF biology. A cross‐species study identified three conserved CAF phenotypes: steady‐state‐like, mechanoresponsive, and immunomodulatory, highlighting their evolutionary conservation and therapeutic vulnerability [ 77 ]. In glioblastoma, fibronectin (FN1) has been validated as a key CAF‐secreted factor that promotes mesenchymal transition and invasion [ 78 ].

Clinically, CAF‐derived molecular signatures show promise as biomarkers. For instance, collagen XII has been shown to predict metastatic relapse in breast cancer [ 79 ], while APOE–LRP5 signaling correlates with poor outcomes in ovarian cancer [ 75 ]. Targeting CAF‐specific pathways is emerging as a promising therapeutic strategy. The molecular heterogeneity of CAFs underscores their dynamic role in tumor progression. Although technical limitations and functional plasticity pose challenges, these findings highlight the necessity of integrating multiomics with spatial and functional analyses to fully elucidate CAF‐mediated mechanisms. Such efforts will be critical for translating CAF heterogeneity into precision oncology.

Functional Roles in ECM Remodeling, Growth Factor Secretion, and Angiogenesis

CAFs exhibit remarkable molecular and functional diversity, leading to tumor‐specific contributions in ECM remodeling, growth factor signaling, and angiogenesis [ 80 ]. These processes vary among CAF subpopulations and are influenced by cancer types, genetic mutations, and microenvironmental cues.

CAFs dynamically restructure the ECM through collagen deposition, degradation, and crosslinking, creating a mechanically and biochemically heterogeneous niche. For instance, in colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases, portal‐derived CAFs adopt a contractile myofibroblastic phenotype and produce collagen IV to promote desmoplasia. This stromal stiffening paradoxically restricts cancer cell proliferation while enhancing metastatic colonization by inducing integrin‐mediated signaling [ 81 ]. Conversely, in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), CAFs secrete small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) enriched in lysyl oxidase (LOX), which triggers collagen crosslinking and EMT via the p‐focal adhesion kinase (FAK)/p‐paxillin/YAP axis. Notably, LOX‐positive sEVs are preferentially secreted by αSMA‐negative CAFs, highlighting subpopulation‐specific ECM‐modifying strategies [ 82 , 83 ]. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) further emphasize CAF heterogeneity. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), CAFs adjacent to tumors express MMP‐9 and TIMP‐1 in a spatially restricted manner, promoting ECM degradation at the invasion front while preserving structural integrity elsewhere [ 84 , 85 ]. This dual role is mirrored in Ewing sarcoma, where CAF‐like cells secrete protumorigenic ECM proteins, such as periostin, to support metastasis while simultaneously expressing TIMP‐2 to limit excessive ECM breakdown [ 86 ]. Such functional specialization ensures precise ECM remodeling tailored to the stages of tumor progression.

CAFs secrete a diverse array of growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines that modulate tumor–immune crosstalk and metabolic reprogramming. However, their secretory profiles are not generic; rather, they align with specific CAF subtypes. For instance, TGF‐β secreted by CAFs in HCC and CRC drives EMT and immunosuppression, yet its efficacy depends on CAF polarization: N2‐polarized CAFs enhance TGF‐β signaling to recruit immunosuppressive neutrophils, whereas M2‐like CAFs prioritize the paracrine activation of PD‐L1 expression on tumor cells [ 81 , 84 , 87 , 88 ]. Similarly, FGF19 secretion in CRC liver metastases is restricted to inflammatory CAFs (CD14+), which activate the FGFR4–JAK2–STAT3 pathway to promote neutrophil extracellular trap formation. This process creates a nutrient‐rich microenvironment by degrading extracellular DNA, in contrast to αSMA + CAFs that primarily sustain fibrotic stroma [ 88 , 89 ]. Notably, IGF2 secretion by CAFs in pancreatic cancer is associated with EMT‐related CAFs, which upregulate PD‐L1 to evade T‐cell surveillance [ 6 ]. These examples illustrate how distinct CAF subpopulations encode specific growth factor signatures to orchestrate tumor progression.

CAF‐driven angiogenesis is highly heterogeneous, with subpopulations employing distinct molecular and metabolic strategies to remodel the vasculature. In colon cancer, CAFs adjacent to oncogenic KRAS‐mutant tumors secrete VEGF A (VEGFA) and HIF‐1α, promoting endothelial sprouting through mTORC2‐AKT activation. However, VEGFA expression is selectively upregulated in SULF1‐negative CAFs, which lack heparan sulfate proteoglycan modification, thereby increasing VEGFA bioavailability [ 90 , 91 ]. Conversely, in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, CAF‐derived milk fat globule–EGF factor 8 (MFGE8) binds to integrin receptors on endothelial cells, activating the PI3K/AKT/ERK pathways to enhance vascular permeability. This effect is amplified by lipid metabolism reprogramming in CAFs, which accumulate lipids to provide energy for endothelial proliferation [ 92 ]. Epigenetic regulation further diversifies CAF angiogenic functions. FTO‐mediated m6A demethylation in conjunctival melanoma CAFs stabilizes VEGFA and EGR1 transcripts, whereas gut microbiota‐derived butyrate suppresses angiogenesis by inhibiting histone deacetylase 3 and reducing SULF1 expression in CRC CAFs [91, 93 ]. The PDPN/CCL2/STAT3 feedback loop in CAFs sustains proangiogenic polarization in CRC; however, this is disrupted in LRRC15+ immunosuppressive CAFs, which instead secrete angiostatic factors such as TIMP‐3 [ 94 , 95 ]. Such contextual angiogenic programs underscore CAF heterogeneity as a critical determinant of vascular remodeling.

In summary, CAF heterogeneity enables specialized contributions to ECM remodeling, growth factor signaling, and angiogenesis, with each role tailored to specific tumor contexts. Unraveling the molecular determinants of these functional specializations will aid in developing precision therapies that disrupt the CAF–TME axis in a subtype‐specific manner.

Spatial and Temporal Heterogeneity in TMEs

CAFs exhibit profound spatial and temporal heterogeneity, which greatly influences tumor progression, immune modulation, and therapeutic responses. This duality reflects their adaptive responses to microenvironmental cues and therapeutic interventions.

CAFs display distinct spatial distributions across various tumor types and microanatomical niches. In NSCLC, imaging mass cytometry identified four CAF subpopulations: hypoxia‐associated tCAFs, which promote immune exhaustion, and inflammatory iCAFs/ifnCAFs, which are enriched in inflamed regions, highlighting their spatially segregated functions [ 96 ]. Similarly, in breast cancer, FAP‐positive (FAP+) CAFs demonstrated peritumoral and perivascular localization, with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4)/YAP1‐driven plasticity linking their distribution to immune exclusion and invasion [ 97 ]. In CRC, T cell‐infiltrating CAFs expressing NECTIN2/CD40 localized adjacent to T cells, suppressing their activation through direct signaling [ 98 ]. These findings underscore how spatial positioning endows CAFs with context‐dependent roles in immune regulation and tissue remodeling.

CAFs undergo dynamic changes over time, driven by tumor progression and therapeutic interventions. In high‐grade serous ovarian cancer, chemotherapy reshapes CAF populations by reducing the presence of ECM–myCAFs while increasing iCAFs, which alters CD8+ T cell dynamics and promotes immune evasion [ 99 ]. Mouse models of triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC) revealed temporal shifts in CAF subpopulations, with PDGFRβ+ CAFs dominating established tumors compared with PDGFRα+ CAFs in healthy tissue [ 100 ]. In NSCLC, specific CAF subsets such as CAF7 (PDGFRA−/PDGFRB+/FAP+) were correlated with poor prognosis and immune suppression, while CAF13 (PDGFRA+/PDGFRB+/FAP−) was associated with favorable outcomes in EGFR‐mutant tumors [ 101 ]. These temporal dynamics highlight the adaptability of CAFs to evolving microenvironments.

Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of CAFs is governed by signaling pathways and microenvironmental interactions. Hypoxia drives glycolysis and ECM remodeling in tCAFs in NSCLC [ 96 ], while YAP1 activation mediates FAP‐positive (FAP+) CAF plasticity in HCC [ 97 ]. Therapeutically, targeting YAP1 or DPP4 disrupts immunosuppressive CAF phenotypes, enhancing T cell infiltration [ 97 , 99 ]. In head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, CCL19‐positive fibroblast‐like CAFs within tertiary lymphoid structures correlate with immunotherapy response, suggesting niche‐specific therapeutic targeting [ 102 ].

The spatial and temporal heterogeneity of CAFs reflects their multifaceted roles in TME remodeling. While spatial distribution determines niche‐specific functions, temporal dynamics allow for adaptive responses to therapy. Integrating single‐cell multiomics, spatial imaging, and functional assays will be essential for deciphering the complexity of CAF heterogeneity and harnessing its therapeutic potential.

Mechanisms of CAFs in Cancer Pathogenesis

CAFs in the TME exist in multiple subtypes and play a critical role in tumor initiation, progression, and drug resistance. They contribute to the activation of key signaling pathways, including TGF‐β and Wnt, and interact with cancer cells through mechanisms such as ECM remodeling, maintenance of cancer cell stemness, and immune regulation. These interactions form a complex network that influences tumor dynamics. A comprehensive analysis of these networks can provide deeper insights into the role of CAFs in tumor progression and aid in identifying novel and precise therapeutic targets, ultimately enhancing the efficacy of antitumor treatments.

Immune Suppressive Microenvironment

Numerous studies on various solid tumors have demonstrated that the immunosuppressive microenvironment, consisting of immunosuppressive cells, ECM, and other tumor‐associated components, plays a critical role in tumor initiation and progression [ 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ]. As a key component of the TME, CAFs contribute to the formation of an immunosuppressive microenvironment through matrix remodeling, cytokine secretion, and direct inhibition of CTLs [80, 108 , 109 , 110 ]. Reshaping the immunosuppressive TME and enhancing the body's intrinsic antitumor response are central objectives in contemporary cancer treatment research [ 111 , 112 , 113 ]. The molecular mechanisms underlying CAF function in the immunosuppressive microenvironment have been extensively studied, involving multiple pathways such as TGF‐β, Wnt, MAPK, and NF‐kappaB [ 24 , 114 , 115 ]. Rather than focusing on a single pathway, this study adopts a broader perspective, examining the specific roles of CAFs to better align with diagnostic and therapeutic strategies targeting these mechanisms.

Expressing Immune Checkpoint Ligands

Cancer evades immune surveillance through various mechanisms, with the PD‐1/PD‐L1 signaling pathway playing a central role by inducing apoptosis in antigen‐specific T cells while inhibiting apoptosis in Treg cells [ 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 ]. Consequently, numerous immunotherapeutic strategies targeting PD‐1 and PD‐L1 have been developed, leading to significant advancements in cancer treatment [ 120 , 121 ]. Similar to PD‐1/PD‐L1, CTLA‐4 is a crucial molecule in maintaining an immunosuppressive environment and is expressed in various tumors. Primarily found on T cells, CTLA‐4 competes with CD28 for binding to CD80/CD86, thereby blocking the costimulatory signals necessary for T cell proliferation during the initiation phase of the immune response [ 122 ]. As the first approved immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), the humanized CTLA‐4 antibody ipilimumab has transformed clinical cancer treatment, significantly improving the 10‐year survival rate of patients with metastatic melanoma [ 123 ]. It is widely believed that cancer cells induce CTL apoptosis by expressing PD‐L1. However, recent studies have revealed that CAFs can also express PD‐L1, thereby contributing to CTL apoptosis.

In recent years, the discovery of PD‐L1(+) CAFs in various solid tumors has deepened our understanding of the functions of CAFs. In addition to their previously known role in secreting cytokines to regulate PD‐L1 expression in cancer cells, the direct inhibitory effect of CAFs on CTLs must also be acknowledged. In esophageal cancer, cancer cells and fibroblasts mutually enhance PD‐L1 expression, contributing to tumor immune suppression. In vivo experiments have demonstrated that anti‐PD‐L1 antibodies promote the death of both CAFs and cancer cells, resulting in an increase in CD8+ T cells and a reduction in FoxP3+ Treg cells [ 124 ]. Due to cancer heterogeneity, PD‐L1 expression in CAFs is not universal. Teramoto et al. [ 125 ] isolated PD‐L1(+) CAFs in NSCLC, observing this subpopulation in 24.8% of patients. Patients with PD‐L1(+) CAFs had a significantly better prognosis compared with those with PD‐L1(−) CAFs. In vitro experiments further demonstrated that PD‐L1 expression in CAFs is reversibly regulated by environmental stimuli, including IFN‐γ produced by activated lymphocytes [ 125 ]. Zhang et al. [ 126 ] found that Jagged1 derived from glioma enhanced CAF proliferation and increased PD‐L1 expression in vitro. In gliomas with Jagged1 expression, the levels of Notch1, c‐Myc, and PD‐L1 were significantly elevated. Furthermore, it was confirmed that Notch1 and PD‐L1 expression were localized to CAFs in glioma tissues [ 126 ]. Although most other studies primarily attribute PD‐L1 expression to cancer cells, we cannot overlook the direct expression of PD‐L1 in CAFs, which may explain the differences in the efficacy of immunotherapy in some cancers. High‐throughput omics technologies, such as single‐cell sequencing, provide an intuitive perspective to observe the role of PD‐L1(+) CAFs in the TME [ 127 , 128 ].

Recruit Immunosuppressive Cells

Immunosuppressive cells within tumors include various cell types. Extensive research across different tumor types has identified Treg cells, MDSCs, tumor‐associated macrophages (TAMs), and tumor‐associated neutrophils (TANs) as the primary contributors to immune suppression in the TME [ 104 , 106 , 129 , 130 , 131 ]. These cells foster the immunosuppressive microenvironment by secreting inhibitory cytokines, promoting angiogenesis, and recruiting additional immunosuppressive cells [ 132 , 133 , 134 ]. CAFs can recruit various immunosuppressive cells through the secretion of multiple cytokines.

A major advance in the understanding of immune regulation is the identification and characterization of a group of CD4(+) T cells, known as Treg cells, which play a critical role in preventing autoimmune responses, including organ‐specific autoimmunity, systemic autoimmunity, and colitis. A large number of Treg cells are enriched in tumors, and these cells are highly activated and express elevated levels of coinhibitory molecules such as CTLA‐4, PD‐1, LAG3, and TIGIT [ 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 ]. Simultaneously, Treg cells can secrete IL‐10, promoting CTL exhaustion [ 139 ]. The specific roles and mechanisms of Treg cells in the tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment have been extensively reviewed. Here, we focus on the impact of CAFs on this T cell population [ 140 ]. Research by Costa et al. [ 21 ] demonstrated that CAFs attract CD4+ CD25+ T lymphocytes by secreting CXCL12 and CAF‐S1 and retain them through OX40L, PD‐L2, and JAM2. Meanwhile, CAFs can enhance the inhibitory effect of Treg cells on the proliferation of effector T cells. Notably, this work identified four distinct CAF subpopulations in breast cancer, indicating the high heterogeneity of CAFs [ 21 ]. apCAFs are a specialized subtype of CAFs derived from mesothelial cells. In pancreatic cancer, mesothelial cells downregulate their mesothelial characteristics and acquire fibroblast‐like features, thereby forming apCAFs. These apCAFs express MHC‐II molecules and can directly interact with naive CD4+ T cells, inducing their differentiation into Treg cells in an antigen‐specific manner [ 19 ]. Varveri et al. [ 141 ] reported that α‐SMA+ CAFs can form immune synapses with Foxp3+ Treg cells within tumors. These α‐SMA+ CAFs are capable of phagocytosing and processing tumor antigens, exhibiting a tolerogenic phenotype that promotes the antigen‐specific arrest, activation, and proliferation of Treg cells. This study highlighted the immunosuppressive mechanism underlying the synapse formation between α‐SMA+ CAFs and Treg cells, which occurs through an autophagy‐dependent process [ 141 ]. Research by O'Connor et al. [ 142 ] indicates that CAFs provide TGF‐β during T cell activation, leading to an expansion of activated Treg cells and a subsequent reduction in available IL‐2. Inhibition of TGF‐β signaling can prevent CAF‐driven upregulation of CXCL13 and inhibit the expansion of the Treg cell population [ 142 ]. The same phenomenon was observed in SCLC of neuroendocrine origin [ 143 ].

However, some studies have shown that specific subgroups of CAFs do not promote Treg cells; instead, they can inhibit Treg cell activity. Zhao et al. [ 144 ] identified a novel CAF subgroup in OSCC that is CD68‐positive and highly expresses CD68. The presence of high CD68+ CAFs was linked to tumor initiation. Interestingly, a higher proportion of tumor‐supportive Treg cells was observed in patients with low CD68+ CAFs. Mechanistically, knockdown of CD68 in CAFs led to the upregulation of chemokines CCL17 and CCL22 in tumor cells, thereby enhancing Treg cell recruitment [ 144 ]. Similarly, Pei et al. [ 145 ] found that CAFs express CD1d and activate NKT cells under stress conditions. These NKT cells are considered crucial players in the body's antitumor immune response [ 145 , 146 ]. This research highlights the critical role of CAFs in the proliferation and activation of Treg cells within the TME. However, due to the high heterogeneity of CAFs, some studies have also explored their potential in promoting antitumor immunity. Further classification of CAF subgroups and targeting specific markers for treatment may offer a promising approach to enhancing therapeutic efficacy.

MDSCs are an immature myeloid cell population that arises under pathological conditions and is characterized by their ability to suppress T‐cell activity in cancer [ 147 ]. CAFs actively recruit MDSCs by secreting cytokines and chemokines, thereby contributing to the establishment of an immunosuppressive TME. For instance, Zhu et al. [ 148 ] demonstrated in HCC that CD36(+) CAFs secrete macrophage migration inhibitory factor to promote MDSC accumulation. Additionally, these CAFs enhance PD‐L1 expression through STAT3 signaling, thereby suppressing CD8+ T cell activity and reinforcing the CAF–MDSC‐driven immunosuppressive axis [ 148 ]. Similarly, Kumar et al. [ 149 ] found that CAFs produce GM‐CSF and IL‐6 to recruit polymorphonuclear MDSCs, which contribute to resistance against CSF1R blockade. This highlights CAF‐driven MDSC regulation as a key mechanism underlying therapy resistance [ 149 ]. The crosstalk between CAFs and MDSCs involves multiple signaling pathways. Yang et al. [ 150 ] identified STAT3 activation in CAFs as a key driver of CCL2 upregulation, which recruits MDSCs through the CCL2–CCR2 axis and enhances their immunosuppressive functions. In lung squamous cell carcinoma, Xiang et al. [ 151 ] demonstrated that CAFs promote the differentiation of monocytic MDSCs through ROS/p38 MAPK pathway activation, establishing a link between oxidative stress and CAF‐mediated immunosuppression. In pancreatic cancer, Bianchi et al. [ 152 ] confirmed that CAFs activate the CXCL1/CXCR2 axis to induce neutrophil‐derived TNFα production, promoting an MDSC‐enriched TME and highlighting the pivotal role of chemokine networks in tumor immunosuppression. CAFs also regulate MDSCs indirectly through epigenetic and exosomal mechanisms. Zhao et al. [ 153 ] reported in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma that CAF‐derived IL‐6, in synergy with exosomal miR‐21, activates STAT3 signaling, driving MDSC expansion and conferring resistance to cisplatin. Additionally, CAF‐secreted EVs deliver immunosuppressive cargo that directly enhances MDSC‐mediated T‐cell suppression, emphasizing the multifaceted complexity of CAF–MDSC interactions [ 154 ].

Targeting the CAF–MDSC axis may enhance immunotherapy efficacy. Khalaf et al. [ 155 ] suggested that neutralizing CAF‐derived CCL2 or CXCL12 could help remodel the TME and alleviate immunosuppression. Recent work by Akiyama et al. [ 156 ] demonstrated that dual PDGFRα/β blockade reduces MDSC infiltration and synergizes with anti‐PD‐1 therapy, providing a preclinical rationale for combination strategies in cancer treatment. In summary, CAFs recruit and activate MDSCs through secreted factors, signaling pathways, and exosomal communication, forming a cascading immunosuppressive network. Therapeutic cotargeting of this axis has the potential to overcome current limitations in cancer immunotherapy.

TAMs are macrophages that play a crucial role in the formation of the TME and are commonly found in various tumors [ 157 , 158 ]. TAMs are generally classified into two main subtypes within the TME: M1 and M2. M1 macrophages are involved in antitumor immunity, whereas M2 macrophages promote immunosuppression and support tumor progression [ 159 ]. The primary CAF subtypes (iCAF, myCAF, and apCAF) are essential components of the TME. Their interaction with TAMs is primarily mediated through cytokine secretion. iCAFs predominantly contribute to macrophage enrichment, whereas myCAFs play a major role in TAM polarization.

CAFs can recruit monocytes to the tumor site through various signaling pathways. Similar to the recruitment of MDSCs, CAFs may recruit monocytes to the tumor site via the CCL2–CCR2 signaling pathway. In a study on esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, Higashino et al. [ 160 ] found that CAFs induce M2 polarization of TAMs, with FAP expression being a key factor driving the tumor‐promoting and immunosuppressive phenotype of CAFs. Similar results were observed in studies on intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [ 150 ]. The CXCL16 chemokine derived from CAFs may recruit monocytes, promote stromal activation, and facilitate tumor progression in TNBC [ 161 ]. Likewise, CXCL14 produced by CAFs can enhance macrophage recruitment to the tumor site, promoting prostate tumor growth [ 162 ]. Among the pathways involved in monocyte recruitment, the CXCL12–CXCR4 axis has been extensively studied. CAFs produce high levels of CXCL12 in the TME, and the CXCL12–CXCR4 axis plays a crucial role in recruiting monocytes to the tumor tissues [ 163 ]. The iCAF–TAM axis primarily activates the complement cascade pathway through the interaction of complement C5 and its receptor C5AR1. The C5 pathway serves as a crucial chemokine for recruiting immunosuppressive myeloid cells, ultimately leading to the inhibition of T‐cell activity [ 164 ]. The interaction of the C3–C3aR iCAF–TAM axis has been further elucidated in melanoma, head and neck cancers, and breast cancer [ 165 ]. CD34+ CAFs produce C3 and convert it to its activated form (C3a) in the TME, facilitating the recruitment of C3aR+ circulating monocytes. CAFs primarily promote the M2 polarization of TAMs by secreting cytokines. In summary, a variety of cytokines, including IL‐8, IL‐33, IL‐10, TGF‐β, and CCL2, can be secreted by CAFs, and they have been shown to promote M2 polarization of TAMs in the TME [ 39 , 166 , 167 , 168 , 169 ].

The role of TANs in cancer progression and tumor immunity remains controversial. In many solid tumors, a high neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio is associated with poor overall survival (OS). Extensive research indicates that neutrophils suppress both innate and adaptive immunity, thereby facilitating tumorigenesis [ 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 ].

Multiple studies have demonstrated that CAFs recruit immunosuppressive neutrophils through specific chemokine signaling pathways, thereby shaping an immunosuppressive TME. In HCC, CAFs were shown to secrete CXCL12, which directly recruits CXCR4+ neutrophils that impair CD8+ T cell function via arginase‐1 (ARG1) production and reactive oxygen species (ROS)‐mediated suppression [ 6 ]. Spatial transcriptomic analysis in CRC further revealed neutrophils densely clustered within CAF‐enriched immune hubs, where their spatial colocalization with CAFs correlates with upregulated PD‐L1 expression and adaptive immune resistance [ 175 ]. The functional interplay between CAFs and neutrophils extends beyond chemotaxis; in breast cancer models, fibroblast‐derived IL‐33 activates neutrophil ST2 receptors, driving IL‐10/TGF‐β production that polarizes Th2‐type immunity [ 167 ]. scRNA‐seq studies in breast cancer additionally identified bidirectional CXCL8–CXCR1/2 axis communication between CAFs and neutrophils, amplifying N2 polarization characterized by ARG1+ and CCL2+ phenotypes that inhibit dendritic cell (DC) maturation [ 176 ]. Recent spatial mapping in lung cancer uncovered CAF‐organized fibrotic barriers that spatially confine immunosuppressive neutrophils at tumor‐invasive fronts while excluding cytotoxic T cells, a spatial configuration associated with poor clinical outcomes [ 177 ]. Similarly, pancreatic cancer liver metastasis models demonstrated stable ICAM‐1/β2‐integrin‐mediated adhesions between CAFs and neutrophils that cooperatively block T cell transmigration [ 178 ]. Clinically, CAF‐mediated neutrophil recruitment mechanisms are particularly significant in premetastatic niche formation, with CRC studies identifying CXCL1/2–CXCR2 and CSF3R as potential therapeutic targets to disrupt this axis [ 179 ]. Emerging spatial intervention strategies suggest that disrupting CAF‐neutrophil cluster colocalization could enhance PD‐1 blockade efficacy, evidenced by a 3.2‐fold increase in treatment response in preclinical models through microenvironmental reprogramming [ 175 ]. Collectively, these findings position CAF‐neutrophil crosstalk as a critical orchestrator of immunosuppression across multiple malignancies, offering novel therapeutic opportunities through spatial and functional modulation of tumor‐stromal interactions.

In summary, CAFs contribute to the formation of an immunosuppressive TME by recruiting immunosuppressive cells through cytokine secretion and other mechanisms, thereby inhibiting antitumor immunity. However, the diverse functional roles of different CAF subpopulations highlight the complexity of their interactions. Further investigation using omics technologies to elucidate the crosstalk between specific CAF subtypes and immunosuppressive cells is crucial. These insights may pave the way for novel therapeutic strategies targeting CAF‐mediated immunosuppression in cancer immunotherapy.

Secretion Inhibitory Factor

In addition to recruiting immunosuppressive cells through cytokine secretion, CAFs can directly suppress the activity of antitumor immune cells, particularly CD8+ T cells, by releasing immunosuppressive cytokines. TGF‐β, a key cytokine secreted by CAFs, plays a crucial role in shaping the immunosuppressive TME [ 115 , 180 ]. The activation of the TGF‐β signaling pathway in the TME has been extensively documented in previous reviews [ 181 , 182 ]. The study by Li et al. [ 183 ] demonstrates that Ln‐γ2 is transcribed and activated via the JNK/AP1 signaling pathway in response to TGF‐β1 secreted by CAFs. This process alters T cell receptor expression, thereby preventing T cell infiltration into tumor nests [ 183 ]. More importantly, TGF‐β directly suppresses the function of effector T cells, further contributing to immune evasion in the TME. In melanoma, research by Ahmadzadeh et al. [ 184 ] demonstrated that TGF‐β1 not only inhibits the acquisition of effector functions in human memory CD8+ T cells and tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes but also suppresses their expression.

Compared with effector T cells, the antitumor effects of NK cells have been studied to a lesser extent. NK cells can rapidly kill multiple adjacent cells that display surface markers associated with cancer. This unique ability, combined with their capacity to enhance antibody and T‐cell responses, positions NK cells as key anticancer agents [ 185 , 186 , 187 , 188 ]. Despite the various mechanisms tumors may develop to evade NK cell attacks, recent advancements in CAR‐NK cell therapy have shown promising potential as a novel treatment approach [ 189 ]. CAFs suppress NK cell activation by secreting prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase (IDO), thereby inhibiting key activating receptors such as DNAM‐1, NKp44, and NKp30. This immunosuppressive mechanism has been observed in liver, breast, and CRCs [ 190 , 191 , 192 ]. Studies have demonstrated that CAF inhibitors can enhance the efficacy of CAR‐NK cell therapy by reducing IL‐6 secretion from CAFs, thereby mitigating immunosuppressive effects in the TME [ 193 ]. A study has also shown that in gastric cancer, CAFs induce ferroptosis in NK cells by regulating iron metabolism, which contributes to immune evasion [ 194 ]. In breast cancer, a distinct subpopulation of senescent CAFs secretes a specialized ECM that specifically impairs NK cell cytotoxicity, thereby facilitating tumor progression [ 64 ]. Similarly, CAFs express Dickkopf‐1, a Wnt/β‐catenin inhibitor, which suppresses NK cell activation and cytotoxicity by downregulating AKT/ERK/S6 phosphorylation [ 195 ]. Remarkably, CAFs can induce their own lysis and downregulate the expression of activating receptors on NK cells through ligand–receptor interactions. This process promotes cancer cell evasion from NK cell surveillance, further contributing to tumor immune escape [ 196 ].

In PDAC, NetG1‐associated CAFs demonstrate intrinsic immunosuppressive properties that inhibit NK cell‐mediated tumor cell killing. This suppression is regulated by the NetG1 downstream signaling pathway, which involves AKT/4E‐BP1, p38/FRA1, vesicular glutamate transporter 1, and glutamine synthetase [ 197 ]. Similar inhibitory effects have also been observed in endometrial cancer [ 198 ]. Notably, radiotherapy does not eliminate this suppression, as CAFs maintain their ability to inhibit NK cell activity even after treatment [ 199 ].

Recent studies have demonstrated that CAFs inhibit NK cells through various mechanisms. This complexity is evident not only in the heterogeneity across different tumor types but also in the diverse regulatory pathways within the same tumor, as seen in breast cancer. Such variability poses a challenge to the precision of tumor therapy. A potential strategy to enhance treatment efficacy is to consider multiple pathways when selecting therapeutic targets, thereby overcoming CAF‐mediated immune suppression.

Regulating the immune microenvironment of tumors is a critical function of CAFs. By secreting cytokines to recruit immunosuppressive cells, directly inhibiting antitumor immune cells, and expressing immune checkpoints, CAFs play a pivotal role in maintaining the immunosuppressive TME. However, the mechanisms involved are highly complex, with significant heterogeneity observed not only between different tumor types but also among subtypes within the same tumor. To counter the immunosuppressive effects of CAFs, multiple immunotherapeutic approaches should be employed to target as many pathways as possible while also developing precise therapies aimed at specific CAF subtypes. Simultaneously, the potential dual roles of CAFs in both promoting and inhibiting tumors must be carefully considered, and further research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms (Figure 2 ).

Matrix Remodeling and Angiogenesis

In various tumors, including breast [ 79 , 200 ], head and neck [ 201 , 202 ], esophageal [ 203 ], pancreatic [ 204 ], and CRCs [ 205 ], a dense, rigid ECM with highly cross‐linked fibers is associated with increased metastatic potential and poor prognosis [ 206 , 207 , 208 ]. The dense ECM obstructs drug delivery by acting as a physical barrier to compound penetration [ 209 , 210 ] and by compressing blood vessels. This vascular compression reduces the supply of oxygen and nutrients, ultimately impairing lymphocyte activation [ 211 , 212 ]. Angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels from preexisting vasculature, is essential for tumor growth and hematogenous metastasis. CAFs play a critical role in this process by secreting proangiogenic growth factors, attracting vascular endothelial cells, and recruiting monocytes from the bone marrow. Additionally, the ECM produced by CAFs modulates the biomechanical properties of the tumor stroma, including stiffness, elasticity, and interstitial fluid pressure. These changes indirectly influence tumor vascularization and blood flow, further supporting tumor progression. As a result, therapeutic approaches targeting CAFs or indirectly targeting the ECM and tumor vessels generated by CAFs have garnered significant attention in recent years.

Matrix Production and Remodeling

Activation of the TGF‐β pathway induces the transformation of fibroblasts into CAFs within the TME [ 115 , 213 ]. CAFs involved in ECM deposition exhibit myofibroblast‐like characteristics and express ECM‐related genes, including those encoding collagen, proteoglycans, and glycoproteins [ 214 , 215 ]. Additionally, CAFs secrete enzymes such as LOXs and hydroxylases, which catalyze the cross‐linking of collagen and elastin, as well as the posttranslational modifications of ECM proteins, thereby contributing to the structural and mechanical properties of the tumor stroma [ 83 , 216 ].

The deposited ECM contributes to tumor drug resistance by acting as a physical barrier, limiting drug penetration and reducing therapeutic efficacy. In breast cancer, high‐density stroma significantly suppresses T‐cell proliferation compared with low‐density stroma. Prolonged culture in a high‐density stromal environment leads to an increased CD4+/CD8+ T‐cell ratio. Notably, the surrounding collagen density does not influence cancer cell proliferation [ 217 ]. Under the mechanical pressure exerted by a rigid ECM, infiltrating T lymphocyte populations undergo significant alterations in quantity, surface marker expression, subset composition, and gene expression profiles [ 218 ]. The motility of cancer cells is inherently limited, preventing them from traversing the ECM solely through their own mechanisms [ 219 ]. Studies have shown that CAFs expressing α‐SMA can acquire the ability to contract the ECM within the TME. This contractile capability facilitates tumor cell penetration through the dense ECM, thereby promoting tumor invasion [ 220 , 221 ]. This clarifies why the dense ECM exerts a greater impact on immune cells than on tumor cells and how CAFs facilitate tumor cell migration within the ECM.

The rigidity of the ECM also influences various immune cells, modulating their infiltration, activation, and functional properties within the TME. Studies have shown that the dense ECM in tumors not only directly suppresses the activity of CD8+ T cells but also affects the function of immunosuppressive cells, such as TAMs, thereby enhancing their inhibitory effects on T cells [ 222 , 223 ]. The primary component of the ECM is collagen. In an in vivo model, knocking out the collagen gene resulted in a decreased OS rate [ 224 , 225 ]. However, when a LOX inhibitor was combined with the chemotherapy drug gemcitabine for the treatment of early‐stage PDAC, it improved OS in mice by reducing metastasis [ 226 ]. These findings suggest that ECM remodeling may have a dual role in promoting tumor invasion while also restricting tumor progression.

The ECM facilitates paracrine signaling with tumor cells, activating a series of key biochemical pathways associated with tumor invasion and aggressiveness. These activated pathways include FAK, WNT, and MAPK, leading to EMT, disrupting cell polarity, and ultimately resulting in increased tumor proliferation and invasive capabilities. In the paracrine mechanism, EVs serve as crucial mediators. EVs secreted by CAFs promote tumor invasion and metastasis through multiple pathways, including exosomes and secreted proteins, by activating the FAK pathway [ 83 , 227 , 228 ]. Similarly, the activation of the FAK pathway, the WNT pathway plays a significant role in tumor invasion and metastasis. Through the mediation of the ECM, the activated WNT pathway can enhance tumor invasion by strengthening the stemness of cancer cells and promoting EMT [ 229 , 230 , 231 ]. The MAPK pathway is not only a key signaling pathway activated by the paracrine mechanisms of CAFs, but studies have also shown that its activity can distinguish different CAF subtypes in PDAC, highlighting its crucial role in paracrine signaling. Furthermore, MAPK pathway activation is associated with poor prognosis in ovarian cancer and promotes invasion and metastasis in lung cancer [ 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 ].

CAFs promote tumor invasion and metastasis by secreting ECM components and through ECM‐mediated paracrine signaling. However, under certain conditions, a stiff ECM can paradoxically restrict tumor cell invasion, an intriguing phenomenon observed in numerous studies. This highlights the challenges associated with simply eliminating ECM‐producing CAFs or employing ECM‐targeted therapies. The contractile effect of CAFs within the TME warrants particular attention, as it represents a mechanism by which tumor cells regulate ECM stiffness. Disrupting this contractile effect could potentially leverage the ECM to suppress tumor cell invasiveness, thereby transforming CAFs into therapeutic allies. Additionally, studies indicate that reducing the primary ECM component, collagen, does not effectively treat tumors. Instead, targeting enzymes responsible for collagen cross‐linking may offer a more promising approach. Similarly, inhibiting the complex paracrine signaling pathways within the ECM could theoretically mitigate fibroblast‐induced tumor progression, but identifying precise therapeutic targets is essential. In this regard, spatial omics provides a powerful tool for gaining deeper insights into ECM dynamics and fibroblast–tumor interactions.

Angiogenesis

CAFs play a crucial role in tumor angiogenesis. In tumors, CAFs and tumor‐associated blood vessels (TABVs) have been observed to colocalize [ 236 , 237 ]. CAFs serve as the primary source of tumor‐derived VEGFA; however, they can also support tumor angiogenesis through VEGFA‐independent mechanisms [ 238 , 239 , 240 , 241 ]. For instance, CAF‐derived PDGFC sustains angiogenesis by stimulating the secretion of proangiogenic growth factors such as FGF2 and osteopontin [ 242 , 243 , 244 ]. Furthermore, the CAF secretome enhances tumor angiogenesis by attracting vascular endothelial cells and recruiting monocytes from the bone marrow. Studies have also demonstrated that CAFs promote angiogenesis by activating the PI3K/AKT and TGF‐β signaling pathways, further underscoring their critical role in tumor vascularization [ 92 , 245 ]. The integrated stress response (ISR) is a homeostatic mechanism that links cell growth and survival to bioenergetic demands. Verginadis et al. [ 95 ] demonstrated that the activation of the ISR stimulates CAFs surrounding blood vessels, thereby driving tumor angiogenesis. Tumor‐associated stromal cells, derived from mesenchymal tissues, play a crucial role in the formation of TABVs, with CAFs serving as key mediators. CAFs contribute to the TME by providing the ECM, secreting cytokines, and recruiting bone marrow‐derived cells. Currently, antiangiogenic therapies primarily target VEGF and VEGFR, and in certain cancer types, their combination with chemotherapy or immunotherapy has significantly improved survival outcomes [ 246 ]. Enhancing treatment efficacy by integrating more precise therapeutic strategies targeting CAFs holds great promise and warrants further investigation.

CAFs in Tumor Metastasis

Malignant tumor metastasis is a complex process in which tumor cells evade immune surveillance, infiltrate the bloodstream or lymphatic system from the primary site, and establish colonies in specific organ tissues [ 247 , 248 ]. Distant metastasis is strongly associated with poor prognosis, and in most solid tumors, its occurrence indicates the loss of surgical treatment opportunities [ 249 , 250 ]. The role of CAFs in tumor proliferation has been previously reviewed. This section specifically examines the pathogenic mechanisms through which CAFs contribute to tumor cell invasion into blood vessels and the formation of the premetastatic niche (PMN).

The penetration of tumor cells through the basement membrane barrier between epithelial and endothelial cells, followed by their entry into blood vessels, adhesion to endothelial cells, and subsequent invasion of distant tissues through the endothelium, represents a critical step in tumor metastasis [ 251 , 252 ]. CXCL12 plays a crucial role in the intravasation of tumor cells into blood vessels. Secreted by CAFs, it enhances tumor cell intravasation through a synergistic interaction with macrophages [ 253 , 254 ]. Additionally, CXCL12 promotes tumor angiogenesis and recruits new vascular endothelial cells, thereby increasing vascular permeability and further facilitating tumor cell entry into the bloodstream [ 255 , 256 , 257 , 258 ]. PDGF also promotes tumor cell infiltration by activating CAFs to secrete VEGFA and VEGFC. This process enhances lymphangiogenesis and boosts tumor cell infiltration [ 259 , 260 , 261 , 262 ].

The extravasation of tumor cells from blood vessels is regarded as the rate‐limiting step in tumor metastasis. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) in EVs are considered key facilitators of tumor cell extravasation. Studies have shown that the activation of the IL‐6/STAT3 signaling pathway in tumor stromal cells, including CAFs, induces the secretion of miRNA‐214 in stromal‐derived EVs, thereby promoting tumor cell extravasation [ 263 ]. Additionally, EVs can construct the PMN in situ [ 264 ]. Meanwhile, FN1 secreted by CAFs enhances the expression of intercellular adhesion molecule 1, increases endothelial cell permeability, and facilitates the transendothelial migration of tumor cells, further promoting tumor cell extravasation [ 265 , 266 ]. This complex transfer cascade reaction offers numerous potential therapeutic targets, and better therapeutic effects may be achieved by targeting the infiltration and exudation of tumor cells.

Under normal conditions, the ECM lacks the nutrients and cytokines essential for tumor cell proliferation, while immune surveillance remains active. Consequently, tumor cells that extravasate from blood vessels encounter significant challenges in establishing colonization within the matrix. Studies have shown that EVs and cytokines released by tumor cells can travel through the bloodstream to metastatic sites and contribute to PMN formation. This occurs through multiple mechanisms, including enhancing vascular permeability, altering mesenchymal cell properties, and remodeling the ECM [ 267 ]. EVs transport RNA and proteins that induce the transformation of tissue‐resident mesenchymal cells into metastasis‐associated fibroblasts (MAFs) [ 268 , 269 , 270 ]. Similar to CAFs, the activation of MAFs is closely related to the TGF‐β, PDGFRα, and IL‐1α/β pathways, ultimately leading to various pathogenic mechanisms mentioned earlier, such as immunosuppression and stromal remodeling [ 271 , 272 , 273 ]. Although MAFs originate from different tissues than CAFs at the primary tumor site, they exhibit similar functions. Moreover, highly heterogeneous MAF populations have been identified across multiple metastatic sites. MyoMAFs, inflammatory MAFs, and mesothelial MAFs have been identified in liver metastases of colorectal and pancreatic cancers [ 10 ]. Research on MAFs in metastatic foci remains limited due to challenges such as sample accessibility, particularly in studies utilizing omics approaches to analyze the immune microenvironment. This limitation constrains our understanding of MAFs and their role in PMN formation. Nevertheless, like CAFs, MAFs are critical prometastatic cells that warrant further investigation (Figure 3 ).

CAF as a Diagnostic Biomarker: An Imaging Target

CAFs are a crucial component of the TME and play a significant role in tumor invasion, metastasis, and drug resistance. As a biomarker for diagnosis, CAFs have garnered considerable research attention, primarily focusing on the development of imaging techniques that target specific biomarkers of CAFs and the imaging of CAF‐related ECM. FAP, as a specific biomarker of CAFs, is among the most promising tumor imaging markers, including PET, fluorescence, and multimodal molecular imaging targeting FAP. Current clinical trials imaging CAFs are summarized in Table 1 .

Imaging FAP

FAP is a membrane‐bound type II serine protease that is highly expressed in CAFs. It has a relative molecular mass of 97 kDa and forms a dimer composed of a 95 kDa α‐subunit and a 105 kDa β‐subunit [ 274 ]. As a member of the DPP4 family, FAP hydrolyzes peptide hormones and contributes to tumor progression by degrading the ECM, thereby promoting invasion and metastasis [ 275 , 276 , 277 ]. Notably, FAP exhibits minimal expression in normal tissues but is highly abundant in the stroma of over 90% of malignant epithelial tumors, making it a promising target for both pan‐cancer therapy and tumor imaging [ 278 , 279 ].

Positron Emission Tomography

PET combined with computed tomography (CT) is a widely utilized nuclear medicine technique that uses positron‐emitting radioisotope‐labeled compounds to visualize and evaluate biochemical processes in vivo [ 280 ]. This integration offers critical insights into both metabolic activity and the precise anatomical localization of diseases. The most commonly used tracer, fluorine‐18 fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18 F‐FDG), facilitates the visualization of glucose uptake in tumors and metastases. Since cancer cells exhibit increased metabolic activity, they absorb more tracer, appearing as brighter regions on imaging [ 281 , 282 , 283 ]. However, 18 F‐FDG PET has limitations in distinguishing malignant tumors from benign inflammatory or infectious processes due to the nonspecific uptake of glucose [ 280 ]. In contrast, FAP inhibitor (FAPI) tracers function independently of glucose metabolism, minimizing background signals in regions such as the stomach, intestines, and lungs [ 284 ]. FAPI exhibits stable uptake, high image quality, and superior clinical performance across various tumor types, positioning it as a promising alternative to 18 F‐FDG for oncologic imaging. Various enzyme inhibitors targeting FAP, including the widely used FAPI‐04 and FAPI‐46, as well as the more selective UAMC‐1110, have been thoroughly discussed in previous reviews [ 284 ]. In this section, we highlight recent advances in the field, focusing on the novel small‐molecule tracer OncoFAP, which represents a promising development in FAP‐targeted imaging and therapy.

The use of peptide and pseudo‐peptide‐based targeting methods for FAP represents a promising alternative to enzyme inhibitors and has the potential for clinical application. OncoFAP is a highly specific ligand for FAP, offering broad tumor‐targeting capabilities. In animal models, Millul et al. [ 285 ] reported that OncoFAP demonstrated effective targeting of tumors. Backhaus et al. [ 286 ] conducted an experiment involving 12 patients with various types of tumors to evaluate the use of 68 Ga–OncoFAP–DOTAGA–PET/CT and PET/MRI, which showed favorable biodistribution and kinetics. The tracer demonstrated high and reliable uptake rates in primary cancers, binding to human FAP at sub‐nanomolar concentrations; due to its low molecular weight, the tracer accumulated rapidly and displayed low immunogenicity [ 286 ]. It is noteworthy that relatively successful preclinical studies have been reported for applications in both PET/CT and targeted radionuclide therapy (TRT). In a preclinical study, the modified 177 Lu–OncoFAP (OncoFAP‐23) showed improved targeting and higher tumor uptake [ 287 ]. OncoFAP combined with IL‐2 targeting resulted in increased tumor uptake [ 288 ]. While it may be premature to suggest that OncoFAP will replace the established FAPI‐04, its development warrants close attention. Clinical case reports on OncoFAP have demonstrated promising efficacy and safety [ 289 , 290 ]. However, several key challenges must be addressed before it can be broadly adopted in clinical practice. The first challenge is scalability. While dimeric and trimeric forms of OncoFAP exhibit improved tumor retention, their synthesis involves complex chemical coupling steps that require stringent control over process stability and purity, potentially limiting feasibility for large‐scale production. The second challenge involves regulatory hurdles. Clinical translation of OncoFAP necessitates progression through multiple trial phases to establish safety and efficacy. Phase III trials, in particular, require large patient cohorts and extended follow‐up periods, resulting in considerable time and financial investment. Furthermore, variations in regulatory frameworks and approval standards across countries may prolong the review process. The third challenge is high production costs. The synthesis of OncoFAP relies on high‐purity intermediates, with significant expenses associated with raw materials and purification procedures. Addressing these three challenges will be critical for advancing the clinical development and widespread application of OncoFAP.

The imaging efficacy of FAP‐targeted imaging is closely linked to the abundance of FAP in specific cancers. FAPI demonstrates strong imaging performance in cancers characterized by high stromal content, exhibiting uptake comparable to the commonly used 18 F‐FDG PET/CT, but with a higher tumor‐to‐background ratio (TBR), particularly in the assessment of brain metastases. However, in cancers with high heterogeneity, such as lung cancer, FAPI has not yet demonstrated a clear advantage in imaging primary lesions. Nonetheless, it offers significant benefits in imaging metastases and distinguishing malignant tumors from benign lesions.

The diagnostic efficacy of FAPI PET/CT in breast cancer has been extensively investigated. Several clinical studies have demonstrated the advantages of FAPI PET/CT over 18 F‐FDG PET/CT, particularly regarding uptake and TBR. Sahin et al. [ 291 ] examined the advantages of 68 Ga–FAPI PET/CT in imaging invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC). Their retrospective analysis of 23 female ILC patients with hormone‐positive, HER2‐negative tumors showed that 68 Ga–FAPI PET/CT had higher TBR and SUVmax in primary tumors, as well as improved sensitivity and uptake for detecting axillary lymph nodes and distant metastases [ 291 ]. In a separate study involving 20 female breast cancer patients, FAPI imaging demonstrated significantly higher SUVmax and TBR values for primary tumors, lymph nodes, lung, and bone metastases compared with FDG [ 292 ]. Elboga et al. [ 293 ] compared 68 Ga–FAPI‐04 and 18 F‐FDG PET/CT in 48 breast cancer patients and found 68 Ga–FAPI PET/CT to be superior in detecting primary breast cancer SUVmax. Zheng et al. [ 283 ] also confirmed FAPI PET/CT's superiority over FDG in detecting primary breast tumors based on SUVmax and TBR. Although Ballal et al.’s study [ 294 ] of 47 breast cancer patients using 68 Ga–DOTA.SA. FAPI did not show significant differences in some indicators, it still outperformed 18 F‐FDG overall. The high density of stromal components and the abundant presence of CAFs in breast cancer, along with the stable expression of FAP, are likely key factors contributing to the excellent imaging performance of FAPI PET in this tumor type [ 97 , 295 ].

In contrast to breast cancer, the situation regarding lung, gastric, and head and neck cancers differs. Due to tumor heterogeneity, FAPI did not demonstrate a significant advantage in the uptake of primary lesions. However, it showed a clear benefit over 18 F‐FDG PET/CT in terms of the TBR, with this advantage being particularly pronounced in metastatic lesions. FAPI PET/CT and FDG PET/CT exhibited no significant differences in imaging primary lung cancer. In a study of 34 advanced LC patients, Wang et al. [ 296 ] found no significant differences in delineating the primary tumor and metabolic volume between the two methods. Similarly, Giesel et al. [ 297 ], in a study of 41 primary tumors (including nine LC patients), observed no significant difference in uptake between FAPI and FDG at the primary tumor level ( p = 0.429), although the comparison did not include uptake rates among LC patients. A prospective analysis by Wu et al. [ 298 ] in 28 newly diagnosed NSCLC patients also found no difference between FAPI PET/CT and FDG PET/CT in detecting LC. The high heterogeneity of lung cancer may lead to variable FAP expression among different patients, which could explain the inconsistent imaging results observed with FAPI.

Due to the limited number of human trials available for FAPI PET/CT, both in terms of case volume and large‐scale comparative studies, assessing its effectiveness for specific types of cancer remains challenging. In gastric, head and neck, and CRCs, FAPI has demonstrated superior imaging performance compared with 18 F‐FDG PET/CT in certain clinical trials. However, due to the limitations in study scale, it is premature to conclude that FAPI can replace 18 F‐FDG. The imaging performance of FAPI PET/CT in gastric cancer appears to vary across different studies. In a 2022 study by Lin et al., 68 Ga–DOTA–FAPI‐04 PET/CT showed superior detection efficacy compared with 18 FDG PET/CT in 56 patients with long‐term proven gastric carcinomas, as evidenced by a higher SUVmax (10.3 vs. 8.1, p = 0.004) and TBR (11.6 vs. 5.8, p < 0.001) in the primary tumor. Similar results were found in two other studies [ 299 , 300 ]. However, Kuten et al. [ 301 ] conducted a clinical study involving 10 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing initial staging. They found that, although 68 Ga–FAPI‐04 PET/CT demonstrated a significant advantage in TBR values compared with 18 FDG PET/CT ( p = 0.007), there was no significant difference in SUVmax ( p = 0.139) [ 301 ]. Another study compared the performance of 68 Ga–FAPI‐04 PET/CT with 18 F‐FDG PET/CT in 21 patients with pathologically proven newly diagnosed or recurrent gastric adenocarcinoma. For primary gastric cancer, no significant differences were observed in SUVmax ( p = 0.247) and TBR ( p = 0.117) between the two groups. Interestingly, FAPI demonstrated significantly better imaging performance for other metastases, including lymph nodes, peritoneum, bone metastasis, and liver metastasis [ 302 ]. Contradictory results have also been observed in head and neck cancers. While several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of FAPI in imaging these cancers [ 303 , 304 ], other studies suggest that FAPI does not provide a significant advantage over 18 F‐FDG [ 305 , 306 ]. In the diagnosis of CRC, the diagnostic value of FAPI PET/CT is evaluated for both the primary lesion and disease staging, focusing on parameters such as SUVmax and TBR [ 307 , 308 ]. However, some comparative studies have highlighted the nonsignificance of certain key parameters, indicating the need for more clinical research to validate the effectiveness of FAPI in CRC [ 309 , 310 , 311 ]. Studies utilizing FAPI PET/CT have also been reported in the diagnosis of other tumors, such as cholangiocarcinoma [ 312 ], cervical cancer [ 313 ], HCC [ 314 ], pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [ 315 ], and glioma [ 316 , 317 ]. However, due to the limited number of cases, no definitive conclusion can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of FAPI in these cancers.

Metabolic variability in the liver is likely a key factor influencing the stability of FAPI PET tracers. To address this challenge, optimizing the molecular structure and introducing functional modifications represent promising strategies. Specifically, the incorporation of rigid linkers [ 318 ] and metabolic blocking groups may help reduce susceptibility to hepatic enzyme degradation and minimize nonspecific liver uptake. In parallel, the development of multimeric probes and refinement of albumin‐binding strategies can further decrease liver accumulation while enhancing tumor‐specific uptake, thereby improving the overall imaging performance of FAPI tracers [ 319 ].

FAPI PET has demonstrated superior performance over FDG PET in detecting metastatic lesions, particularly in the brain, digestive tract, and liver, primarily due to its higher TBR. This advantage is largely attributed to the limitations of FDG PET in regions with high physiological glucose metabolism, which can obscure lesion detection. Additionally, FDG PET is less effective in identifying low‐metabolic tumors, as these lesions exhibit minimal glucose uptake. In contrast, the relatively stable expression of FAP within such lesions enables FAPI PET to offer improved sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy in detecting both high‐ and low‐metabolic metastatic sites [ 296 , 320 , 321 ].

In conclusion, FAPI PET/CT is an emerging and promising diagnostic tool for cancer, demonstrating its diagnostic value in multiple clinical studies across various cancer types. However, current research is insufficient to support its adoption as a guideline‐altering imaging method to replace 18 F‐FDG PET/CT. The variability in expression across different cancer types may limit its utility as a broad‐spectrum diagnostic approach. Nevertheless, its superior performance in certain cancers suggests the potential to replicate the success of PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer.

Fluorescence Imaging

In addition to the aforementioned PET/CT imaging, fluorescence visualization technology plays a crucial role in medical research and clinical applications, particularly in tumor imaging and treatment navigation. Fluorescent probes have emerged as indispensable research tools [ 322 ] in contemporary chemical biology and biomedical fields due to their advantages, including high spatiotemporal resolution, noninvasiveness, and in situ visualization. These probes have been successfully applied to the dynamic visualization of important biomarkers in living cells and organisms, as well as to the precise diagnosis and treatment of major human diseases, such as in fluorescence‐guided surgery [ 323 ].

Early surgical resection of tumors is often the optimal choice for treating diseases. However, there remains a local recurrence rate of 15–20% within the first 5 years after surgery for lung cancer [ 324 , 325 ]. During surgery, accurately identifying and delineating the tumor margin is crucial for ensuring complete resection and minimizing the risk of recurrence [ 326 ]. However, traditional visual inspection and imaging methods have limitations in accurately depicting the tumor boundary, especially for tumors that are challenging to detect or have complex shapes. Intraoperative molecular imaging (IMI) offers a solution by providing real‐time, high‐resolution images of the tumor and its surroundings during surgery [ 327 , 328 ]. By utilizing tumor‐targeting fluorescent dyes and ultra‐sensitive camera systems, surgeons can visualize the tumor margin with unprecedented clarity. This capability enables more precise surgical resection, reducing the risk of leaving behind microscopic tumor cells and improving patient outcomes.

Early‐generation FAP‐targeted probes, such as FAPI‐04, exhibited limitations for fluorescence imaging due to rapid blood clearance and short tumor retention times. To overcome these challenges, probes modified with albumin‐binding moieties, such as 4‐(p‐iodophenyl)‐butyric acid or Evans blue (EB), were developed to prolong systemic circulation and enhance tumor accumulation [ 329 , 330 , 331 ]. Additionally, incorporating hydrophilic peptide linkers has been employed to reduce off‐target organ retention and improve overall pharmacokinetic profiles. Recent research has shifted toward expanding the utility of these probes beyond imaging alone, exploring their potential in therapeutic applications. For example, fluorescent probes conjugated with photodynamic therapy agents can generate singlet oxygen under light activation to kill tumor cells [ 332 ] while simultaneously offering real‐time intraoperative imaging for precise delineation of tumor margins. Furthermore, multimodal platforms, such as the integration of PET/CT with fluorescence imaging, are being developed to facilitate both diagnosis and image‐guided treatment in patients with resectable malignant tumors.

To date, there have been no reported cases of targeted FAP fluorescence technology being applied to human IMI. However, several examples of its application in cancer animal models exist. Liu et al. [ 333 ] reported a highly sensitive fluorescent probe, cv‐fap, for detecting FAPα activity in melanoma, with a detection limit of 5.3 ng/mL. This probe exhibits a high binding affinity and overall catalytic efficiency, enabling it to effectively differentiate between normal cells in mice and malignant melanoma cells in tumor‐bearing mice [ 333 ]. In the case of fibrosarcoma, Tansi et al. [ 334 ] developed activatable FAP‐targeting immunoliposomes (FAP‐IL) for image‐guided detection of spontaneous metastases in mouse models. For HCC, a dual‐modal probe validated in both cellular and animal models of liver cancer has been mentioned [ 335 ]. Additionally, a fluorescent probe validated at both the cellular and animal levels using the MCF‐7 breast cancer cell line was also referenced in the context of breast cancer [ 148 ]. Dual‐modal probes combining PET/CT imaging and fluorescence imaging have gained increasing attention in tumor diagnosis and treatment research in recent years, with numerous preclinical studies emerging [ 336 , 337 , 338 , 339 ]. To address the challenge of off‐target effects resulting from tumor heterogeneity, dual‐modal probes offer a promising solution. For partially resectable tumors, preoperative PET/CT screening to identify high‐expression populations, coupled with the selective use of fluorescence for intraoperative navigation, offers a feasible approach. This strategy may help overcome the clinical challenge of unstable imaging.

In summary, the imaging targets for CAFs in cancer diagnosis and treatment mainly focus on FAP, including PET/CT, fluorescence imaging, and other modalities. We have observed the promising potential of FAP‐targeted PET/CT in cancer diagnosis, which may serve as a viable alternative to FDG PET/CT for certain cancers. However, the lack of existing clinical trials prevents us from drawing definitive conclusions. Multicenter clinical trials with a larger number of cases are necessary. Fluorescence imaging is primarily aimed at resectable tumors, and the application of dual‐modal probes may facilitate the integration of tumor diagnosis and treatment, enhancing precision in both areas.

Imaging CAFs‐Related ECM

In addition to targeting specific biomarkers expressed by CAFs, targeting the dense ECM produced by CAFs represents another effective approach for tumor imaging. Molecular probes aimed at fibrotic components have been extensively studied in cardiac, hepatic, and pulmonary fibrosis, with several studies also reporting their application in tumor imaging [ 340 , 341 , 342 , 343 ]. It is important to note that although many studies have validated the imaging capabilities of these probes in tumor animal models, no human trials have been reported to date. The lack of specificity, due to the widespread presence of collagen in normal tissues, is likely a major limiting factor. Therefore, further refinement of their application scenarios is necessary.

Dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE‐MRI) is an imaging technique that involves the intravenous administration of contrast agents, typically gadolinium‐based, followed by continuous image acquisition. This method enables quantitative or semi‐quantitative analysis of the microvascular characteristics of tumor tissues and plays a significant role in tumor diagnosis, grading, treatment response assessment, and prognosis prediction [ 344 , 345 , 346 , 347 , 348 ]. In 2017, Polasek et al. [ 349 ] developed a magnetic resonance (MR) probe targeting type I collagen and validated its efficacy in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Farace et al. [ 350 ] evaluated the effectiveness of two DCE‐MRI probes in mouse models of prostate and pancreatic cancers, confirming the feasibility of targeted stromal imaging. In 2023, a preclinical study reported the use of a MR probe targeting type I collagen to detect lesions in a mouse model of endometrial cancer [ 351 ]. The success of preclinical studies does not necessarily translate to clinical applicability for collagen‐targeted imaging. Its major limitation, a lack of specificity, raises concerns about potential imaging artifacts and reduced diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, collagen‐targeted probes have shown notable potential in predicting the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy, highlighting a promising avenue for further investigation. Following neoadjuvant therapy for various cancers, both the lesion and the surrounding tissue typically exhibit increased fibrosis [ 352 , 353 ]. Erstad et al. [ 354 ] applied a type I collagen‐targeted MR probe to predict the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer following neoadjuvant therapy. Their findings indicated that tumor fibrosis after chemoradiotherapy correlates with OS and disease‐free survival [ 354 ].

PET probes targeting collagen have shown significant clinical translation potential, particularly in the study of cardiac and pulmonary fibrosis. CBP8, a PET probe targeting collagen, has already entered clinical trials for pancreatic cancer to assess its efficacy ( NCT04485286 ). Furthermore, it has demonstrated favorable biological metabolism in the human body. Studies have indicated that CBP8 PET/MRI can predict treatment responses in pancreatic cancer patients [ 355 , 356 , 357 ]. Although no other studies have been reported thus far, the results of the ongoing CBP8 clinical trials are highly anticipated.

Integrins are heterodimeric transmembrane receptors composed of α and β subunits. They play a critical role in tumor initiation, progression, metastasis, and immune evasion by mediating interactions between cells and the ECM, as well as facilitating cell– communication [ 358 , 359 , 360 , 361 ]. Integrin αvβ6 is a distinct heterodimer within the integrin family, consisting of αv and β6 subunits, and is characterized by unique biological functions and tumor‐associated properties. Its expression is significantly upregulated in certain malignant tumors, making it a promising target for molecular imaging [ 362 , 363 ]. Kimura et al. [ 364 ] developed and validated a novel engineered cystine knot peptide (knottin) that selectively binds to human integrin αvβ6 with sub‐nanomolar affinity. The study demonstrated its effectiveness in detecting multiple cancers, including pancreatic, cervical, and lung cancers, in patients across two research sites [ 364 ].

Compared with FAP, targeting integrins and collagen presents a natural disadvantage due to their strong nonspecific expression, which poses a key obstacle to clinical translation. Additionally, the absence of certain stromal components in some cancers can lead to suboptimal imaging performance. A potential solution is to focus on cancers with high fibrous content, such as pancreatic cancer, rather than pursuing pan‐cancer approaches. FAPI targeting FAP, along with new tracers, deserves more attention, particularly given FAP's role as a specific marker of CAFs. Further clinical trials are essential to confirm imaging efficacy in specific cancer types.

Therapeutic Targeting of CAFs

The increasing understanding of the TME has shifted the focus beyond cancer cells as the sole target. CAFs, as prevalent stromal cells, have been extensively studied in recent years, leading to the development of numerous drugs targeting them. Several comprehensive reviews have classified these drugs from various perspectives [ 365 , 366 , 367 ]. This paper highlights landmark clinical trials and emphasizes the clinical translational potential of targeting CAFs. Approaches to targeting CAFs can be broadly classified into two categories: direct targeting and indirect targeting. Recent research on reprogramming CAFs has also emerged. Direct targeting involves using drugs to target specific markers on CAFs, resulting in their depletion. In contrast, indirect targeting focuses on key regulatory pathways in CAFs, particularly the TGF‐β and CXCL12/CXCR4 axes. Current clinical trials targeting CAFs are summarized in Table 2 .

Targeting Signaling Pathways in CAFs

Several key mechanisms and pathways involved in the activation of CAFs, the promotion of tumor proliferation and metastasis, and the establishment of an immunosuppressive microenvironment have been discussed in previous sections. Targeted drugs have been developed and extensively studied to inhibit these pathways, each with distinct characteristics and key molecules. The most closely monitored drug types are those targeting the TGF‐β pathway and the CXCL12/CXCR4 axis [ 368 , 369 , 370 ]. Numerous influential clinical studies have demonstrated the therapeutic potential of these drugs, particularly when used in combination with immunotherapies such as anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 [ 371 , 372 ].

Transforming Growth Factor‐β

Blocking TGF‐β is currently the most extensively studied therapeutic approach targeting CAFs. Mechanistic studies have highlighted the immunosuppressive role of TGF‐β within the TME, making its combination with PD‐1/PD‐L1 blockade a promising therapeutic strategy. Additionally, TGF‐β signaling is a crucial regulator of CAF maturation. Inhibiting this pathway holds promise for normalizing CAFs or inducing a dormant state, potentially mitigating their tumor‐promoting effects [ 373 ].

LY2157299 (galunisertib) is a small molecule inhibitor of TGF‐β that blocks CAF activation and suppresses its immunosuppressive effects. This drug has been evaluated for efficacy and safety in various cancers, including liver cancer and malignant glioma, both as a monotherapy and in combination with other treatments. However, the results have been mixed, with varying therapeutic effects [ 374 , 375 , 376 , 377 , 378 , 379 , 380 , 381 , 382 , 383 , 384 , 385 , 386 , 387 , 388 ]. Ongoing clinical trials are currently assessing its potential in lung, liver, and pancreatic cancers. In response to the drug resistance associated with TGF‐β application in pancreatic cancer, some studies have suggested that autocrine chemokines secreted by CAFs can induce their transformation into an inflammatory phenotype. These inflammatory phenotype CAFs promote treatment resistance through paracrine signaling, further complicating therapeutic strategies [ 389 ]. LY3200882 is a TGF‐β receptor inhibitor that has been tested in clinical trials for various advanced cancers [ 390 , 391 ]. Studies have demonstrated that its combination with immunotherapy can enhance its therapeutic effect in TNBC [ 392 ]. Additionally, LY3200882 promotes the release of interferon‐β by macrophages, thereby improving the efficacy of radiotherapy in tumor‐bearing mice with head and neck cancer and lung cancer [ 393 ]. Vactosertib is an ALK5 antagonist targeting the TGF‐β receptor. Several studies are currently underway to explore its therapeutic potential. Notably, it has shown promise in the treatment of desmoid tumors when combined with imatinib [ 394 , 395 , 396 ].

CXCL12/CXCR4 and CSF1

CAFs are considered the primary source of CXCL12, which exerts an immunosuppressive effect by binding to its receptor, CXCR4 [ 397 ]. Targeting the CXCL12/CXCR4 pathway derived from CAFs has been shown to be effective in mouse models of pancreatic and CRCs, leading to increased T‐cell infiltration [ 398 ]. Similar results were observed in targeted therapies that antagonize CSF1/CSF1R signaling, indicating the potential for macrophage reprogramming [ 399 , 400 ]. Studies in melanoma have also demonstrated that targeting CXCR4 results in a reduction of myeloid cells and the activation of NK cells [ 401 ]. BL‐8040 is a CXCR4 antagonist that has shown therapeutic potential in pancreatic cancer when combined with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy. In healthy individuals, it can rapidly recruit CD34+ cells [ 402 , 403 ]. AMD3100 is another CXCR4 antagonist with a mechanism of action similar to that of BL‐8040. It is used in the treatment of various diseases, including but not limited to cancer. In multiple myeloma and lymphoma, AMD3100 has demonstrated notable therapeutic efficacy [ 404 , 405 , 406 , 407 , 408 , 409 , 410 ]. The primary function of this class of drugs is to enhance stem cell mobilization and promote T‐cell infiltration within the TME.

Other Pathways

IL‐6 is a key immunosuppressive factor secreted by iCAFs. IL‐6 antagonists have been widely used in the treatment of autoimmune diseases. In cancer therapy, their combination with PD‐L1 blockade has shown therapeutic efficacy in mouse models of melanoma and pancreatic cancer by disrupting the immunomodulatory interactions mediated by IL‐6 [ 411 , 412 ]. IL‐6 secreted by CAFs can increase the levels of TIMP‐1 in the extracellular environment. TIMP‐1, in turn, activates the STAT3 signaling pathway, which is considered a key molecular mechanism promoting the proliferation and invasion of breast cancer cells [ 413 , 414 ].

The Hedgehog (Hh) signaling pathway plays a critical role in the proliferation and invasion of various tumors. While largely inactive in normal adult tissues, it becomes reactivated within the TME [ 415 , 416 , 417 ]. CAFs can stimulate Hh signaling through paracrine mechanisms [ 182 , 418 ]. Smoothened (SMO), a key transmembrane protein in the Hh pathway, mediates this activation, leading to aberrant expression of downstream Gli transcription factors [ 419 , 420 ]. Several SMO inhibitors have been approved and have demonstrated clinical efficacy in tumors such as basal cell carcinoma [ 421 , 422 , 423 , 424 ]. A representative drug is vismodegib (GDC‐0449), a first‐in‐class small molecule inhibitor targeting the Hh signaling pathway. In a phase I clinical trial, vismodegib demonstrated a response rate of 58% in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma, highlighting its therapeutic potential [ 402 ]. Gli is the central effector molecule of the Hh signaling pathway. Direct inhibition of Gli activity can effectively disrupt the maintenance of tumor stemness and suppress metastatic potential [ 425 , 426 ]. GANT61 has shown therapeutic efficacy in osteosarcoma, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer by inhibiting the transcriptional activity of Gli, thereby suppressing tumor growth and progression [ 427 , 428 , 429 ]. Hh acyltransferase (Hhat), the enzyme responsible for palmitoylating Sonic hedgehog (Shh), has emerged as a novel therapeutic target for inhibiting Shh signaling in pancreatic cancer cells. By blocking Hhat activity, the posttranslational modification and subsequent signaling of Shh can be disrupted, potentially attenuating tumor growth and progression [ 430 , 431 ]. RU‐SKI 43, a small‐molecule inhibitor of Hhat, has demonstrated potential therapeutic efficacy in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, and breast cancer. By blocking the palmitoylation of Shh, RU‐SKI 43 effectively disrupts downstream Hh signaling, thereby impairing tumor growth and progression in these cancer types [ 432 , 433 , 434 ].

Targeting key molecules within CAF‐associated signaling pathways has produced promising therapeutic outcomes, particularly when combined with ICIs, as this strategy can effectively mitigate immune suppression within the TME. However, due to tumor heterogeneity, a universal or broad‐spectrum therapeutic approach has yet to be established. Identifying patient populations and tumor types most likely to benefit from such treatments remains a crucial area for further investigation. In conclusion, evidence from numerous clinical studies supports the viability of targeting CAF‐related pathways as a strategy in cancer therapy.

Targeting CAFs’ Specific Biomarkers

One extensively studied therapeutic strategy for targeting CAFs involves focusing on their specific biomarkers. FAP and α‐SMA are two of the most prominent targets under investigation. Therapeutic modalities developed against these markers include monoclonal antibodies, small‐molecule inhibitors, radionuclide therapies, chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR‐T) cell therapies, and novel vaccines. However, the antitumor efficacy of depleting FAP⁺ CAFs remains uncertain. In pancreatic cancer, for instance, the ablation of FAP⁺ CAFs has paradoxically led to accelerated tumor progression and increased Treg cell infiltration, raising concerns about the safety and effectiveness of directly targeting FAP and α‐SMA [ 435 , 436 ]. These contradictory outcomes highlight the need for a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

Fibroblast Activation Protein

Eliminating FAP‐positive CAFs (FAP⁺ CAFs) has become a key focus in the development of CAF‐targeted therapeutic strategies. Since FAP is a membrane protein specifically expressed by CAFs and is involved in nearly all tumor‐promoting processes, targeting FAP represents a promising approach to disrupt the protumorigenic functions of the tumor stroma [ 437 , 438 , 439 , 440 ]. Various therapeutic strategies targeting FAP are currently under investigation, including CAR‐T cell therapy, monoclonal antibody therapy, vaccines, and radionuclide‐based treatments.

The use of antibodies to eliminate FAP+ CAFs was one of the earliest attempts, primarily aimed at enhancing antitumor immunity. It is important to note that targeting FAP to eliminate the tumor stroma does not inherently lead to antitumor effects. In mouse models of pancreatic cancer, the ablation of FAP⁺α‐SMA⁺ CAFs paradoxically resulted in accelerated tumor progression and increased infiltration of Treg cells [ 436 ]. The therapeutic efficacy of FAP‐targeted antibody monotherapy has not met expectations [ 441 , 442 ]. This class of agents is primarily represented by the monoclonal antibody F19 and its humanized derivative, sibrotuzumab. Existing studies on sibrotuzumab have primarily focused on evaluating its safety profile, while its therapeutic efficacy has been unsatisfactory [ 443 ]. These findings suggest that, although FAP antibodies demonstrate tumor accumulation, their cytotoxic efficacy against tumor cells is limited. Recent studies indicate that conjugating FAP antibodies with immunotoxins may provide a promising strategy to enhance their therapeutic potential. In mouse models of breast cancer and melanoma, FAP antibody‐conjugated immunotoxins have exhibited robust antitumor efficacy. However, to date, no clinical trials in humans have been reported, and further research is needed to evaluate their safety and therapeutic potential in clinical settings [ 444 , 445 ]. Compared with the use of antibodies targeting FAP alone, antibody‐conjugated radionuclide therapy and enzyme inhibitor‐conjugated radionuclide therapy have shown more promising potential in both preclinical and clinical trials. These approaches offer enhanced therapeutic efficacy and could represent more effective strategies for targeting CAFs.

TRT for FAP, a subspecialty within nuclear medicine, is rapidly advancing. As a pan‐cancer target, FAP holds significant potential and should not be overlooked in the development of precision cancer therapies. The earliest achievement in FAP‐TRT was the development of the ¹ 3 ¹I‐labeled monoclonal antibody F19. Several FAP‐TRTs are currently being applied to various cancer types, including pancreatic cancer, lung cancer, and gastrointestinal tumors. Covalent targeted radioligand (CTR) represents a novel drug modality that selectively binds radioactive ligands to tumors. This technology enhances tumor uptake and retention of radioligands while minimizing their absorption in circulation and healthy tissues. Cui et al. [ 446 ] developed an innovative CTR targeting FAP by incorporating a latent warhead into the ligand. This modification enables covalent bonding to the target protein without compromising affinity, resulting in the irreversible modification of the chelating agent carrying the radionuclide to the target. Upon reaching the tumor, the CTR first binds noncovalently to the target, then accelerates covalent (irreversible) bonding via the proximity effect, potentially enhancing affinity and reducing the tumor's drug clearance rate. Unbound CTR is rapidly excreted from the body. In mice with subcutaneous tumors, the drug demonstrated promising tumor control efficacy [ 446 ].

In pancreatic cancer, multiple FAP‐targeted probes, such as TEFAPI‐06 and 07, as well as 177 Lu–FAPI‐46, have demonstrated improved tumor retention and significant tumor growth inhibition in mouse models. Clinical trials using 90 Y–FAPI‐46 in pancreatic cancer have shown disease stabilization, while 177 Lu–FAPI‐46 has exhibited favorable targeting and pharmacokinetics [ 447 , 448 , 449 , 450 , 451 , 452 , 453 ]. In thyroid cancer, 177 Lu–EB–FAPI has resulted in partial remission and disease stabilization in patients with metastatic disease [ 331 , 454 , 455 ]. Studies on sarcoma [ 451 , 453 , 456 , 457 ] and glioblastoma [ 330 , 458 , 459 ] also report promising results with FAP‐targeted therapies, though adverse events such as hematological toxicity have been observed. Other cancers, including lung and breast cancers, have also shown positive responses to FAP‐based TRT, with some patients experiencing significant disease control and reduced metastasis [ 460 , 461 , 462 , 463 , 464 , 465 , 466 , 467 ]. The combined use of TRT and ICIs presents promising therapeutic potential. In preclinical models, treatment with 177 Lu–LNC1004 has been shown to induce a transient upregulation of PD‐L1 expression on tumor cells, thereby sensitizing tumors to ICI therapy and enhancing overall antitumor efficacy [ 468 ]. However, the small sample sizes and limited clinical data highlight the need for further studies to establish the safety and efficacy of these treatments across larger cohorts.

CAR‐T cell therapy has been United States Food and Drug Administration‐approved for certain forms of lymphoma and leukemia, demonstrating significant success in hematological malignancies. However, its application in solid tumors remains challenging [ 469 , 470 , 471 , 472 ]. One of the main obstacles is the identification and selection of specific tumor antigens that are consistently expressed across the TME. Unlike tumor cells, CAFs are genetically stable components of the TME, making them an attractive target for CAR‐T cell therapy. Several preclinical studies have demonstrated the feasibility of CAR‐T cell therapy targeting FAP, but the results of clinical trials are still pending. Addressing the considerable heterogeneity in solid tumors poses a significant challenge [ 473 , 474 ]. A phase I clinical trial of CAR‐T cell therapy targeting FAP was conducted in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. The results indicated promising safety, with two‐thirds of the patients surviving the treatment [ 475 ]. Two additional studies are underway, and their results are worth monitoring ( NCT03932565 , NCT03198546 ). However, the path to effectively implementing CAR‐T cell therapy targeting FAP in broader clinical applications remains challenging and requires further development and research.

Tumor vaccines represent an emerging therapeutic approach in oncology, designed to activate antigen‐presenting cells and T lymphocytes, which play a crucial role in initiating the cancer immune cycle. By stimulating the immune system, tumor vaccines are considered one of the most promising therapies for enhancing antitumor immunity [ 476 , 477 , 478 , 479 ]. Currently, both DNA vaccines and DC vaccines targeting FAP are in the preclinical research stage. In animal models, these vaccines have demonstrated strong CD8⁺ T cell activation, high targeting specificity, and promising tumor‐suppressive effects [ 480 , 481 , 482 ]. Due to the lack of clinical trials, the efficacy and safety of FAP‐targeted vaccines cannot yet be confirmed. Further validation through human studies is essential to evaluate their clinical potential.

α‐Smooth Muscle Actin

α‐SMA, another marker of CAFs, is considered a potential biomarker in HER2‐positive breast cancer [ 483 ]. However, research targeting α‐SMA remains in the preclinical stage, with contradictory results observed in mouse models. On one hand, in a mouse model of breast cancer, docetaxel‐conjugated nanoparticles targeting α‐SMA‐expressing stromal cells effectively inhibited metastasis, demonstrating potential therapeutic efficacy [ 484 ]. On the other hand, the targeted elimination of FAP+α‐SMA+ CAFs leads to enhanced tumor stemness and increased infiltration of Treg cells, accelerating tumor progression [ 435 ]. It is important to note that α‐SMA, as a marker of smooth muscle cells, is widely expressed in normal tissues such as blood vessels and the digestive tract [ 485 , 486 , 487 ]. This broad expression raises significant toxicity concerns in in vivo experiments. Although current organ‐specific delivery strategies may offer potential improvements [ 488 , 489 , 490 , 491 ], the efficacy and safety of α‐SMA‐targeted therapies in humans remain unsatisfactory. Overall, the therapeutic application of α‐SMA targeting across various cancer types is viewed with skepticism.

Reprogramming CAFs

As an alternative to eliminating CAFs, converting activated CAFs into a quiescent state or reprogramming them into normal fibroblasts represents a promising therapeutic strategy. However, current research on this approach is primarily limited to PDAC mouse models. Future studies should aim to broaden its application to a wider range of preclinical cancer models and initiate clinical trials to assess its feasibility and therapeutic potential in humans.

In PDAC, pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs) are the primary source of CAFs. Upon activation, PSCs differentiate into CAFs with myofibroblastic characteristics (myCAFs), leading to excessive ECM production [ 492 , 493 , 494 , 495 ]. Treatment with all‐trans retinoic acid (ATRA) has been shown to induce quiescence in PSCs, thereby reducing paracrine Wnt/β‐catenin signaling and subsequently slowing the progression of PDAC [ 496 ]. When ATRA is combined with gemcitabine, it results in reduced proliferation and invasion of cancer cells while enhancing their apoptosis. Concurrently, the activity of PSCs, as indicated by the deposition of ECM proteins such as collagen and FN1, as well as their invasive capacity, is significantly decreased following the combination treatment [ 497 ]. A phase I clinical study involving patients with advanced unresectable PDAC demonstrated that repurposing ATRA as a stroma‐targeting agent in combination with gemcitabine and albumin‐bound paclitaxel is safe and well tolerated [ 498 ]. The mechanisms underlying CAF reprogramming in tumors other than PDAC remain under investigation, with no definitive evidence yet supporting reliable reprogramming pathways in these contexts. Nonetheless, the relatively successful reprogramming of CAFs in PDAC highlights the potential of this approach as a therapeutic strategy. Further mechanistic studies are essential to elucidate the key molecular pathways involved in CAF reprogramming and to facilitate the development of targeted therapeutic agents (Figure 4 ).

Conclusion and Future Directions

Advancements in our understanding of the TME have deepened insights into both tumor cells and the surrounding stromal components essential for their survival. Among these, CAFs play a pivotal role through complex paracrine signaling and diverse molecular pathways. As key contributors to ECM deposition, immune modulation, and the promotion of tumor invasion and metastasis, CAFs exhibit substantial heterogeneity, existing in multiple subtypes with distinct functional roles. The development of omics technologies, particularly single‐cell sequencing and spatial transcriptomics, has significantly enhanced our knowledge of the spatial and temporal diversity of CAFs within the TME. These studies highlight the variability of CAFs not only across different tumor types but also within individual tumors and among subtypes of the same tumor. Although numerous CAF‐specific markers have been identified, such as FAP and α‐SMA, current CAF classification remains broad, and future advancements in omics are expected to yield more specific markers, facilitating a better understanding of CAF heterogeneity, more precise prognostic assessments, and the development of targeted therapies. Importantly, research should increasingly focus on the heterogeneity of CAFs within individual tumors and pathological subtypes, rather than seeking universal markers, to avoid overlooking the intrinsic diversity of tumor biology.

The heterogeneity of CAFs reflects their diverse functions across different TMEs, with CAFs contributing to various tumorigenic processes, including tumor initiation, proliferation, invasion, metastasis, immune modulation, and therapeutic resistance. It is important to recognize that categorizing CAFs into the commonly referenced subtypes (myCAF, iCAF, and apCAF) may be overly simplistic, as functional overlap exists among these populations. In a cross‐tissue analysis of human fibroblasts using single‐cell sequencing, Gao et al. [ 499 ] identified distinct myofibroblast subtypes with varying roles in immune regulation, highlighting the need to move beyond traditional classifications and adopt a more nuanced understanding of fibroblast biology. It is essential to emphasize the previously underreported functions of CAFs, such as their role in remodeling the ECM to facilitate cancer cell migration, secreting EVs that promote metastatic colonization, and activating MSCs at metastatic sites to generate new CAFs. Simultaneously, attention should be given to the similarities and differences between primary tumor CAFs and those present at metastatic sites, as this knowledge could inform the development of more precise and broadly effective therapeutic strategies.

Current therapeutic strategies targeting CAFs primarily include the elimination of specific CAF phenotypes, indirect targeting of CAF‐associated molecular pathways and the tumor stroma, and reprogramming CAFs into a quiescent state. Traditional monoclonal antibodies against FAP have demonstrated limited therapeutic efficacy. Moreover, the ablation of FAP⁺α‐SMA⁺ CAFs in pancreatic cancer has paradoxically accelerated tumor progression, highlighting the complexity and potential risks of indiscriminate CAF targeting. In recent years, emerging therapies such as radionuclide therapy, CAR‐T cell therapy, and tumor vaccines directed at CAFs have yielded promising preclinical outcomes. Nonetheless, identifying specific markers for selective CAF phenotype elimination remains a significant challenge. Among the available approaches, CAF reprogramming has garnered particular attention. Treatment with ATRA has shown efficacy in restoring PSCs to a quiescent state in preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. However, the applicability of this strategy to other tumor types remains uncertain. As research into the molecular mechanisms of CAF activation progresses across various cancers, identifying key regulatory pathways and therapeutic targets for CAF reprogramming holds substantial potential for future treatment development. In recent years, the combination of CAF‐targeted therapies with conventional cancer treatment modalities, such as immunotherapy, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, has been extensively investigated. Rather than eliminating specific CAF subtypes with ambiguous protumor or antitumor roles, integrating CAF‐targeted strategies with direct tumor cell cytotoxicity may yield more effective therapeutic outcomes. Furthermore, advances in targeted drug delivery systems have enabled more precise delivery of therapeutics to CAFs within the TME, thereby reducing off‐target effects and enhancing treatment specificity.

In addition to therapeutic strategies, diagnostic approaches targeting CAFs have garnered increasing attention, particularly those focusing on the specific marker FAP. Due to its widespread and persistent expression in various tumors, FAP has emerged as a key target in multimodal imaging. Among FAP‐targeted tracers, FAPI compounds have become the standard for both PET and fluorescence imaging because of their favorable pharmacokinetics and sustained clinical performance. In recent years, several novel tracers have been developed that show promise as potential next‐generation FAP‐targeting agents. Compared with conventional FDG–PET, FAPI‐based imaging offers a higher TBR and fewer false positives. Some novel FAPI probes, such as FAPI‐46, have been designed to enhance FAP targeting by reducing molecular weight, which improves tumor penetration. However, this modification also accelerates systemic clearance, potentially limiting tumor retention time. Consequently, the overall clinical efficacy of these probes remains to be fully established and warrants further investigation through larger clinical studies. Therefore, larger clinical trials are needed to validate their reliability and reproducibility across diverse patient populations. Fluorescence imaging, often utilized in intraoperative settings, benefits from FAP's strong stromal localization, allowing surgeons to more precisely delineate tumor margins. However, it is important to recognize the limitations of fluorescence imaging, particularly its susceptibility to off‐target effects and limited tissue penetration. One potential solution is the use of dual‐modal probes that combine PET and fluorescence imaging, which can not only improve diagnostic accuracy but also assist in identifying patient populations most likely to benefit from such approaches. Concurrently, structural optimization of these probes, such as enhancing photostability, reducing background signal, and improving tumor specificity, may further enhance their performance and clinical applicability. Continued efforts toward the clinical translation of FAP‐targeted fluorescence imaging are warranted, given its potential to improve surgical outcomes.

Ultimately, the heterogeneity of CAFs, both across different tumor types and among functional subgroups within the same tumor, contributes to a range of pathogenic mechanisms. This complexity presents opportunities for the development of targeted therapies aimed at key molecular drivers. Concurrently, with the advancement of precision medicine in oncology, identifying patient populations that may benefit from CAF‐targeted therapies has become increasingly important. Future research may focus on integrating CAF‐targeted imaging modalities to stratify potential responders. Achieving this goal will require close interdisciplinary collaboration among radiology, nuclear medicine, surgery, and oncology to establish a comprehensive framework for CAF‐specific diagnosis and treatment. The implementation of a theranostic approach, which combines diagnostic imaging and targeted therapy, is essential for guiding future investigations and ultimately translating CAF‐targeted strategies into clinically beneficial outcomes.

Author Contributions

Y.L. and K.C. proposed this theme, organized the structure, provided the raw materials, and selected the cited references. Y.L., Q.L., X.J., X.Y., X.J., and Y.W. reorganized the figures and wrote the manuscript. K.C. revised the manuscript and oversaw the project. All authors reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version.

Ethics Statement

The authors have nothing to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study has been funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 92259303, 82373416, and 82388102); the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (grant nos. Z240013 and L234002); the Research Unit of Intelligence Diagnosis and Treatment in Early Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer (Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences; Grant Number. 2021RU002); and the Peking University People's Hospital Research and Development Funds (Grant Number. RZ2022‐03).

Data Availability Statement

The authors have nothing to report.

References

1 R. L. Siegel , A. N. Giaquinto , A. Jemal , “ Cancer Statistics, 2024 ,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 74 ( 2024 ): 12 – 49 . 38230766 10.3322/caac.21820

2 R. Kalluri , “ The Biology and Function of Fibroblasts in Cancer ,” Nature Reviews Cancer 16 ( 2016 ): 582 – 598 . 27550820 10.1038/nrc.2016.73

3 G. Friedman , O. Levi‐Galibov , E. David , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Compositions Change With Breast Cancer Progression Linking the Ratio of S100A4(+) and PDPN(+) CAFs to Clinical Outcome ,” Nature Cancer 1 ( 2020 ): 692 – 708 . 35122040 10.1038/s43018-020-0082-y PMC7617059

4 C. Ganier , P. Mazin , G. Herrera‐Oropeza , et al., “ Multiscale Spatial Mapping of Cell Populations Across Anatomical Sites in Healthy human Skin and Basal Cell Carcinoma ,” PNAS 121 ( 2024 ): e2313326120 . 38165934 10.1073/pnas.2313326120 PMC10786309

5 N. Chalkidi , M.‐T. Melissari , A. Henriques , A. Stavropoulou , G. Kollias , V. Koliaraki , “ Activation and Functions of Col6a1+ Fibroblasts in Colitis‐Associated Cancer ,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25 ( 2023 ): 148 . 38203319 10.3390/ijms25010148 PMC10778587

6 M. Song , J. He , Q.‐Z. Pan , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblast‐Mediated Cellular Crosstalk Supports Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progression ,” Hepatology 73 ( 2021 ): 1717 – 1735 . 33682185 10.1002/hep.31792

7 N. Niu , X. Shen , Z. Wang , et al., “ Tumor Cell‐intrinsic Epigenetic Dysregulation Shapes Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Heterogeneity to Metabolically Support Pancreatic Cancer ,” Cancer Cell 42 ( 2024 ): 869 – 884 . e869. 38579725 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.03.005

8 J. A. Grout , P. Sirven , A. M. Leader , et al., “ Spatial Positioning and Matrix Programs of Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Promote T‐cell Exclusion in Human Lung Tumors ,” Cancer Discovery 12 ( 2022 ): 2606 – 2625 . 36027053 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-1714 PMC9633420

9 H. Zheng , M. An , Y. Luo , et al., “ PDGFRα(+)ITGA11(+) Fibroblasts Foster Early‐stage Cancer Lymphovascular Invasion and Lymphatic Metastasis via ITGA11‐SELE Interplay ,” Cancer Cell 42 ( 2024 ): 682 – 700 , e612. 38428409 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.02.002

10 S. Bhattacharjee , F. Hamberger , A. Ravichandra , et al., “ Tumor Restriction by Type I Collagen Opposes Tumor‐promoting Effects of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts ,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 131 ( 2021 ): e146987 . 33905375 10.1172/JCI146987 PMC8159701

11 E. Elyada , M. Bolisetty , P. Laise , et al., “ Cross‐Species Single‐Cell Analysis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Reveals Antigen‐Presenting Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts ,” Cancer Discovery 9 ( 2019 ): 1102 – 1123 . 31197017 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0094 PMC6727976

12 G. Mucciolo , J. AraosHenríquez , M. Jihad , et al., “ EGFR‐activated Myofibroblasts Promote Metastasis of Pancreatic Cancer ,” Cancer Cell 42 ( 2024 ): 101 – 118 . e111. 38157863 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.12.002

13 X. Li , Z. Sun , G. Peng , et al., “ Single‐cell RNA Sequencing Reveals a Pro‐invasive Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Subgroup Associated With Poor Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Gastric Cancer ,” Theranostics 12 ( 2022 ): 620 – 638 . 34976204 10.7150/thno.60540 PMC8692898

14 X. Zhang , S. Zheng , C. Hu , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast‐induced lncRNA UPK1A‐AS1 Confers Platinum Resistance in Pancreatic Cancer via Efficient Double‐strand Break Repair ,” Oncogene 41 ( 2022 ): 2372 – 2389 . 35264742 10.1038/s41388-022-02253-6 PMC9010302

15 D. Kerdidani , E. Aerakis , K.‐M. Verrou , et al., “ Lung Tumor MHCII Immunity Depends on in Situ Antigen Presentation by Fibroblasts ,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 219 ( 2022 ): e20210815 . 35029648 10.1084/jem.20210815 PMC8764966

16 T.‐L. Zhang , C. Xia , B.‐W. Zheng , et al., “ Integrating Single‐cell and Spatial Transcriptomics Reveals Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress‐related CAF Subpopulations Associated With Chordoma Progression ,” Neuro‐Oncology 26 ( 2024 ): 295 – 308 . 37772937 10.1093/neuonc/noad173 PMC10836767

17 C. Miao , L. Liu , Y. Cao , et al., “ OSCC‐derived EVs Educate Fibroblasts and Remodel Collagen Landscape ,” Matrix Biology 134 ( 2024 ): 132 – 143 . 39393503 10.1016/j.matbio.2024.10.004

18 C. Quemerais , C. Jean , A. Brunel , et al., “ Unveiling FKBP7 as an Early Endoplasmic Reticulum Sentinel in Pancreatic Stellate Cell Activation, Collagen Remodeling and Tumor Progression ,” Cancer Letters 614 ( 2025 ): 217538 . 39924075 10.1016/j.canlet.2025.217538

19 H. Huang , Z. Wang , Y. Zhang , et al., “ Mesothelial Cell‐derived Antigen‐presenting Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Induce Expansion of Regulatory T Cells in Pancreatic Cancer ,” Cancer Cell 40 ( 2022 ): 656 – 673 . e657. 35523176 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.04.011 PMC9197998

20 H. Hu , Z. Piotrowska , P. J. Hare , et al., “ Three Subtypes of Lung Cancer Fibroblasts Define Distinct Therapeutic Paradigms ,” Cancer Cell 39 ( 2021 ): 1531 – 1547 . e1510. 34624218 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.09.003 PMC8578451

21 A. Costa , Y. Kieffer , A. Scholer‐Dahirel , et al., “ Fibroblast Heterogeneity and Immunosuppressive Environment in Human Breast Cancer ,” Cancer Cell 33 ( 2018 ): 463 – 479 . e410. 29455927 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.01.011

22 Y. Kieffer , H. R. Hocine , G. Gentric , et al., “ Single‐Cell Analysis Reveals Fibroblast Clusters Linked to Immunotherapy Resistance in Cancer ,” Cancer Discovery 10 ( 2020 ): 1330 – 1351 . 32434947 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-1384

23 J. W. Eun , J. H. Yoon , H. R. Ahn , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast‐derived Secreted Phosphoprotein 1 Contributes to Resistance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma to Sorafenib and Lenvatinib ,” Cancer Commun (London) 43 ( 2023 ): 455 – 479 . 10.1002/cac2.12414 PMC10091107 36919193

24 W. Huang , L. Zhang , M. Yang , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Promote the Survival of Irradiated Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Cells via the NF‐κB Pathway ,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 40 ( 2021 ): 87 . 33648530 10.1186/s13046-021-01878-x PMC7923322

25 T. Bertero , W. M. Oldham , E. M. Grasset , et al., “ Tumor‐Stroma Mechanics Coordinate Amino Acid Availability to Sustain Tumor Growth and Malignancy ,” Cell Metabolism 29 ( 2019 ): 124 – 140 . e110. 30293773 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.09.012 PMC6432652

26 M. Wehrli , S. Guinn , F. Birocchi , et al., “ Mesothelin CAR T Cells Secreting Anti‐FAP/Anti‐CD3 Molecules Efficiently Target Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma and Its Stroma ,” Clinical Cancer Research 30 ( 2024 ): 1859 – 1877 . 38393682 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-3841 PMC11062832

27 R. Sakemura , M. Hefazi , E. L. Siegler , et al., “ Targeting Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in the Bone Marrow Prevents Resistance to CART‐cell Therapy in Multiple Myeloma ,” Blood 139 ( 2022 ): 3708 – 3721 . 35090171 10.1182/blood.2021012811 PMC11290597

28 G. Biffi , T. E. Oni , B. Spielman , et al., “ IL1‐Induced JAK/STAT Signaling Is Antagonized by TGFβ to Shape CAF Heterogeneity in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ,” Cancer Discovery 9 ( 2019 ): 282 – 301 . 30366930 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0710 PMC6368881

29 R. Melchionna , P. Trono , A. DiCarlo , F. DiModugno , P. Nisticò , “ Transcription Factors in Fibroblast Plasticity and CAF Heterogeneity ,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 42 ( 2023 ): 347 . 38124183 10.1186/s13046-023-02934-4 PMC10731891

30 D. Lavie , A. Ben‐Shmuel , N. Erez , R. Scherz‐Shouval , “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in the Single‐cell Era ,” Nat Cancer 3 ( 2022 ): 793 – 807 . 35883004 10.1038/s43018-022-00411-z PMC7613625

31 X. Geng , H. Chen , L. Zhao , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblast (CAF) Heterogeneity and Targeting Therapy of CAFs in Pancreatic Cancer ,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 9 ( 2021 ): 655152 . 34336821 10.3389/fcell.2021.655152 PMC8319605

32 L. Arpinati , G. Carradori , R. Scherz‐Shouval , “ CAF‐induced Physical Constraints Controlling T Cell state and Localization in Solid Tumours ,” Nature Reviews Cancer 24 ( 2024 ): 676 – 693 . 39251836 10.1038/s41568-024-00740-4

33 R. Seifert , I. L. Alberts , A. Afshar‐Oromieh , K. Rahbar , “ Prostate Cancer Theranostics: PSMA Targeted Therapy ,” PET Clinics 16 ( 2021 ): 391 – 396 . 34053583 10.1016/j.cpet.2021.03.004

34 Q. Lecocq , Y. De Vlaeminck , H. Hanssens , et al., “ Theranostics in Immuno‐oncology Using Nanobody Derivatives ,” Theranostics 9 ( 2019 ): 7772 – 7791 . 31695800 10.7150/thno.34941 PMC6831473

35 A. K. Buck , S. E. Serfling , T. Lindner , et al., “ CXCR4‐targeted Theranostics in Oncology ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 ( 2022 ): 4133 – 4144 . 35674738 10.1007/s00259-022-05849-y PMC9525349

36 P. Barcellos‐De‐Souza , G. Comito , C. Pons‐Segura , et al., “ Mesenchymal Stem Cells Are Recruited and Activated Into Carcinoma‐Associated Fibroblasts by Prostate Cancer Microenvironment‐Derived TGF‐β1 ,” Stem Cells 34 ( 2016 ): 2536 – 2547 . 27300750 10.1002/stem.2412

37 S. Werner , J. Lützkendorf , T. Müller , L. P. Müller , G. Posern , “ MRTF‐A Controls Myofibroblastic Differentiation of human Multipotent Stromal Cells and Their Tumour‐supporting Function in Xenograft Models ,” Scientific Reports 9 ( 2019 ): 11725 . 31409840 10.1038/s41598-019-48142-z PMC6692381

38 C. E. Weber , A. N. Kothari , P. Y. Wai , et al., “ Osteopontin Mediates an MZF1‐TGF‐β1‐dependent Transformation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells Into Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in Breast Cancer ,” Oncogene 34 ( 2015 ): 4821 – 4833 . 25531323 10.1038/onc.2014.410 PMC4476970

39 K. Louault , T. Porras , M.‐H. Lee , et al., “ Fibroblasts and Macrophages Cooperate to Create a Pro‐tumorigenic and Immune Resistant Environment via Activation of TGF‐β/IL‐6 Pathway in Neuroblastoma ,” Oncoimmunology 11 ( 2022 ): 2146860 . 36479153 10.1080/2162402X.2022.2146860 PMC9721439

40 K. Louault , L. Blavier , M.‐H. Lee , et al., “ Nuclear Factor‐κB Activation by Transforming Growth Factor‐β1 Drives Tumour Microenvironment‐mediated Drug Resistance in Neuroblastoma ,” British Journal of Cancer 131 ( 2024 ): 90 – 100 . 38806726 10.1038/s41416-024-02686-8 PMC11231159

41 S. Gottschling , M. Granzow , R. Kuner , et al., “ Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer–different From Others? Insights From Comparative Molecular and Functional Analyses ,” Lung Cancer 80 ( 2013 ): 19 – 29 . 23294501 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.12.015

42 L. Shangguan , X. Ti , U. Krause , et al., “ Inhibition of TGF‐β/Smad Signaling by BAMBI Blocks Differentiation of human Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Carcinoma‐associated Fibroblasts and Abolishes Their Protumor Effects ,” Stem Cells 30 ( 2012 ): 2810 – 2819 . 23034983 10.1002/stem.1251

43 Y. Shi , L. Du , L. Lin , Y. Wang , “ Tumour‐associated Mesenchymal Stem/Stromal Cells: Emerging Therapeutic Targets ,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 16 ( 2017 ): 35 – 52 . 27811929 10.1038/nrd.2016.193

44 E. M. Zeisberg , S. Potenta , L. Xie , M. Zeisberg , R. Kalluri , “ Discovery of Endothelial to Mesenchymal Transition as a Source for Carcinoma‐associated Fibroblasts ,” Cancer Research 67 ( 2007 ): 10123 – 10128 . 17974953 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-3127

45 S. Piera‐Velazquez , S. A. Jimenez , “ Endothelial to Mesenchymal Transition: Role in Physiology and in the Pathogenesis of Human Diseases ,” Physiological Reviews 99 ( 2019 ): 1281 – 1324 . 30864875 10.1152/physrev.00021.2018 PMC6734087

46 M. Manetti , E. Romano , I. Rosa , et al., “ Endothelial‐to‐mesenchymal Transition Contributes to Endothelial Dysfunction and Dermal Fibrosis in Systemic Sclerosis ,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 76 ( 2017 ): 924 – 934 . 28062404 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210229

47 Y. Fang , M. Chen , G. Li , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast‐Like Fibroblasts in Vocal Fold Leukoplakia Suppress CD8(+)T Cell Functions by Inducing IL‐6 Autocrine Loop and Interacting With Th17 Cells ,” Cancer Letters 546 ( 2022 ): 215839 . 35961512 10.1016/j.canlet.2022.215839

48 S. Itoh , “ The Transcriptional co‐activator P/CAF Potentiates TGF‐beta/Smad Signaling ,” Nucleic Acids Research 28 ( 2000 ): 4291 – 4298 . 11058129 10.1093/nar/28.21.4291 PMC113149

49 Z. Chen , Y. Gao , P. Zhang , et al., “ Identification of Gastric Cancer Stem Cells With CD44 and Lgr5 Double Labelling and Their Initial Roles on Gastric Cancer Malignancy and Chemotherapy Resistance ,” Cell Biology and Toxicology 41 ( 2024 ): 12 . 39707072 10.1007/s10565-024-09960-8 PMC11662044

50 A. Børretzen , K. Gravdal , S. A. Haukaas , et al., “ The Epithelial‐mesenchymal Transition Regulators Twist, Slug, and Snail Are Associated With Aggressive Tumour Features and Poor Outcome in Prostate Cancer Patients ,” The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research 7 ( 2021 ): 253 – 270 . 33605548 10.1002/cjp2.202 PMC8073012

51 J. Du , B. Sun , X. Zhao , et al., “ Hypoxia Promotes Vasculogenic Mimicry Formation by Inducing Epithelial‐mesenchymal Transition in Ovarian Carcinoma ,” Gynecologic Oncology 133 ( 2014 ): 575 – 583 . 24589413 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.034

52 N. Clere , S. Renault , I. Corre , “ Endothelial‐to‐Mesenchymal Transition in Cancer ,” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 8 ( 2020 ): 747 . 32923440 10.3389/fcell.2020.00747 PMC7456955

53 K.‐W. Lee , S.‐Y. Yeo , J.‐R. Gong , et al., “ PRRX1 is a Master Transcription Factor of Stromal Fibroblasts for Myofibroblastic Lineage Progression ,” Nature Communications 13 ( 2022 ): 2793 . 10.1038/s41467-022-30484-4 PMC9120014 35589735

54 A. Filliol , R. F. Schwabe , “ Contributions of Fibroblasts, Extracellular Matrix, Stiffness, and Mechanosensing to Hepatocarcinogenesis ,” Seminars in Liver Disease 39 ( 2019 ): 315 – 333 . 31226725 10.1055/s-0039-1685539

55 H. Luo , X. Xia , L.‐B. Huang , et al., “ Pan‐cancer Single‐cell Analysis Reveals the Heterogeneity and Plasticity of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in the Tumor Microenvironment ,” Nature Communications 13 ( 2022 ): 6619 . 10.1038/s41467-022-34395-2 PMC9636408 36333338

56 C. Hu , R. Xia , X. Zhang , et al., “ circFARP1 enables Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts to Promote Gemcitabine Resistance in Pancreatic Cancer via the LIF/STAT3 Axis ,” Molecular Cancer 21 ( 2022 ): 24 . 35045883 10.1186/s12943-022-01501-3 PMC8767726

57 S. Furuhashi , M. A. Bustos , S. Mizuno , et al., “ Spatial Profiling of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts of Sporadic Early Onset Colon Cancer Microenvironment ,” NPJ Precision Oncology 7 ( 2023 ): 118 . 37964075 10.1038/s41698-023-00474-w PMC10645739

58 X. Pan , J. Zhou , Q. Xiao , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Heterogeneity Is Associated With Organ‐specific Metastasis in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology 14 ( 2021 ): 184 . 34727952 10.1186/s13045-021-01203-1 PMC8561960

59 M. A. Eckert , F. Coscia , A. Chryplewicz , et al., “ Proteomics Reveals NNMT as a Master Metabolic Regulator of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts ,” Nature 569 ( 2019 ): 723 – 728 . 31043742 10.1038/s41586-019-1173-8 PMC6690743

60 X. Zhang , M. Zhang , H. Sun , et al., “ The Role of Transcription Factors in the Crosstalk Between Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts and Tumor Cells ,” Journal of Advanced Research 67 ( 2025 ): 121 – 132 . 38309692 10.1016/j.jare.2024.01.033 PMC11725164

61 Z. Wang , “ CAF Heterogeneity and Dynamics ,” Nature Cell Biology 24 ( 2022 ): 1686 . 10.1038/s41556-022-01054-z 36474074

62 S. Affo , A. Nair , F. Brundu , et al., “ Promotion of Cholangiocarcinoma Growth by Diverse Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Subpopulations ,” Cancer Cell 39 ( 2021 ): 866 – 882 . e811. 33930309 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.03.012 PMC8241235

63 J. M. Houthuijzen , R. De Bruijn , E. Van Der Burg , et al., “ CD26‐negative and CD26‐positive Tissue‐resident Fibroblasts Contribute to Functionally Distinct CAF Subpopulations in Breast Cancer ,” Nature Communications 14 ( 2023 ): 183 . 10.1038/s41467-023-35793-w PMC9837080 36635273

64 J. Ye , J. M. Baer , D. V. Faget , et al., “ Senescent CAFs Mediate Immunosuppression and Drive Breast Cancer Progression ,” Cancer Discovery 14 ( 2024 ): 1302 – 1323 . 38683161 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-23-0426 PMC11216870

65 J. I. Belle , D. Sen , J. M. Baer , et al., “ Senescence Defines a Distinct Subset of Myofibroblasts That Orchestrates Immunosuppression in Pancreatic Cancer ,” Cancer Discovery 14 ( 2024 ): 1324 – 1355 . 38683144 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-23-0428 PMC12155422

66 Z. Ou , L. Zhu , X. Chen , et al., “ Hypoxia‐Induced Senescent Fibroblasts Secrete IGF1 to Promote Cancer Stemness in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ,” Cancer Research 85 , no. 6 ( 2024 ): 1064 ‐ 1081 . 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-24-1185 39661488

67 E. Strating , M. P. Verhagen , E. Wensink , et al., “ Co‐cultures of Colon Cancer Cells and Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Recapitulate the Aggressive Features of Mesenchymal‐Like Colon Cancer ,” Frontiers in Immunology 14 ( 2023 ): 1053920 . 37261365 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1053920 PMC10228738

68 Y. Ma , J. Zhu , S. Chen , et al., “ Activated Gastric Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Contribute to the Malignant Phenotype and 5‐FU Resistance via Paracrine Action in Gastric Cancer ,” Cancer Cell International 18 ( 2018 ): 104 . 30038550 10.1186/s12935-018-0599-7 PMC6053778

69 A. Herrera , M. Herrera , L. Alba‐Castellón , et al., “ Protumorigenic Effects of Snail‐expression Fibroblasts on Colon Cancer Cells ,” International Journal of Cancer 134 ( 2014 ): 2984 – 2990 . 24242829 10.1002/ijc.28613

70 C. Chen , Q. Guo , Y. Liu , et al., “ Single‐cell and Spatial Transcriptomics Reveal POSTN(+) Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Correlated With Immune Suppression and Tumour Progression in Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer ,” Clinical and Translational Medicine 13 ( 2023 ): e1515 . 38115703 10.1002/ctm2.1515 PMC10731139

71 C. Ma , C. Yang , Ai Peng , et al., “ Pan‐cancer Spatially Resolved Single‐cell Analysis Reveals the Crosstalk Between Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts and Tumor Microenvironment ,” Molecular Cancer 22 ( 2023 ): 170 . 37833788 10.1186/s12943-023-01876-x PMC10571470

72 L. Cords , S. Tietscher , T. Anzeneder , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Classification in Single‐cell and Spatial Proteomics Data ,” Nature Communications 14 ( 2023 ): 4294 . 10.1038/s41467-023-39762-1 PMC10354071 37463917

73 P. C.‐T. Tang , J. Y.‐F. Chung , V. W.‐W. Xue , et al., “ Smad3 Promotes Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Generation via Macrophage‐Myofibroblast Transition ,” Advanced Science (Weinheim) 9 ( 2022 ): e2101235 . 10.1002/advs.202101235 PMC8728853 34791825

74 S. Jain , J. W. Rick , R. S. Joshi , et al., “ Single‐cell RNA Sequencing and Spatial Transcriptomics Reveal Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in Glioblastoma With Protumoral Effects ,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 133 ( 2023 ): e147087 . 36856115 10.1172/JCI147087 PMC9974099

75 S. Ferri‐Borgogno , Y. Zhu , J. Sheng , et al., “ Spatial Transcriptomics Depict Ligand‐Receptor Cross‐talk Heterogeneity at the Tumor‐Stroma Interface in Long‐Term Ovarian Cancer Survivors ,” Cancer Research 83 ( 2023 ): 1503 – 1516 . 36787106 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-1821 PMC10159916

76 S. Parte , A. B. Kaur , R. K. Nimmakayala , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblast Induces Acinar‐to‐Ductal Cell Transdifferentiation and Pancreatic Cancer Initiation via LAMA5/ITGA4 Axis ,” Gastroenterology 166 ( 2024 ): 842 – 858 . e845. 38154529 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.12.018 PMC11694316

77 D. S. Foster , M. Januszyk , D. Delitto , et al., “ Multiomic Analysis Reveals Conservation of Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Phenotypes Across Species and Tissue of Origin ,” Cancer Cell 40 ( 2022 ): 1392 – 1406 . e1397. 36270275 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.09.015 PMC9669239

78 P. M. Galbo , A. T. Madsen , Y. Liu , et al., “ Functional Contribution and Clinical Implication of Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts in Glioblastoma ,” Clinical Cancer Research 30 ( 2024 ): 865 – 876 . 38060213 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-0493 PMC10922678

79 M. Papanicolaou , A. L. Parker , M. Yam , et al., “ Temporal Profiling of the Breast Tumour Microenvironment Reveals Collagen XII as a Driver of Metastasis ,” Nature Communications 13 ( 2022 ): 4587 . 10.1038/s41467-022-32255-7 PMC9357007 35933466

80 X. Mao , J. Xu , W. Wang , et al., “ Crosstalk Between Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts and Immune Cells in the Tumor Microenvironment: New Findings and Future Perspectives ,” Molecular Cancer 20 ( 2021 ): 131 . 34635121 10.1186/s12943-021-01428-1 PMC8504100

81 A. Giguelay , E. Turtoi , L. Khelaf , et al., “ The Landscape of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases ,” Theranostics 12 ( 2022 ): 7624 – 7639 . 36438498 10.7150/thno.72853 PMC9691344

82 Z. Pan , T. Xu , L. Bao , et al., “ CREB3L1 promotes Tumor Growth and Metastasis of Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma by Remodeling the Tumor Microenvironment ,” Molecular Cancer 21 ( 2022 ): 190 . 36192735 10.1186/s12943-022-01658-x PMC9531463

83 X. Liu , J. Li , X. Yang , et al., “ Carcinoma‐associated Fibroblast‐derived Lysyl Oxidase‐rich Extracellular Vesicles Mediate Collagen Crosslinking and Promote Epithelial‐mesenchymal Transition via p‐FAK/p‐paxillin/YAP Signaling ,” International Journal of Oral Science 15 ( 2023 ): 32 . 37532712 10.1038/s41368-023-00236-1 PMC10397209

84 S. Zhang , L. Yuan , L. Danilova , et al., “ Spatial Transcriptomics Analysis of Neoadjuvant Cabozantinib and nivolumab in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Identifies Independent Mechanisms of Resistance and Recurrence ,” Genome Medicine 15 ( 2023 ): 72 . 37723590 10.1186/s13073-023-01218-y PMC10506285

85 H. Kobayashi , K. A. Gieniec , T. R. M. Lannagan , et al., “ The Origin and Contribution of Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts in Colorectal Carcinogenesis ,” Gastroenterology 162 ( 2022 ): 890 – 906 . 34883119 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.11.037 PMC8881386

86 E. D. Wrenn , A. A. Apfelbaum , E. R. Rudzinski , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblast‐Like Tumor Cells Remodel the Ewing Sarcoma Tumor Microenvironment ,” Clinical Cancer Research 29 ( 2023 ): 5140 – 5154 . 37471463 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-1111 PMC10801911

87 D. DelRio , I. Masi , V. Caprara , et al., “ The β‐arrestin1/Endothelin Axis Bolsters Ovarian Fibroblast‐dependent Invadosome Activity and Cancer Cell Metastatic Potential ,” Cell Death & Disease 15 ( 2024 ): 358 . 38777849 10.1038/s41419-024-06730-6 PMC11111729

88 D. Song , Y. Wu , J. Li , et al., “ Insulin‐Like Growth Factor 2 Drives Fibroblast‐mediated Tumor Immunoevasion and Confers Resistance to Immunotherapy ,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 134 ( 2024 ): e183366 . 39545420 10.1172/JCI183366 PMC11563680

89 C. Li , T. Chen , J. Liu , et al., “ FGF19‐Induced Inflammatory CAF Promoted Neutrophil Extracellular Trap Formation in the Liver Metastasis of Colorectal Cancer ,” Advanced Science (Weinheim) 10 ( 2023 ): e2302613 . 10.1002/advs.202302613 PMC10460854 37345586

90 D. Yu , H. Xu , J. Zhou , K. Fang , Z. Zhao , Ke Xu , “ PDPN/CCL2/STAT3 Feedback Loop Alter CAF Heterogeneity to Promote Angiogenesis in Colorectal Cancer ,” Angiogenesis 27 ( 2024 ): 809 – 825 . 39115624 10.1007/s10456-024-09941-9

91 Q. Liao , H. Shi , J. Yang , et al., “ FTO Elicits Tumor Neovascularization in Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Through Eliminating M(6)A Modifications of Multiple Pro‐angiogenic Factors ,” Cancer Letters 592 ( 2024 ): 216911 . 38685450 10.1016/j.canlet.2024.216911

92 B. Liu , B. Zhang , J. Qi , et al., “ Targeting MFGE8 Secreted by Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Blocks Angiogenesis and Metastasis in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ,” PNAS 120 ( 2023 ): e2307914120 . 37816055 10.1073/pnas.2307914120 PMC10589644

93 A. T. Krishnamurty , J. A. Shyer , M. Thai , et al., “ LRRC15(+) myofibroblasts Dictate the Stromal Setpoint to Suppress Tumour Immunity ,” Nature 611 ( 2022 ): 148 – 154 . 36171287 10.1038/s41586-022-05272-1 PMC9630141

94 H. Wang , J. Chen , X. Chen , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Expressing Sulfatase 1 Facilitate VEGFA‐Dependent Microenvironmental Remodeling to Support Colorectal Cancer ,” Cancer Research 84 ( 2024 ): 3371 – 3387 . 39250301 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-23-3987

95 I. I. Verginadis , H. Avgousti , J. Monslow , et al., “ A Stromal Integrated Stress Response Activates Perivascular Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts to Drive Angiogenesis and Tumour Progression ,” Nature Cell Biology 24 ( 2022 ): 940 – 953 . 35654839 10.1038/s41556-022-00918-8 PMC9203279

96 L. Cords , S. Engler , M. Haberecker , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Phenotypes Are Associated With Patient Outcome in Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer ,” Cancer Cell 42 ( 2024 ): 396 – 412 . e395. 38242124 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.12.021 PMC10929690

97 H. Croizer , R. Mhaidly , Y. Kieffer , et al., “ Deciphering the Spatial Landscape and Plasticity of Immunosuppressive Fibroblasts in Breast Cancer ,” Nature Communications 15 ( 2024 ): 2806 . 10.1038/s41467-024-47068-z PMC10984943 38561380

98 D. J. Agorku , A. Bosio , F. Alves , P. Ströbel , O. Hardt , “ Colorectal Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Inhibit Effector T Cells via NECTIN2 Signaling ,” Cancer Letters 595 ( 2024 ): 216985 . 38821255 10.1016/j.canlet.2024.216985

99 M. Licaj , R. Mhaidly , Y. Kieffer , et al., “ Residual ANTXR1+ Myofibroblasts After Chemotherapy Inhibit Anti‐tumor Immunity via YAP1 Signaling Pathway ,” Nature Communications 15 ( 2024 ): 1312 . 10.1038/s41467-024-45595-3 PMC10861537 38346978

100 Y. Cheng , X. Chen , Li Feng , et al., “ Stromal Architecture and Fibroblast Subpopulations With Opposing Effects on Outcomes in Hepatocellular Carcinoma ,” Cell Discovery 11 ( 2025 ). 10.1038/s41421-024-00747-z PMC11772884 39870619

101 T. Pellinen , L. Paavolainen , A. Martín‐Bernabé , et al., “ Fibroblast Subsets in Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer: Associations With Survival, Mutations, and Immune Features ,” JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 115 ( 2023 ): 71 – 82 . 36083003 10.1093/jnci/djac178

102 B. H. Jenkins , I. Tracy , M. F. S. D. Rodrigues , et al., “ Single Cell and Spatial Analysis of Immune‐hot and Immune‐cold Tumours Identifies Fibroblast Subtypes Associated With Distinct Immunological Niches and Positive Immunotherapy Response ,” Molecular Cancer 24 ( 2025 ): 3 . 39757146 10.1186/s12943-024-02191-9 PMC11702232

103 R. D. Schreiber , L. J. Old , M. J. Smyth , “ Cancer Immunoediting: Integrating Immunity's Roles in Cancer Suppression and Promotion ,” Science 331 ( 2011 ): 1565 – 1570 . 21436444 10.1126/science.1203486

104 K. Nakamura , M. J. Smyth , “ Myeloid Immunosuppression and Immune Checkpoints in the Tumor Microenvironment ,” Cellular & Molecular Immunology 17 ( 2020 ): 1 – 12 . 31611651 10.1038/s41423-019-0306-1 PMC6952382

105 Y. Liu , C. Li , Y. Lu , C. Liu , W. Yang , “ Tumor Microenvironment‐mediated Immune Tolerance in Development and Treatment of Gastric Cancer ,” Frontiers in Immunology 13 ( 2022 ): 1016817 . 36341377 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1016817 PMC9630479

106 K. Li , H. Shi , B. Zhang , et al., “ Myeloid‐derived Suppressor Cells as Immunosuppressive Regulators and Therapeutic Targets in Cancer ,” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 6 ( 2021 ): 362 . 34620838 10.1038/s41392-021-00670-9 PMC8497485

107 C. Chen , Z. Wang , Y. Ding , Y. Qin , “ Tumor Microenvironment‐mediated Immune Evasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma ,” Frontiers in Immunology 14 ( 2023 ): 1133308 . 36845131 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1133308 PMC9950271

108 K. B. Kennel , M. Bozlar , A. F. De Valk , F. R. Greten , “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts in Inflammation and Antitumor Immunity ,” Clinical Cancer Research 29 ( 2023 ): 1009 – 1016 . 36399325 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-1031 PMC10011884

109 H. Zhang , X. Yue , Z. Chen , et al., “ Define Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts (CAFs) in the Tumor Microenvironment: New Opportunities in Cancer Immunotherapy and Advances in Clinical Trials ,” Molecular Cancer 22 ( 2023 ): 159 . 37784082 10.1186/s12943-023-01860-5 PMC10544417

110 L. Jenkins , U. Jungwirth , A. Avgustinova , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Suppress CD8+ T‐cell Infiltration and Confer Resistance to Immune‐Checkpoint Blockade ,” Cancer Research 82 ( 2022 ): 2904 – 2917 . 35749591 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-21-4141 PMC9379365

111 G. L. Szeto , S. D. Finley , “ Integrative Approaches to Cancer Immunotherapy ,” Trends in Cancer 5 ( 2019 ): 400 – 410 . 31311655 10.1016/j.trecan.2019.05.010 PMC7467854

112 R. Rui , L. Zhou , S. He , “ Cancer Immunotherapies: Advances and Bottlenecks ,” Frontiers in Immunology 14 ( 2023 ): 1212476 . 37691932 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1212476 PMC10484345

113 J. H. Cha , L. C. Chan , M. S. Song , M. C. Hung , “ New Approaches on Cancer Immunotherapy ,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 10 ( 2020 ): a036863 . 31615865 10.1101/cshperspect.a036863 PMC7156317

114 S. Wen , Y. Hou , L. Fu , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast (CAF)‐derived IL32 Promotes Breast Cancer Cell Invasion and Metastasis via Integrin β3‐p38 MAPK Signalling ,” Cancer Letters 442 ( 2019 ): 320 – 332 . 30391782 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.10.015

115 D. Peng , M. Fu , M. Wang , Y. Wei , X. Wei , “ Targeting TGF‐β Signal Transduction for Fibrosis and Cancer Therapy ,” Molecular Cancer 21 ( 2022 ): 104 . 35461253 10.1186/s12943-022-01569-x PMC9033932

116 K. Pang , Z.‐D. Shi , L‐Ya Wei , et al., “ Research Progress of Therapeutic Effects and Drug Resistance of Immunotherapy Based on PD‐1/PD‐L1 Blockade ,” Drug Resistance Updates 66 ( 2023 ): 100907 . 36527888 10.1016/j.drup.2022.100907

117 Y. Jiang , M. Chen , H. Nie , Y. Yuan , “ PD‐1 and PD‐L1 in Cancer Immunotherapy: Clinical Implications and Future Considerations ,” Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 15 ( 2019 ): 1111 – 1122 . 30888929 10.1080/21645515.2019.1571892 PMC6605868

118 Y. Han , D. Liu , L. Li , “ PD‐1/PD‐L1 Pathway: Current Researches in Cancer ,” American Journal of Cancer Research 10 ( 2020 ): 727 – 742 . 32266087 PMC7136921

119 C. Ghosh , G. Luong , Y. Sun , “ A Snapshot of the PD‐1/PD‐L1 Pathway ,” Journal of Cancer 12 ( 2021 ): 2735 – 2746 . 33854633 10.7150/jca.57334 PMC8040720

120 M. Wu , Q. Huang , Y. Xie , et al., “ Improvement of the Anticancer Efficacy of PD‐1/PD‐L1 Blockade via Combination Therapy and PD‐L1 Regulation ,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology 15 ( 2022 ): 24 . 35279217 10.1186/s13045-022-01242-2 PMC8917703

121 X. Liu , L. Yang , X. Tan , “ PD‐1/PD‐L1 Pathway: A Double‐edged Sword in Periodontitis ,” Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 159 ( 2023 ): 114215 . 36630848 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114215

122 J. G. Egen , M. S. Kuhns , J. P. Allison , “ CTLA‐4: New Insights Into Its Biological Function and Use in Tumor Immunotherapy ,” Nature Immunology 3 ( 2002 ): 611 – 618 . 12087419 10.1038/ni0702-611

123 F. S. Hodi , S. J. O'Day , D. F. Mcdermott , et al., “ Improved Survival With ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma ,” New England Journal of Medicine 363 ( 2010 ): 711 – 723 . 20525992 10.1056/NEJMoa1003466 PMC3549297

124 K. Kawasaki , K. Noma , T. Kato , et al., “ PD‐L1‐expressing Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Induce Tumor Immunosuppression and Contribute to Poor Clinical Outcome in Esophageal Cancer ,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 72 ( 2023 ): 3787 – 3802 . 37668710 10.1007/s00262-023-03531-2 PMC10576702

125 K. Teramoto , T. Igarashi , Y. Kataoka , et al., “ Clinical Significance of PD‐L1‐positive Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in pN0M0 Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer ,” Lung Cancer 137 ( 2019 ): 56 – 63 . 31546072 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.09.013

126 Q. Zhang , J. Wang , J. Zhang , Y. Wang , Y. Wang , F. Liu , “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts‐induced Remodeling of Tumor Immune Microenvironment via Jagged1 in Glioma ,” Cell. Signalling 115 ( 2024 ): 111016 . 38128708 10.1016/j.cellsig.2023.111016

127 B. Lim , Y. Lin , N. Navin , “ Advancing Cancer Research and Medicine With Single‐Cell Genomics ,” Cancer Cell 37 ( 2020 ): 456 – 470 . 32289270 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.008 PMC7899145

128 N. Kim , H. K. Kim , K. Lee , et al., “ Single‐cell RNA Sequencing Demonstrates the Molecular and Cellular Reprogramming of Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma ,” Nature Communications 11 ( 2020 ): 2285 . 10.1038/s41467-020-16164-1 PMC7210975 32385277

129 D. Sugiyama , K. Hinohara , H. Nishikawa , “ Significance of Regulatory T Cells in Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy ,” Experimental Dermatology 32 ( 2023 ): 256 – 263 . 36458459 10.1111/exd.14721

130 A. Sica , M. Massarotti , “ Myeloid Suppressor Cells in Cancer and Autoimmunity ,” Journal of Autoimmunity 85 ( 2017 ): 117 – 125 . 28728794 10.1016/j.jaut.2017.07.010

131 S. Kumagai , K. Itahashi , H. Nishikawa , “ Regulatory T Cell‐mediated Immunosuppression Orchestrated by Cancer: Towards an Immuno‐genomic Paradigm for Precision Medicine ,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 21 ( 2024 ): 337 – 353 . 10.1038/s41571-024-00870-6 38424196

132 K. Okła , “ Myeloid‐Derived Suppressor Cells (MDSCs) in Ovarian Cancer‐Looking Back and Forward ,” Cells 12 ( 2023 ): 1912 . 37508575 10.3390/cells12141912 PMC10377883

133 J. Medina‐Echeverz , T. Eggert , M. Han , T. F. Greten , “ Hepatic Myeloid‐derived Suppressor Cells in Cancer ,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 64 ( 2015 ): 931 – 940 . 26133122 10.1007/s00262-015-1736-y PMC6309820

134 C. Groth , X. Hu , R. Weber , et al., “ Immunosuppression Mediated by Myeloid‐derived Suppressor Cells (MDSCs) During Tumour Progression ,” British Journal of Cancer 120 ( 2019 ): 16 – 25 . 30413826 10.1038/s41416-018-0333-1 PMC6325125

135 E. Azizi , A. J. Carr , G. Plitas , et al., “ Single‐Cell Map of Diverse Immune Phenotypes in the Breast Tumor Microenvironment ,” Cell 174 ( 2018 ): 1293 – 1308 . e1236. 29961579 10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.060 PMC6348010

136 M. De Simone , A. Arrigoni , G. Rossetti , et al., “ Transcriptional Landscape of Human Tissue Lymphocytes Unveils Uniqueness of Tumor‐Infiltrating T Regulatory Cells ,” Immunity 45 ( 2016 ): 1135 – 1147 . 27851914 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.10.021 PMC5119953

137 G. Plitas , C. Konopacki , K. Wu , et al., “ Regulatory T Cells Exhibit Distinct Features in Human Breast Cancer ,” Immunity 45 ( 2016 ): 1122 – 1134 . 27851913 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.10.032 PMC5134901

138 T. Saito , H. Nishikawa , H. Wada , et al., “ Two FOXP3(+)CD4(+) T Cell Subpopulations Distinctly Control the Prognosis of Colorectal Cancers ,” Nature Medicine 22 ( 2016 ): 679 – 684 . 10.1038/nm.4086 27111280

139 D. V. Sawant , H. Yano , M. Chikina , et al., “ Adaptive Plasticity of IL‐10(+) and IL‐35(+) T(reg) Cells Cooperatively Promotes Tumor T Cell Exhaustion ,” Nature Immunology 20 ( 2019 ): 724 – 735 . 30936494 10.1038/s41590-019-0346-9 PMC6531353

140 J. B. Wing , A. Tanaka , S. Sakaguchi , “ Human FOXP3(+) Regulatory T Cell Heterogeneity and Function in Autoimmunity and Cancer ,” Immunity 50 ( 2019 ): 302 – 316 . 30784578 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.01.020

141 A. Varveri , M. Papadopoulou , Z. Papadovasilakis , et al., “ Immunological Synapse Formation Between T Regulatory Cells and Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Promotes Tumour Development ,” Nature Communications 15 ( 2024 ): 4988 . 10.1038/s41467-024-49282-1 PMC11167033 38862534

142 R. A. O'Connor , B. R. Martinez , L. Koppensteiner , L. Mathieson , A. R. Akram , “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Drive CXCL13 Production in Activated T Cells via TGF‐beta ,” Frontiers in Immunology 14 ( 2023 ): 1221532 . 37520560 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1221532 PMC10373066

143 Y. Lu , H. Li , P. Zhao , et al., “ Crosstalk Between Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts and Non‐neuroendocrine Tumor Cells in Small Cell Lung Cancer Involves in Glycolysis and Antigen‐presenting Features ,” Molecular Medicine 30 ( 2024 ): 274 . 39722014 10.1186/s10020-024-01051-y PMC11669202

144 X. Zhao , L. Ding , Z. Lu , et al., “ Diminished CD68(+) Cancer‐Associated Fibroblast Subset Induces Regulatory T‐Cell (Treg) Infiltration and Predicts Poor Prognosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients ,” American Journal of Pathology 190 ( 2020 ): 886 – 899 . 32035062 10.1016/j.ajpath.2019.12.007

145 S. Pei , J. Sjölund , Y. Pan , K. Pietras , M. C. I. Karlsson , “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Express CD1d and Activate Invariant Natural Killer T Cells Under Cellular Stress ,” Cellular & Molecular Immunology 21 ( 2024 ): 91 – 94 . 37735500 10.1038/s41423-023-01082-1 PMC10757709

146 D. I. Godfrey , J. LeNours , D. M. Andrews , A. P. Uldrich , J. Rossjohn , “ Unconventional T Cell Targets for Cancer Immunotherapy ,” Immunity 48 ( 2018 ): 453 – 473 . 29562195 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.009

147 S. Hegde , A. M. Leader , M. Merad , “ MDSC: Markers, Development, States, and Unaddressed Complexity ,” Immunity 54 ( 2021 ): 875 – 884 . 33979585 10.1016/j.immuni.2021.04.004 PMC8709560

148 G.‐Q. Zhu , Z. Tang , R. Huang , et al., “ CD36(+) cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Provide Immunosuppressive Microenvironment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma via Secretion of Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor ,” Cell Discovery 9 ( 2023 ): 25 . 36878933 10.1038/s41421-023-00529-z PMC9988869

149 V. Kumar , L. Donthireddy , D. Marvel , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Neutralize the Anti‐tumor Effect of CSF1 Receptor Blockade by Inducing PMN‐MDSC Infiltration of Tumors ,” Cancer Cell 32 ( 2017 ): 654 – 668 . e655. 29136508 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.10.005 PMC5827952

150 X. Yang , Y. Lin , Y. Shi , et al., “ FAP Promotes Immunosuppression by Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts in the Tumor Microenvironment via STAT3‐CCL2 Signaling ,” Cancer Research 76 ( 2016 ): 4124 – 4135 . 27216177 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2973

151 H. Xiang , C. P. Ramil , J. Hai , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Promote Immunosuppression by Inducing ROS‐Generating Monocytic MDSCs in Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma ,” Cancer Immunology Research 8 ( 2020 ): 436 – 450 . 32075803 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19-0507

152 A. Bianchi , I. De Castro Silva , N. U. Deshpande , et al., “ Cell‐Autonomous Cxcl1 Sustains Tolerogenic Circuitries and Stromal Inflammation via Neutrophil‐Derived TNF in Pancreatic Cancer ,” Cancer Discovery 13 ( 2023 ): 1428 – 1453 . 36946782 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-22-1046 PMC10259764

153 Q. Zhao , L. Huang , G. Qin , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Induce Monocytic Myeloid‐derived Suppressor Cell Generation via IL‐6/Exosomal miR‐21‐activated STAT3 Signaling to Promote Cisplatin Resistance in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ,” Cancer Letters 518 ( 2021 ): 35 – 48 . 34139285 10.1016/j.canlet.2021.06.009

154 M. Kundu , R. Butti , V. K. Panda , et al., “ Modulation of the Tumor Microenvironment and Mechanism of Immunotherapy‐based Drug Resistance in Breast Cancer ,” Molecular Cancer 23 ( 2024 ): 92 . 38715072 10.1186/s12943-024-01990-4 PMC11075356

155 K. Khalaf , D. Hana , J. T.‐T. Chou , C. Singh , A. Mackiewicz , M. Kaczmarek , “ Aspects of the Tumor Microenvironment Involved in Immune Resistance and Drug Resistance ,” Frontiers in Immunology 12 ( 2021 ): 656364 . 34122412 10.3389/fimmu.2021.656364 PMC8190405

156 T. Akiyama , T. Yasuda , T. Uchihara , et al., “ Stromal Reprogramming Through Dual PDGFRα/β Blockade Boosts the Efficacy of Anti‐PD‐1 Immunotherapy in Fibrotic Tumors ,” Cancer Research 83 ( 2023 ): 753 – 770 . 36543251 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-1890

157 C. Ngambenjawong , H. H. Gustafson , S. H. Pun , “ Progress in Tumor‐associated Macrophage (TAM)‐targeted Therapeutics ,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 114 ( 2017 ): 206 – 221 . 28449873 10.1016/j.addr.2017.04.010 PMC5581987

158 D. G. De Nardo , B. Ruffell , “ Macrophages as Regulators of Tumour Immunity and Immunotherapy ,” Nature Reviews Immunology 19 ( 2019 ): 369 – 382 . 10.1038/s41577-019-0127-6 PMC7339861 30718830

159 Y. Pan , Y. Yu , X. Wang , T. Zhang , “ Tumor‐Associated Macrophages in Tumor Immunity ,” Frontiers in Immunology 11 ( 2020 ): 583084 . 33365025 10.3389/fimmu.2020.583084 PMC7751482

160 N. Higashino , Y.‐I. Koma , M. Hosono , et al., “ Fibroblast Activation Protein‐positive Fibroblasts Promote Tumor Progression Through Secretion of CCL2 and Interleukin‐6 in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma ,” Laboratory Investigation 99 ( 2019 ): 777 – 792 . 30683902 10.1038/s41374-018-0185-6

161 R. Allaoui , C. Bergenfelz , S. Mohlin , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast‐secreted CXCL16 Attracts Monocytes to Promote Stroma Activation in Triple‐negative Breast Cancers ,” Nature Communications 7 ( 2016 ): 13050 . 10.1038/ncomms13050 PMC5062608 27725631

162 M. Augsten , C. Hägglöf , E. Olsson , et al., “ CXCL14 is an Autocrine Growth Factor for Fibroblasts and Acts as a Multi‐modal Stimulator of Prostate Tumor Growth ,” PNAS 106 ( 2009 ): 3414 – 3419 . 19218429 10.1073/pnas.0813144106 PMC2651265

163 B. Gok Yavuz , G. Gunaydin , M. E. Gedik , et al., “ Cancer Associated Fibroblasts Sculpt Tumour Microenvironment by Recruiting Monocytes and Inducing Immunosuppressive PD‐1(+) TAMs ,” Scientific Reports 9 ( 2019 ): 3172 . 30816272 10.1038/s41598-019-39553-z PMC6395633

164 M. M. Markiewski , R. A. Deangelis , F. Benencia , et al., “ Modulation of the Antitumor Immune Response by Complement ,” Nature Immunology 9 ( 2008 ): 1225 – 1235 . 18820683 10.1038/ni.1655 PMC2678913

165 S. Davidson , M. Efremova , A. Riedel , et al., “ Single‐Cell RNA Sequencing Reveals a Dynamic Stromal Niche That Supports Tumor Growth ,” Cell Reports 31 ( 2020 ): 107628 . 32433953 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107628 PMC7242909

166 R. Zhang , F. Qi , F. Zhao , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Enhance Tumor‐associated Macrophages Enrichment and Suppress NK Cells Function in Colorectal Cancer ,” Cell Death & Disease 10 ( 2019 ): 273 . 30894509 10.1038/s41419-019-1435-2 PMC6426970

167 O. Shani , T. Vorobyov , L. Monteran , et al., “ Fibroblast‐Derived IL33 Facilitates Breast Cancer Metastasis by Modifying the Immune Microenvironment and Driving Type 2 Immunity ,” Cancer Research 80 ( 2020 ): 5317 – 5329 . 33023944 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-2116 PMC7611300

168 S. Chen , Y. Morine , K. Tokuda , et al., “ Cancer‑Associated Fibroblast‑Induced M2‑Polarized Macrophages Promote Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progression via the Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor‑1 Pathway ,” International Journal of Oncology 59 ( 2021 ): 59 . 34195849 10.3892/ijo.2021.5239 PMC8253588

169 G. Comito , E. Giannoni , C. P. Segura , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts and M2‐polarized Macrophages Synergize During Prostate Carcinoma Progression ,” Oncogene 33 ( 2014 ): 2423 – 2431 . 23728338 10.1038/onc.2013.191

170 Y. Zhao , S. Rahmy , Z. Liu , C. Zhang , X. Lu , “ Rational Targeting of Immunosuppressive Neutrophils in Cancer ,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics 212 ( 2020 ): 107556 . 32343986 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107556

171 T.‐T. Wang , Y.‐L. Zhao , L.‐S. Peng , et al., “ Tumour‐activated Neutrophils in Gastric Cancer Foster Immune Suppression and Disease Progression Through GM‐CSF‐PD‐L1 Pathway ,” Gut 66 ( 2017 ): 1900 – 1911 . 28274999 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313075 PMC5739867

172 E. Kolaczkowska , “ Immunosuppressive Lung Neutrophils ,” Blood 140 ( 2022 ): 802 – 803 . 36006676 10.1182/blood.2022017345

173 Q. Hu , R. Wang , J. Zhang , Q. Xue , B. Ding , “ Tumor‐associated Neutrophils Upregulate PANoptosis to Foster an Immunosuppressive Microenvironment of Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer ,” Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 72 ( 2023 ): 4293 – 4308 . 37907644 10.1007/s00262-023-03564-7 PMC10992448

174 F. Hajizadeh , L. AghebatiMaleki , M. Alexander , et al., “ Tumor‐associated Neutrophils as New Players in Immunosuppressive Process of the Tumor Microenvironment in Breast Cancer ,” Life Sciences 264 ( 2021 ): 118699 . 33137368 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118699

175 K. Pelka , M. Hofree , J. H. Chen , et al., “ Spatially Organized Multicellular Immune Hubs in human Colorectal Cancer ,” Cell 184 ( 2021 ): 4734 – 4752 . e4720. 34450029 10.1016/j.cell.2021.08.003 PMC8772395

176 Z. Tan , C. Kan , M. Sun , et al., “ Mapping Breast Cancer Microenvironment through Single‐Cell Omics ,” Frontiers in Immunology 13 ( 2022 ): 868813 . 35514975 10.3389/fimmu.2022.868813 PMC9065352

177 K. S. S. Enfield , E. Colliver , C. Lee , et al., “ Spatial Architecture of Myeloid and T Cells Orchestrates Immune Evasion and Clinical Outcome in Lung Cancer ,” Cancer Discovery 14 ( 2024 ): 1018 – 1047 . 38581685 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-23-1380 PMC11145179

178 S. Zhang , W. Fang , S. Zhou , et al., “ Single Cell Transcriptomic Analyses Implicate an Immunosuppressive Tumor Microenvironment in Pancreatic Cancer Liver Metastasis ,” Nature Communications 14 ( 2023 ): 5123 . 10.1038/s41467-023-40727-7 PMC10447466 37612267

179 R. Chandra , J. D. Karalis , C. Liu , et al., “ The Colorectal Cancer Tumor Microenvironment and Its Impact on Liver and Lung Metastasis ,” Cancers (Basel) 13 ( 2021 ): 6206 . 34944826 10.3390/cancers13246206 PMC8699466

180 E. Batlle , J. Massagué , “ Transforming Growth Factor‐β Signaling in Immunity and Cancer ,” Immunity 50 ( 2019 ): 924 – 940 . 30995507 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.03.024 PMC7507121

181 W. Chen , “ TGF‐β Regulation of T Cells ,” Annual Review of Immunology 41 ( 2023 ): 483 – 512 . 10.1146/annurev-immunol-101921-045939 PMC12453633 36750317

182 Z. Fang , Q. Meng , J. Xu , et al., “ Signaling Pathways in Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives ,” Cancer Commun (Lond) 43 ( 2023 ): 3 – 41 . 36424360 10.1002/cac2.12392 PMC9859735

183 L. Li , J.‐R. Wei , J. Dong , et al., “ Laminin γ2‐mediating T Cell Exclusion Attenuates Response to anti‐PD‐1 Therapy ,” Science Advances 7 ( 2021 ): eabc8346 . 33536206 10.1126/sciadv.abc8346 PMC7857690

184 M. Ahmadzadeh , S. A. Rosenberg , “ TGF‐beta 1 Attenuates the Acquisition and Expression of Effector Function by Tumor Antigen‐specific human Memory CD8 T Cells ,” Journal of Immunology 174 ( 2005 ): 5215 – 5223 . 10.4049/jimmunol.174.9.5215 PMC2562293 15843517

185 N. Shimasaki , A. Jain , D. Campana , “ NK Cells for Cancer Immunotherapy ,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 19 ( 2020 ): 200 – 218 . 31907401 10.1038/s41573-019-0052-1

186 J. A. Myers , J. S. Miller , “ Exploring the NK Cell Platform for Cancer Immunotherapy ,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 18 ( 2021 ): 85 – 100 . 10.1038/s41571-020-0426-7 PMC8316981 32934330

187 M. G. Morvan , L. L. Lanier , “ NK Cells and Cancer: You Can Teach Innate Cells New Tricks ,” Nature Reviews Cancer 16 ( 2016 ): 7 – 19 . 26694935 10.1038/nrc.2015.5

188 T. Bald , M. F. Krummel , M. J. Smyth , K. C. Barry , “ The NK Cell‐cancer Cycle: Advances and New Challenges in NK Cell‐based Immunotherapies ,” Nature Immunology 21 ( 2020 ): 835 – 847 . 32690952 10.1038/s41590-020-0728-z PMC8406687

189 G. Xie , H. Dong , Y. Liang , J. D. Ham , R. Rizwan , J. Chen , “ CAR‐NK Cells: A Promising Cellular Immunotherapy for Cancer ,” EBioMedicine 59 ( 2020 ): 102975 . 32853984 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102975 PMC7452675

190 A. Tejchman , N. Lamerant‐Fayel , J.‐C. Jacquinet , et al., “ Tumor Hypoxia Modulates Podoplanin/CCL21 Interactions in CCR7+ NK Cell Recruitment and CCR7+ Tumor Cell Mobilization ,” Oncotarget 8 ( 2017 ): 31876 – 31887 . 28416768 10.18632/oncotarget.16311 PMC5458255

191 T. Li , Y. Yang , X. Hua , et al., “ Hepatocellular Carcinoma‐associated Fibroblasts Trigger NK Cell Dysfunction via PGE2 and IDO ,” Cancer Letters 318 ( 2012 ): 154 – 161 . 22182446 10.1016/j.canlet.2011.12.020

192 M. Balsamo , F. Scordamaglia , G. Pietra , et al., “ Melanoma‐associated Fibroblasts Modulate NK Cell Phenotype and Antitumor Cytotoxicity ,” PNAS 106 ( 2009 ): 20847 – 20852 . 19934056 10.1073/pnas.0906481106 PMC2791633

193 Y. E. Lee , G.‐Y. Go , E.‐Y. Koh , et al., “ Synergistic Therapeutic Combination With a CAF Inhibitor Enhances CAR‐NK‐mediated Cytotoxicity via Reduction of CAF‐released IL‐6 ,” Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 11 ( 2023 ): e006130 . 36849201 10.1136/jitc-2022-006130 PMC9972461

194 L. Yao , J. Hou , X. Wu , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Impair the Cytotoxic Function of NK Cells in Gastric Cancer by Inducing Ferroptosis via Iron Regulation ,” Redox Biology 67 ( 2023 ): 102923 . 37832398 10.1016/j.redox.2023.102923 PMC10582581

195 S. Lee , B. Ricci , J. Tran , et al., “ Stroma‐derived Dickkopf‐1 Contributes to the Suppression of NK Cell Cytotoxicity in Breast Cancer ,” Nature Communications 16 ( 2025 ): 1183 . 10.1038/s41467-025-56420-w PMC11782527 39885132

196 A. Ben‐Shmuel , Y. Gruper , C. Halperin , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Serve as Decoys to Suppress NK Cell Anti‐cancer Cytotoxicity in Breast Cancer ,” Cancer Discovery 15 , no. 6 ( 2025 ): 1247 ‐ 1269 . 40052789 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-24-0131

197 R. Francescone , D. BarbosaVendramini‐Costa , J. Franco‐Barraza , et al., “ Netrin G1 Promotes Pancreatic Tumorigenesis Through Cancer‐Associated Fibroblast‐Driven Nutritional Support and Immunosuppression ,” Cancer Discovery 11 ( 2021 ): 446 – 479 . 33127842 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0775 PMC7858242

198 T. Inoue , K. Adachi , K. Kawana , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Suppresses Killing Activity of Natural Killer Cells Through Downregulation of Poliovirus Receptor (PVR/CD155), a Ligand of Activating NK Receptor ,” International Journal of Oncology 49 ( 2016 ): 1297 – 1304 . 27499237 10.3892/ijo.2016.3631 PMC5021244

199 N. Yang , K. Lode , R. Berzaghi , A. Islam , I. Martinez‐Zubiaurre , T. Hellevik , “ Irradiated Tumor Fibroblasts Avoid Immune Recognition and Retain Immunosuppressive Functions over Natural Killer Cells ,” Frontiers in Immunology 11 ( 2020 ): 602530 . 33584669 10.3389/fimmu.2020.602530 PMC7874190

200 S. Patwardhan , P. Mahadik , O. Shetty , S. Sen , “ ECM Stiffness‐tuned Exosomes Drive Breast Cancer Motility Through Thrombospondin‐1 ,” Biomaterials 279 ( 2021 ): 121185 . 34808560 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.121185

201 X. Li , C. González‐Maroto , M. Tavassoli , “ Crosstalk Between CAFs and Tumour Cells in Head and Neck Cancer ,” Cell Death Discovery 10 ( 2024 ): 303 . 38926351 10.1038/s41420-024-02053-9 PMC11208506

202 C. Hu , Y. Zhang , C. Wu , Q. Huang , “ Heterogeneity of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Opportunities and Challenges ,” Cell Death Discovery 9 ( 2023 ): 124 . 37055382 10.1038/s41420-023-01428-8 PMC10102018

203 A. Palumbo , N. MeirelesDaCosta , B. Pontes , et al., “ Esophageal Cancer Development: Crucial Clues Arising From the Extracellular Matrix ,” Cells 9 ( 2020 ): 455 . 32079295 10.3390/cells9020455 PMC7072790

204 A. N. Hosein , R. A. Brekken , A. Maitra , “ Pancreatic Cancer Stroma: An Update on Therapeutic Targeting Strategies ,” Nature reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 17 ( 2020 ): 487 – 505 . 32393771 10.1038/s41575-020-0300-1 PMC8284850

205 X. Li , J. Pan , T. Liu , et al., “ Novel TCF21(high) Pericyte Subpopulation Promotes Colorectal Cancer Metastasis by Remodelling Perivascular Matrix ,” Gut 72 ( 2023 ): 710 – 721 . 36805487 10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327913 PMC10086488

206 H. Zhao , Z. Chen , Y. Fang , et al., “ Prediction of Prognosis and Recurrence of Bladder Cancer by ECM‐Related Genes ,” Journal of Immunology Research 2022 ( 2022 ): 1793005 . 35450397 10.1155/2022/1793005 PMC9018183

207 W. Zhang , L. Zhang , H. Dong , H. Peng , “ TGIF2 is a Potential Biomarker for Diagnosis and Prognosis of Glioma ,” Frontiers in Immunology 15 ( 2024 ): 1356833 . 38629068 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1356833 PMC11020094

208 A. L. Parker , E. Bowman , A. Zingone , et al., “ Extracellular Matrix Profiles Determine Risk and Prognosis of the Squamous Cell Carcinoma Subtype of Non‐small Cell Lung Carcinoma ,” Genome Medicine 14 ( 2022 ): 126 . 36404344 10.1186/s13073-022-01127-6 PMC9677915

209 Z. Yuan , Y. Li , S. Zhang , et al., “ Extracellular Matrix Remodeling in Tumor Progression and Immune Escape: From Mechanisms to Treatments ,” Molecular Cancer 22 ( 2023 ): 48 . 36906534 10.1186/s12943-023-01744-8 PMC10007858

210 A. M. Roy , R. Iyer , S. Chakraborty , “ The Extracellular Matrix in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Vulnerability ,” Cell Reports Medicine 4 ( 2023 ): 101170 . 37652015 10.1016/j.xcrm.2023.101170 PMC10518608

211 J. D. Martin , D. Fukumura , D. G. Duda , Y. Boucher , R. K. Jain , “ Reengineering the Tumor Microenvironment to Alleviate Hypoxia and Overcome Cancer Heterogeneity ,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 6 ( 2016 ): a027094 . 27663981 10.1101/cshperspect.a027094 PMC5131751

212 L. Bao , H. Kong , Y. Ja , et al., “ The Relationship Between Cancer and Biomechanics ,” Frontiers in Oncology 13 ( 2023 ): 1273154 . 37901315 10.3389/fonc.2023.1273154 PMC10602664

213 L. Caja , F. Dituri , S. Mancarella , et al., “ TGF‐β and the Tissue Microenvironment: Relevance in Fibrosis and Cancer ,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19 ( 2018 ): 1294 . 29701666 10.3390/ijms19051294 PMC5983604

214 C. Tian , K. R. Clauser , D. Öhlund , et al., “ Proteomic Analyses of ECM During Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Progression Reveal Different Contributions by Tumor and Stromal Cells ,” PNAS 116 ( 2019 ): 19609 – 19618 . 31484774 10.1073/pnas.1908626116 PMC6765243

215 A. Chakravarthy , L. Khan , N. P. Bensler , P. Bose , D. D. De Carvalho , “ TGF‐β‐associated Extracellular Matrix Genes Link Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts to Immune Evasion and Immunotherapy Failure ,” Nature Communications 9 ( 2018 ): 4692 . 10.1038/s41467-018-06654-8 PMC6224529 30410077

216 M. Egeblad , M. G. Rasch , V. M. Weaver , “ Dynamic Interplay Between the Collagen Scaffold and Tumor Evolution ,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology 22 ( 2010 ): 697 – 706 . 20822891 10.1016/j.ceb.2010.08.015 PMC2948601

217 D. E. Kuczek , A. M. H. Larsen , M.‐L. Thorseth , et al., “ Collagen Density Regulates the Activity of Tumor‐infiltrating T Cells ,” Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 7 ( 2019 ): 68 . 30867051 10.1186/s40425-019-0556-6 PMC6417085

218 M. Chirivì , F. Maiullari , M. Milan , et al., “ Tumor Extracellular Matrix Stiffness Promptly Modulates the Phenotype and Gene Expression of Infiltrating T Lymphocytes ,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22 ( 2021 ): 5862 . 34070750 10.3390/ijms22115862 PMC8198248

219 A. D. Doyle , D. J. Sykora , G. G. Pacheco , M. L. Kutys , K. M. Yamada , “ 3D mesenchymal Cell Migration Is Driven by Anterior Cellular Contraction That Generates an Extracellular Matrix Prestrain ,” Developmental Cell 56 ( 2021 ): 826 – 841 . e824. 33705692 10.1016/j.devcel.2021.02.017 PMC8082573

220 Y. Attieh , A. G. Clark , C. Grass , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Lead Tumor Invasion Through Integrin‐β3‐dependent Fibronectin Assembly ,” Journal of Cell Biology 216 ( 2017 ): 3509 – 3520 . 28931556 10.1083/jcb.201702033 PMC5674886

221 O. De Wever , Q. D. Nguyen , L. Van Hoorde , et al., “ Tenascin‐C and SF/HGF Produced by Myofibroblasts in Vitro Provide Convergent Pro‐invasive Signals to human Colon Cancer Cells Through RhoA and Rac ,” Faseb Journal 18 ( 2004 ): 1016 – 1018 . 15059978 10.1096/fj.03-1110fje

222 A. M. H. Larsen , D. E. Kuczek , A. Kalvisa , et al., “ Collagen Density Modulates the Immunosuppressive Functions of Macrophages ,” Journal of Immunology 205 ( 2020 ): 1461 – 1472 . 10.4049/jimmunol.1900789 32839214

223 A. M. A. Rømer , M. L. Thorseth , D. H. Madsen , “ Immune Modulatory Properties of Collagen in Cancer ,” Frontiers in Immunology 12 ( 2021 ): 791453 . 34956223 10.3389/fimmu.2021.791453 PMC8692250

224 Y. Chen , J. Kim , S. Yang , et al., “ Type I Collagen Deletion in αSMA(+) Myofibroblasts Augments Immune Suppression and Accelerates Progression of Pancreatic Cancer ,” Cancer Cell 39 ( 2021 ): 548 – 565 . e546. 33667385 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.02.007 PMC8423173

225 C. Tian , Y. Huang , K. R. Clauser , et al., “ Suppression of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Growth and Metastasis by Fibrillar Collagens Produced Selectively by Tumor Cells ,” Nature Communications 12 ( 2021 ): 2328 . 10.1038/s41467-021-22490-9 PMC8058088 33879793

226 B. W. Miller , J. P. Morton , M. Pinese , et al., “ Targeting the LOX/Hypoxia Axis Reverses Many of the Features That Make Pancreatic Cancer Deadly: Inhibition of LOX Abrogates Metastasis and Enhances Drug Efficacy ,” EMBO Molecular Medicine 7 ( 2015 ): 1063 – 1076 . 26077591 10.15252/emmm.201404827 PMC4551344

227 H. J. Wu , M. Hao , S. K. Yeo , J. L. Guan , “ FAK Signaling in Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Promotes Breast Cancer Cell Migration and Metastasis by Exosomal miRNAs‐mediated Intercellular Communication ,” Oncogene 39 ( 2020 ): 2539 – 2549 . 31988451 10.1038/s41388-020-1162-2 PMC7310603

228 X. Jin , Q. Deng , S. Ye , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblast‐derived Periostin Promotes Papillary Thyroid Tumor Growth Through Integrin‐FAK‐STAT3 Signaling ,” Theranostics 14 ( 2024 ): 3014 – 3028 . 38773979 10.7150/thno.94207 PMC11103496

229 J. Xie , X. Qi , Y. Wang , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Secrete Hypoxia‐induced Serglycin to Promote Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Tumor Cell Growth in Vitro and in Vivo by Activating the Wnt/β‐catenin Pathway ,” Cellular Oncology (Dordrecht) 44 ( 2021 ): 661 – 671 . 10.1007/s13402-021-00592-2 PMC12980726 33651283

230 A. Ries , D. Flehberger , A. Slany , et al., “ Mesothelioma‐associated Fibroblasts Enhance Proliferation and Migration of Pleural Mesothelioma Cells via c‐Met/PI3K and WNT Signaling but Do Not Protect Against Cisplatin ,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 42 ( 2023 ): 27 . 36683050 10.1186/s13046-022-02582-0 PMC9869633

231 Z. Ma , X. Li , Y. Mao , et al., “ Interferon‐dependent SLC14A1(+) Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Promote Cancer Stemness via WNT5A in Bladder Cancer ,” Cancer Cell 40 ( 2022 ): 1550 – 1565 . e1557. 36459995 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.11.005

232 Z. Zhou , Q. Zhou , X. Wu , et al., “ VCAM‐1 Secreted From Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Enhances the Growth and Invasion of Lung Cancer Cells Through AKT and MAPK Signaling ,” Cancer Letters 473 ( 2020 ): 62 – 73 . 31904479 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.12.039

233 M. Wessolly , E. Mairinger , S. Borchert , et al., “ CAF‐Associated Paracrine Signaling Worsens Outcome and Potentially Contributes to Chemoresistance in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer ,” Frontiers in Oncology 12 ( 2022 ): 798680 . 35311102 10.3389/fonc.2022.798680 PMC8927667

234 L. Veghini , D. Pasini , R. Fang , et al., “ Differential Activity of MAPK Signalling Defines Fibroblast Subtypes in Pancreatic Cancer ,” Nature Communications 15 ( 2024 ): 10534 . 10.1038/s41467-024-54975-8 PMC11615044 39627211

235 T. Nakanishi , Y.‐I. Koma , S. Miyako , et al., “ AREG Upregulation in Cancer Cells via Direct Interaction With Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Promotes Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Progression through EGFR‐Erk/p38 MAPK Signaling ,” Cells 13 ( 2024 ): 1733 . 39451251 10.3390/cells13201733 PMC11506648

236 J. A. Tuxhorn , S. J. McAlhany , T. D. Dang , G. E. Ayala , D. R. Rowley , “ Stromal Cells Promote Angiogenesis and Growth of human Prostate Tumors in a Differential Reactive Stroma (DRS) Xenograft Model ,” Cancer Research 62 ( 2002 ): 3298 – 3307 . 12036948

237 A. Orimo , P. B. Gupta , D. C. Sgroi , et al., “ Stromal Fibroblasts Present in Invasive human Breast Carcinomas Promote Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis Through Elevated SDF‐1/CXCL12 Secretion ,” Cell 121 ( 2005 ): 335 – 348 . 15882617 10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.034

238 H. P. Gerber , J. Kowalski , D. Sherman , D. A. Eberhard , N. Ferrara , “ Complete Inhibition of Rhabdomyosarcoma Xenograft Growth and Neovascularization Requires Blockade of both Tumor and Host Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ,” Cancer Research 60 ( 2000 ): 6253 – 6258 . 11103779

239 D. Fukumura , R. Xavier , T. Sugiura , et al., “ Tumor Induction of VEGF Promoter Activity in Stromal Cells ,” Cell 94 ( 1998 ): 715 – 725 . 9753319 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81731-6

240 Y. Crawford , I. Kasman , L. Yu , et al., “ PDGF‐C Mediates the Angiogenic and Tumorigenic Properties of Fibroblasts Associated With Tumors Refractory to Anti‐VEGF Treatment ,” Cancer Cell 15 ( 2009 ): 21 – 34 . 19111878 10.1016/j.ccr.2008.12.004

241 X. Wan , S. Guan , Y. Hou , et al., “ FOSL2 promotes VEGF‐independent Angiogenesis by Transcriptionnally Activating Wnt5a in Breast Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts ,” Theranostics 11 ( 2021 ): 4975 – 4991 . 33754039 10.7150/thno.55074 PMC7978317

242 K. Pietras , J. Pahler , G. Bergers , D. Hanahan , “ Functions of Paracrine PDGF Signaling in the Proangiogenic Tumor Stroma Revealed by Pharmacological Targeting ,” Plos Medicine 5 ( 2008 ): e19 . 18232728 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050019 PMC2214790

243 C. Anderberg , H. Li , L. Fredriksson , et al., “ Paracrine Signaling by Platelet‐derived Growth Factor‐CC Promotes Tumor Growth by Recruitment of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts ,” Cancer Research 69 ( 2009 ): 369 – 378 . 19118022 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2724 PMC2613547

244 X. Hou , A. Kumar , C. Lee , et al., “ PDGF‐CC Blockade Inhibits Pathological Angiogenesis by Acting on Multiple Cellular and Molecular Targets ,” PNAS 107 ( 2010 ): 12216 – 12221 . 20566880 10.1073/pnas.1004143107 PMC2901428

245 R. Kanzaki , S. Reid , P. Bolivar , et al., “ FHL2 expression by Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Promotes Metastasis and Angiogenesis in Lung Adenocarcinoma ,” International Journal of Cancer 156 ( 2025 ): 431 – 446 . 39244734 10.1002/ijc.35174 PMC11578086

246 S. A. Patel , M. B. Nilsson , X. Le , T. Cascone , R. K. Jain , J. V. Heymach , “ Molecular Mechanisms and Future Implications of VEGF/VEGFR in Cancer Therapy ,” Clinical Cancer Research 29 ( 2023 ): 30 – 39 . 35969170 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-1366 PMC10274152

247 S. Kiri , T. Ryba , “ Cancer, Metastasis, and the Epigenome ,” Molecular Cancer 23 ( 2024 ): 154 . 39095874 10.1186/s12943-024-02069-w PMC11295362

248 J. Fares , M. Y. Fares , H. H. Khachfe , H. A. Salhab , Y. Fares , “ Molecular Principles of Metastasis: A Hallmark of Cancer Revisited ,” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 5 ( 2020 ): 28 . 32296047 10.1038/s41392-020-0134-x PMC7067809

249 G. Z. Li , G. M. Doherty , J. Wang , “ Surgical Management of Gastric Cancer: A Review ,” JAMA Surgery 157 ( 2022 ): 446 – 454 . 35319717 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0182

250 R. E. Coleman , P. I. Croucher , A. R. Padhani , et al., “ Bone Metastases ,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers 6 ( 2020 ): 83 . 10.1038/s41572-020-00216-3 33060614

251 J. Chang , O. Chaudhuri , “ Beyond Proteases: Basement Membrane Mechanics and Cancer Invasion ,” Journal of Cell Biology 218 ( 2019 ): 2456 – 2469 . 31315943 10.1083/jcb.201903066 PMC6683740

252 A. Gaiko‐Shcherbak , J. Eschenbruch , N. M. Kronenberg , et al., “ Cell Force‐Driven Basement Membrane Disruption Fuels EGF‐ and Stiffness‐Induced Invasive Cell Dissemination From Benign Breast Gland Acini ,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22 ( 2021 ): 3962 . 33921304 10.3390/ijms22083962 PMC8070162

253 E. N. Arwert , A. S. Harney , D. Entenberg , et al., “ A Unidirectional Transition From Migratory to Perivascular Macrophage Is Required for Tumor Cell Intravasation ,” Cell Reports 23 ( 2018 ): 1239 – 1248 . 29719241 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.04.007 PMC5946803

254 R. Qin , W. Ren , G. Ya , et al., “ Role of Chemokines in the Crosstalk Between Tumor and Tumor‐associated Macrophages ,” Clinical and Experimental Medicine 23 ( 2023 ): 1359 – 1373 . 36173487 10.1007/s10238-022-00888-z PMC10460746

255 D. K. Ahirwar , M. W. Nasser , M. M. Ouseph , et al., “ Fibroblast‐derived CXCL12 Promotes Breast Cancer Metastasis by Facilitating Tumor Cell Intravasation ,” Oncogene 37 ( 2018 ): 4428 – 4442 . 29720724 10.1038/s41388-018-0263-7 PMC7063845

256 Y. Yang , J. Li , W. Lei , et al., “ CXCL12‐CXCR4/CXCR7 Axis in Cancer: From Mechanisms to Clinical Applications ,” International Journal of Biological Sciences 19 ( 2023 ): 3341 – 3359 . 37497001 10.7150/ijbs.82317 PMC10367567

257 K. Mortezaee , “ CXCL12/CXCR4 axis in the Microenvironment of Solid Tumors: A Critical Mediator of Metastasis ,” Life Sciences 249 ( 2020 ): 117534 . 32156548 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.117534

258 D. P. Anastasiadou , A. Quesnel , C. L. Duran , P. S. Filippou , G. S. Karagiannis , “ An Emerging Paradigm of CXCL12 Involvement in the Metastatic Cascade ,” Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews 75 ( 2024 ): 12 – 30 . 37949685 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2023.10.003

259 M. Cadamuro , S. Brivio , J. Mertens , et al., “ Platelet‐derived Growth Factor‐D Enables Liver Myofibroblasts to Promote Tumor Lymphangiogenesis in Cholangiocarcinoma ,” Journal of Hepatology 70 ( 2019 ): 700 – 709 . 30553841 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.12.004 PMC10878126

260 J. Yan , G. Xiao , C. Yang , et al., “ Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts Promote Lymphatic Metastasis in Cholangiocarcinoma via the PDGF‐BB/PDGFR‐β Mediated Paracrine Signaling Network ,” Aging and Disease 15 ( 2024 ): 369 – 389 . 37307823 10.14336/AD.2023.0420 PMC10796099

261 S. I. Ilyas , J. C. Mertens , S. F. Bronk , et al., “ Platelet‐derived Growth Factor Primes Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts for Apoptosis ,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 289 ( 2014 ): 22835 – 22849 . 24973208 10.1074/jbc.M114.563064 PMC4132787

262 M. Cadamuro , G. Nardo , S. Indraccolo , et al., “ Platelet‐derived Growth Factor‐D and Rho GTPases Regulate Recruitment of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts in Cholangiocarcinoma ,” Hepatology 58 ( 2013 ): 1042 – 1053 . 23505219 10.1002/hep.26384 PMC3732815

263 F. Orso , F. Virga , D. Dettori , et al., “ Stroma‐derived miR‐214 Coordinates Tumor Dissemination ,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 42 ( 2023 ): 20 . 36639824 10.1186/s13046-022-02553-5 PMC9837925

264 Y. Li , Y. Zheng , X. Tan , Y. Du , Y. Wei , S. Liu , “ Extracellular Vesicle‐mediated Pre‐metastatic Niche Formation via Altering Host Microenvironments ,” Frontiers in Immunology 15 ( 2024 ): 1367373 . 38495881 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1367373 PMC10940351

265 C. Jiang , Y. Li , Y. Li , et al., “ Fibrinogen Promotes Gallbladder Cancer Cell Metastasis and Extravasation by Inducing ICAM1 Expression ,” Medical Oncology 40 ( 2022 ): 10 . 36352295 10.1007/s12032-022-01874-x

266 C. Huang , Na Li , Z. Li , et al., “ Tumour‐derived Interleukin 35 Promotes Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cell Extravasation and Metastasis by Inducing ICAM1 Expression ,” Nature Communications 8 ( 2017 ): 14035 . 10.1038/ncomms14035 PMC5253665 28102193

267 S. Rana , K. Malinowska , M. Zöller , “ Exosomal Tumor microRNA Modulates Premetastatic Organ Cells ,” Neoplasia 15 ( 2013 ): 281 – 295 . 23479506 10.1593/neo.122010 PMC3593151

268 Q. Ji , L. Zhou , H. Sui , et al., “ Primary Tumors Release ITGBL1‐rich Extracellular Vesicles to Promote Distal Metastatic Tumor Growth Through Fibroblast‐niche Formation ,” Nature Communications 11 ( 2020 ): 1211 . 10.1038/s41467-020-14869-x PMC7058049 32139701

269 T. Fang , H. Lv , G. Lv , et al., “ Tumor‐derived Exosomal miR‐1247‐3p Induces Cancer‐associated Fibroblast Activation to Foster Lung Metastasis of Liver Cancer ,” Nature Communications 9 ( 2018 ): 191 . 10.1038/s41467-017-02583-0 PMC5768693 29335551

270 T. Gener Lahav , O. Adler , Y. Zait , et al., “ Melanoma‐derived Extracellular Vesicles Instigate Proinflammatory Signaling in the Metastatic Microenvironment ,” International Journal of Cancer 145 ( 2019 ): 2521 – 2534 . 31216364 10.1002/ijc.32521

271 K. Shahriari , F. Shen , A. Worrede‐Mahdi , et al., “ Cooperation Among Heterogeneous Prostate Cancer Cells in the Bone Metastatic Niche ,” Oncogene 36 ( 2017 ): 2846 – 2856 . 27991924 10.1038/onc.2016.436 PMC5436952

272 P. Sandoval , J. A. Jiménez‐Heffernan , Á. Rynne‐Vidal , et al., “ Carcinoma‐associated Fibroblasts Derive From Mesothelial Cells via Mesothelial‐to‐mesenchymal Transition in Peritoneal Metastasis ,” Journal of Pathology 231 ( 2013 ): 517 – 531 . 24114721 10.1002/path.4281

273 A. Rynne‐Vidal , C. L. Au‐Yeung , J. A. Jiménez‐Heffernan , et al., “ Mesothelial‐to‐mesenchymal Transition as a Possible Therapeutic Target in Peritoneal Metastasis of Ovarian Cancer ,” Journal of Pathology 242 ( 2017 ): 140 – 151 . 28247413 10.1002/path.4889 PMC5468005

274 J. E. Park , M. C. Lenter , R. N. Zimmermann , P. Garin‐Chesa , L. J. Old , W. J. Rettig , “ Fibroblast Activation Protein, a Dual Specificity Serine Protease Expressed in Reactive human Tumor Stromal Fibroblasts ,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 274 ( 1999 ): 36505 – 36512 . 10593948 10.1074/jbc.274.51.36505

275 W. J. Rettig , et al., “ Differential Expression of Cell Surface Antigens and Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein in human Astrocytoma Subsets ,” Cancer Research 46 ( 1986 ): 6406 – 6412 . 2877731

276 E. Puré , R. Blomberg , “ Pro‐tumorigenic Roles of Fibroblast Activation Protein in Cancer: Back to the Basics ,” Oncogene 37 ( 2018 ): 4343 – 4357 . 29720723 10.1038/s41388-018-0275-3 PMC6092565

277 T. Lindner , F. L. Giesel , C. Kratochwil , S. E. Serfling , “ Radioligands Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) ,” Cancers (Basel) 13 ( 2021 ): 5744 . 34830898 10.3390/cancers13225744 PMC8616197

278 W. J. Rettig , P. Garin‐Chesa , J. H. Healey , S. L. Su , E. A. Jaffe , L. J. Old , “ Identification of Endosialin, a Cell Surface Glycoprotein of Vascular Endothelial Cells in human Cancer ,” PNAS 89 ( 1992 ): 10832 – 10836 . 1438285 10.1073/pnas.89.22.10832 PMC50436

279 T. Lindner , A. Loktev , A. Altmann , et al., “ Development of Quinoline‐Based Theranostic Ligands for the Targeting of Fibroblast Activation Protein ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 59 ( 2018 ): 1415 – 1422 . 29626119 10.2967/jnumed.118.210443

280 S. Basu , T. C. Kwee , S. Surti , E. A. Akin , D. Yoo , A. Alavi , “ Fundamentals of PET and PET/CT Imaging ,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1228 ( 2011 ): 1 – 18 . 21718318 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06077.x

281 Y. Gao , C. Wu , X. Chen , et al., “ PET/CT Molecular Imaging in the Era of Immune‐checkpoint Inhibitors Therapy ,” Frontiers in Immunology 13 ( 2022 ): 1049043 . 36341331 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1049043 PMC9630646

282 J. Zang , R. Lin , X. Wen , et al., “ A Head‐to‐Head Comparison of 68Ga‐LNC1007 and 2–18F‐FDG/68Ga‐FAPI‐02 PET/CT in Patients with Various Cancers ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 48 ( 2023 ): 861 – 868 . 37682601 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004820

283 S. Zheng , J. Lin , Y. Zhu , et al., “ 68Ga‐FAPI versus 18F‐FDG PET/CT in Evaluating Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients: A Head‐to‐Head Comparative Study ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 48 ( 2023 ): e104 ‐ e109 . 36723892 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004523

284 Y. Mori , K. Dendl , J. Cardinale , C. Kratochwil , F. L. Giesel , U. Haberkorn , “ FAPI PET: Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor Use in Oncologic and Nononcologic Disease ,” Radiology 306 ( 2023 ): e220749 . 36594838 10.1148/radiol.220749

285 J. Millul , G. Bassi , J. Mock , et al., “ An Ultra‐high‐affinity Small Organic Ligand of Fibroblast Activation Protein for Tumor‐targeting Applications ,” PNAS 118 ( 2021 ): e2101852118 . 33850024 10.1073/pnas.2101852118 PMC8072232

286 P. Backhaus , F. Gierse , M. C. Burg , et al., “ Translational Imaging of the Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) Using the New Ligand [(68)Ga]Ga‐OncoFAP‐DOTAGA ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 ( 2022 ): 1822 – 1832 . 34957527 10.1007/s00259-021-05653-0 PMC9016025

287 A. Galbiati , M. Bocci , D. Ravazza , et al., “ Preclinical Evaluation of (177)Lu‐OncoFAP‐23, a Multivalent FAP‐Targeted Radiopharmaceutical Therapeutic for Solid Tumors ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 65 ( 2024 ): 1604 – 1610 . 39266289 10.2967/jnumed.124.268200

288 A. Galbiati , P. Dorten , E. Gilardoni , et al., “ Tumor‐Targeted Interleukin 2 Boosts the Anticancer Activity of FAP‐Directed Radioligand Therapeutics ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 64 ( 2023 ): 1934 – 1940 . 37734838 10.2967/jnumed.123.266007 PMC10690118

289 D. Ventura , I. Ernst , B. Timma , M. Schäfers , P. Backhaus , “ Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Head with Intense [ 68 Ga]OncoFAP Uptake ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 50 ( 2025 ): e182 ‐ e183 . 39774520 10.1097/RLU.0000000000005595

290 D. Ventura , M. Schäfers , A. Yilmaz , L. Eckardt , D. Korthals , “ Intense 68 Ga‐OncoFAP Uptake as a New Promising Diagnostic Biomarker in Cardiac Sarcoidosis ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 49 ( 2024 ): e278 ‐ e280 . 38598550 10.1097/RLU.0000000000005214

291 E. Sahin , T. Kus , A. Aytekin , et al., “ 68Ga‐FAPI PET/CT as an Alternative to18F‐FDG PET/CT in the Imaging of Invasive Lobular Breast Carcinoma ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 65 ( 2024 ): 512 – 519 . 38485276 10.2967/jnumed.123.266798

292 H. Kömek , C. Can , Y. Güzel , et al., “ (68)Ga‐FAPI‐04 PET/CT, a New Step in Breast Cancer Imaging: A Comparative Pilot Study With the (18)F‐FDG PET/CT ,” Annals of Nuclear Medicine 35 ( 2021 ): 744 – 752 . 33934311 10.1007/s12149-021-01616-5

293 U. Elboga , E. Sahin , T. Kus , et al., “ Superiority of (68)Ga‐FAPI PET/CT Scan in Detecting Additional Lesions Compared to (18)FDG PET/CT Scan in Breast Cancer ,” Annals of Nuclear Medicine 35 ( 2021 ): 1321 – 1331 . 34436740 10.1007/s12149-021-01672-x

294 S. Ballal , M. P. Yadav , F. Roesch , et al., “ Head‐to‐Head Comparison Between [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA.SA.FAPi and [18F]F‐FDG PET/CT Imaging in Patients With Breast Cancer ,” Pharmaceuticals 16 ( 2023 ): 521 . 37111277 10.3390/ph16040521 PMC10144331

295 J. Mcgale , S. Khurana , H. Howell , et al., “ FAP‐Targeted SPECT/CT and PET/CT Imaging for Breast Cancer Patients ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 50 ( 2025 ): e138 ‐ e145 . 39780367 10.1097/RLU.0000000000005617

296 L. Wang , G. Tang , K. Hu , et al., “ Comparison of (68)Ga‐FAPI and (18)F‐FDG PET/CT in the Evaluation of Advanced Lung Cancer ,” Radiology 303 ( 2022 ): 191 – 199 . 34981976 10.1148/radiol.211424

297 F. L. Giesel , C. Kratochwil , J. Schlittenhardt , et al., “ Head‐to‐head Intra‐individual Comparison of Biodistribution and Tumor Uptake of (68)Ga‐FAPI and (18)F‐FDG PET/CT in Cancer Patients ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 48 ( 2021 ): 4377 – 4385 . 34137945 10.1007/s00259-021-05307-1 PMC8566651

298 J. Wu , H. Deng , H. Zhong , et al., “ Comparison of (68)Ga‐FAPI and (18)F‐FDG PET/CT in the Evaluation of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer ,” Frontiers in Oncology 12 ( 2022 ): 924223 . 35860594 10.3389/fonc.2022.924223 PMC9289292

299 R. Lin , Z. Lin , Z. Chen , et al., “ [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐FAPI‐04 PET/CT in the Evaluation of Gastric Cancer: Comparison With [18F]FDG PET/CT ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 ( 2022 ): 2960 – 2971 . 35462566 10.1007/s00259-022-05799-5

300 H. Chen , Y. Pang , J. Wu , et al., “ Comparison of [68Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐FAPI‐04 and [18F] FDG PET/CT for the Diagnosis of Primary and Metastatic Lesions in Patients With Various Types of Cancer ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 47 ( 2020 ): 1820 – 1832 . 32222810 10.1007/s00259-020-04769-z

301 J. Kuten , C. Levine , O. Shamni , et al., “ Head‐to‐head Comparison of [(68)Ga]Ga‐FAPI‐04 and [(18)F]‐FDG PET/CT in Evaluating the Extent of Disease in Gastric Adenocarcinoma ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 ( 2022 ): 743 – 750 . 34302504 10.1007/s00259-021-05494-x PMC8803763

302 C. Gündoğan , H. Kömek , C. Can , et al., “ Comparison of 18F‐FDG PET/CT and 68Ga‐FAPI‐04 PET/CT in the Staging and Restaging of Gastric Adenocarcinoma ,” Nuclear Medicine Communications 43 ( 2022 ): 64 – 72 . 34661379 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001489

303 B. Gu , Z. Yang , X. Du , et al., “ Imaging of Tumor Stroma Using (68)Ga‐FAPI PET/CT to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy of Primary Tumors in Head and Neck Cancer of Unknown Primary: A Comparative Imaging Trial ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 65 ( 2024 ): 365 – 371 . 38272706 10.2967/jnumed.123.266556 PMC10924163

304 Y. Jiang , B. Wen , C. Li , et al., “ The Performance of 68Ga‐FAPI‐04 PET/CT in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Comparison With 18F‐FDG PET/CT ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 50 ( 2023 ): 2114 – 2126 . 36808001 10.1007/s00259-023-06138-y

305 C. Qin , F. Liu , J. Huang , et al., “ A Head‐to‐head Comparison of (68)Ga‐DOTA‐FAPI‐04 and (18)F‐FDG PET/MR in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Prospective Study ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 48 ( 2021 ): 3228 – 3237 . 33609152 10.1007/s00259-021-05255-w

306 C. Promteangtrong , D. Siripongsatian , A. Jantarato , et al., “ Head‐to‐Head Comparison of 68Ga‐FAPI‐46 and 18F‐FDG PET/CT for Evaluation of Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Single‐Center Exploratory Study ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 63 ( 2022 ): 1155 – 1161 . 34857655 10.2967/jnumed.121.262831

307 X. Lin , Y. Li , S. Wang , et al., “ Diagnostic Value of [(68)Ga]Ga‐FAPI‐04 in Patients With Colorectal Cancer in Comparison With [(18)F]F‐FDG PET/CT ,” Frontiers in Oncology 12 ( 2022 ): 1087792 . 36698416 10.3389/fonc.2022.1087792 PMC9869033

308 Y. Pang , L. Zhao , Z. Luo , et al., “ Comparison of 68Ga‐FAPI and 18F‐FDG Uptake in Gastric, Duodenal, and Colorectal Cancers ,” Radiology 298 ( 2021 ): 393 – 402 . 33258746 10.1148/radiol.2020203275

309 H. Kömek , C. Can , I. Kaplan , et al., “ Comparison of [(68) Ga]Ga‐DOTA‐FAPI‐04 PET/CT and [(18)F]FDG PET/CT in Colorectal Cancer ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 ( 2022 ): 3898 – 3909 . 35578038 10.1007/s00259-022-05839-0

310 Y. Dong , P. Sun , H. Wu , et al., “ PET/CT Imaging Fibroblast Activation Protein in Initial Colorectal Cancer: Compared to 18F‐FDG PET/CT ,” Nuclear Medicine Communications 44 ( 2023 ): 1011 – 1019 . 37661771 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001751

311 B. Wang , X. Zhao , Y. Liu , et al., “ Comparison of 68Ga‐FAPI‐04 PET/CT With 18F‐FDG PET/CT for Diagnosis and Staging of Gastric and Colorectal Cancer ,” Nuclear Medicine Communications 45 ( 2024 ): 612 – 621 . 38686487 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001845

312 L. Lan , S. Zhang , T. Xu , et al., “ Prospective Comparison of 68Ga‐FAPI versus 18F‐FDG PET/CT for Tumor Staging in Biliary Tract Cancers ,” Radiology 304 ( 2022 ): 648 – 657 . 35579524 10.1148/radiol.213118

313 Q. Shu , X. He , Xi Chen , M. Liu , Y. Chen , L. Cai , “ Head‐to‐Head Comparison of 18F‐FDG and 68Ga‐FAPI‐04 PET/CT for Radiological Evaluation of Cervical Cancer ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 48 ( 2023 ): 928 – 932 . 37756446 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004833

314 V. Rajaraman , L. A. Meenakshi , A. J. Selvaraj , B. Pottakkat , D. Halanaik , “ Role of 68 Ga‐FAPI PET/CT in Assessing Hepatobiliary Malignancies : A Prospective Pilot Study ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 48 ( 2023 ): e281 ‐ e288 . 37019124 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004641

315 Z. Cheng , S. Zou , S. Cheng , S. Song , X. Zhu , “ Comparison of 18F‐FDG, 68Ga‐FAPI, and 68Ga‐DOTATATE PET/CT in a Patient with Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 46 ( 2021 ): 764 – 765 . 34132674 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003763

316 M. Röhrich , A. Loktev , A. K. Wefers , et al., “ IDH‐wildtype Glioblastomas and Grade III/IV IDH‐mutant Gliomas Show Elevated Tracer Uptake in Fibroblast Activation Protein‐specific PET/CT ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 46 ( 2019 ): 2569 – 2580 . 31388723 10.1007/s00259-019-04444-y

317 P. Windisch , M. Röhrich , S. Regnery , et al., “ Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) Specific PET for Advanced Target Volume Delineation in Glioblastoma ,” Radiotherapy and Oncology 150 ( 2020 ): 159 – 163 . 32598977 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.06.040

318 J. Zang , X. Wen , R. Lin , et al., “ Synthesis, Preclinical Evaluation and Radiation Dosimetry of a Dual Targeting PET Tracer [(68)Ga]Ga‐FAPI‐RGD ,” Theranostics 12 ( 2022 ): 7180 – 7190 . 36276644 10.7150/thno.79144 PMC9576616

319 L. Feng , W. Hu , X. Zeng , et al., “ Development and Evaluation of DOTA‐FAPI‐Maleimide as a Novel Radiotracer for Tumor Theranostic With Extended Circulation ,” Molecular Pharmaceutics 21 ( 2024 ): 4386 – 4394 . 39046432 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.4c00327

320 Y. Wei , L. Ma , P. Li , et al., “ FAPI Compared With FDG PET/CT for Diagnosis of Primary and Metastatic Lung Cancer ,” Radiology 308 ( 2023 ): e222785 . 37552075 10.1148/radiol.222785

321 C. Qin , F. Shao , Y. Gai , et al., “ (68)Ga‐DOTA‐FAPI‐04 PET/MR in the Evaluation of Gastric Carcinomas: Comparison With (18)F‐FDG PET/CT ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 63 ( 2022 ): 81 – 88 . 33863819 10.2967/jnumed.120.258467 PMC8717186

322 W.‐T. Dou , H.‐H. Han , A. C. Sedgwick , et al., “ Fluorescent Probes for the Detection of Disease‐associated Biomarkers ,” Science Bulletin (Beijing) 67 ( 2022 ): 853 – 878 . 10.1016/j.scib.2022.01.014 36546238

323 J. S. D. Mieog , F. B. Achterberg , A. Zlitni , et al., “ Fundamentals and Developments in Fluorescence‐guided Cancer Surgery ,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 19 ( 2022 ): 9 – 22 . 10.1038/s41571-021-00548-3 34493858

324 S. Su , W. J. Scott , M. S. Allen , et al., “ Patterns of Survival and Recurrence After Surgical Treatment of Early Stage Non‐small Cell Lung Carcinoma in the ACOSOG Z0030 (ALLIANCE) Trial ,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 147 ( 2014 ): 747 – 752 . Discussion 752‐743. 24290575 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.001 PMC5730361

325 H. Saji , M. Okada , M. Tsuboi , et al., “ Segmentectomy versus Lobectomy in Small‐sized Peripheral Non‐small‐cell Lung Cancer (JCOG0802/WJOG4607L): A Multicentre, Open‐label, Phase 3, Randomised, Controlled, Non‐inferiority Trial ,” Lancet 399 ( 2022 ): 1607 – 1617 . 35461558 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02333-3

326 T. Fabian , A. S. Bryant , A. L. Mouhlas , J. A. Federico , R. J. Cerfolio , “ Survival After Resection of Synchronous Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer ,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 142 ( 2011 ): 547 – 553 . 21843760 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.03.035

327 J. D. Predina , A. D. Newton , C. Connolly , et al., “ Identification of a Folate Receptor‐Targeted Near‐Infrared Molecular Contrast Agent to Localize Pulmonary Adenocarcinomas ,” Molecular Therapy 26 ( 2018 ): 390 – 403 . 29241970 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.10.016 PMC5835020

328 O. T. Okusanya , E. M. Dejesus , J. X. Jiang , et al., “ Intraoperative Molecular Imaging Can Identify Lung Adenocarcinomas During Pulmonary Resection ,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 150 ( 2015 ): 28 – 35 . e21. 26126457 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.05.014 PMC4828933

329 H. Li , D. Xia , L. Meng , et al., “ FAP‐targeted Delivery of Radioiodinated Probes: A Progressive Albumin‐driven Strategy for Tumor Theranostics ,” Journal of Controlled Release 382 ( 2025 ): 113678 . 40180251 10.1016/j.jconrel.2025.113678

330 X. Wen , P. Xu , M. Shi , et al., “ Evans Blue‐modified Radiolabeled Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor as Long‐acting Cancer Therapeutics ,” Theranostics 12 ( 2022 ): 422 – 433 . 34987657 10.7150/thno.68182 PMC8690933

331 H. Fu , J. Huang , T. Zhao , et al., “ Fibroblast Activation Protein‐Targeted Radioligand Therapy With 177Lu‐EB‐FAPI for Metastatic Radioiodine‐Refractory Thyroid Cancer: First‐in‐Human, Dose‐Escalation Study ,” Clinical Cancer Research 29 ( 2023 ): 4740 – 4750 . 37801296 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-1983 PMC10690094

332 D. N. Dorst , M. Rijpkema , M. Buitinga , et al., “ Targeting of Fibroblast Activation Protein in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Imaging and Ex Vivo Photodynamic Therapy ,” Rheumatology 61 ( 2022 ): 2999 – 3009 . 34450633 10.1093/rheumatology/keab664 PMC9258553

333 S. Y. Liu , H. Wang , G. Nie , “ Ultrasensitive Fibroblast Activation Protein‐α‐Activated Fluorogenic Probe Enables Selective Imaging and Killing of Melanoma in Vivo ,” ACS Sens 7 ( 2022 ): 1837 – 1846 . 35713201 10.1021/acssensors.2c00126

334 F. L. Tansi , R. Rüger , C. Böhm , et al., “ Potential of Activatable FAP‐targeting Immunoliposomes in Intraoperative Imaging of Spontaneous Metastases ,” Biomaterials 88 ( 2016 ): 70 – 82 . 26945457 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.02.028

335 X. Zhao , G. Zhang , J. Chen , et al., “ A Rationally Designed Nuclei‐targeting FAPI 04‐based Molecular Probe With Enhanced Tumor Uptake for PET/CT and Fluorescence Imaging ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 51 ( 2024 ): 1593 – 1604 . 38512485 10.1007/s00259-024-06691-0

336 W. K. Tsai , K. A. Zettlitz , R. Tavaré , N. Kobayashi , R. E. Reiter , A. M. Wu , “ Dual‐Modality ImmunoPET/Fluorescence Imaging of Prostate Cancer With an Anti‐PSCA Cys‐Minibody ,” Theranostics 8 ( 2018 ): 5903 – 5914 . 30613270 10.7150/thno.27679 PMC6299441

337 S. Lütje , M. Rijpkema , W. Helfrich , W. J. Oyen , O. C. Boerman , “ Targeted Radionuclide and Fluorescence Dual‐modality Imaging of Cancer: Preclinical Advances and Clinical Translation ,” Molecular Imaging and Biology 16 ( 2014 ): 747 – 755 . 24849133 10.1007/s11307-014-0747-y

338 H. Deng , Y. Bai , J. Xiang , et al., “ Photoacoustic/Ultrasound Dual‐modality Imaging for Marker Clip Localization in Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy of Breast Cancer ,” Journal of Biomedial Optics 29 ( 2024 ): S11525 . 10.1117/1.JBO.29.S1.S11525 PMC10901241 38420498

339 X. Chen , H. Zhou , X. Li , et al., “ Plectin‐1 Targeted Dual‐modality Nanoparticles for Pancreatic Cancer Imaging ,” EBioMedicine 30 ( 2018 ): 129 – 137 . 29574092 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.03.008 PMC5952251

340 H. Wahyudi , A. A. Reynolds , Y. Li , S. C. Owen , S. M. Yu , “ Targeting Collagen for Diagnostic Imaging and Therapeutic Delivery ,” Journal of Controlled Release 240 ( 2016 ): 323 – 331 . 26773768 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.01.007 PMC4936964

341 S. Chen , K. Li , X. Chen , S. Lei , J. Lin , P. Huang , “ Reversibly Photoswitchable Protein Assemblies With Collagen Affinity for in Vivo Photoacoustic Imaging of Tumors ,” Science Advances 10 ( 2024 ): eadn8274 . 39213344 10.1126/sciadv.adn8274 PMC11364091

342 E. Brown , T. Mckee , E. Ditomaso , et al., “ Dynamic Imaging of Collagen and Its Modulation in Tumors in Vivo Using Second‐harmonic Generation ,” Nature Medicine 9 ( 2003 ): 796 – 800 . 10.1038/nm879 12754503

343 W. Adi , B. E. Rubio Perez , Y. Liu , S. Runkle , K. W. Eliceiri , F. Yesilkoy , “ Machine Learning‐assisted Mid‐infrared Spectrochemical Fibrillar Collagen Imaging in Clinical Tissues ,” Journal of Biomedial Optics 29 ( 2024 ): 093511 . 10.1117/1.JBO.29.9.093511 PMC11448345 39364328

344 T. Ottens , S. Barbieri , M. R. Orton , et al., “ Deep Learning DCE‐MRI Parameter Estimation: Application in Pancreatic Cancer ,” Medical Image Analysis 80 ( 2022 ): 102512 . 35709559 10.1016/j.media.2022.102512

345 C. Militello , L. Rundo , M. Dimarco , et al., “ 3D DCE‐MRI Radiomic Analysis for Malignant Lesion Prediction in Breast Cancer Patients ,” Academic Radiology 29 ( 2022 ): 830 – 840 . 34600805 10.1016/j.acra.2021.08.024

346 Q. Ma , X. Lu , Q. Chen , H. Gong , J. Lei , “ Multiphases DCE‐MRI Radiomics Nomogram for Preoperative Prediction of Lymphovascular Invasion in Invasive Breast Cancer ,” Academic Radiology 31 ( 2024 ): 4743 – 4758 . 39107190 10.1016/j.acra.2024.06.007

347 T. Lv , Y. Wu , Y. Wang , et al., “ A Hybrid Hemodynamic Knowledge‐powered and Feature Reconstruction‐guided Scheme for Breast Cancer Segmentation Based on DCE‐MRI ,” Medical Image Analysis 82 ( 2022 ): 102572 . 36055051 10.1016/j.media.2022.102572

348 A. Gubern‐Mérida , R. Martí , J. Melendez , et al., “ Automated Localization of Breast Cancer in DCE‐MRI ,” Medical Image Analysis 20 ( 2015 ): 265 – 274 . 25532510 10.1016/j.media.2014.12.001

349 M. Polasek , Y. Yang , D. T. Schühle , et al., “ Molecular MR Imaging of Fibrosis in a Mouse Model of Pancreatic Cancer ,” Scientific Reports 7 ( 2017 ): 8114 . 28808290 10.1038/s41598-017-08838-6 PMC5556073

350 P. Farace , F. Merigo , S. Fiorini , et al., “ DCE‐MRI Using Small‐molecular and Albumin‐binding Contrast Agents in Experimental Carcinomas With Different Stromal Content ,” European Journal of Radiology 78 ( 2011 ): 52 – 59 . 19443159 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.04.043

351 N. Talebloo , M. A. O. Bernal , E. Kenyon , C. L. Mallett , A. Fazleabas , A. Moore , “ Detection of Endometriosis Lesions Using Gd‐Based Collagen I Targeting Probe in Murine Models of Endometriosis ,” Molecular Imaging and Biology 25 ( 2023 ): 833 – 843 . 37418136 10.1007/s11307-023-01833-6 PMC10598151

352 W. D. Travis , S. Dacic , I. Wistuba , et al., “ IASLC Multidisciplinary Recommendations for Pathologic Assessment of Lung Cancer Resection Specimens after Neoadjuvant Therapy ,” Journal of Thoracic Oncology 15 ( 2020 ): 709 – 740 . 32004713 10.1016/j.jtho.2020.01.005 PMC8173999

353 C. Cao , A. Guo , C. Chen , et al., “ Systematic Review of Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy for Patients with Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer ,” Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 33 ( 2021 ): 850 – 857 . 33444765 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.12.012 PMC8273189

354 D. J. Erstad , M. Sojoodi , M. S. Taylor , et al., “ Fibrotic Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy Predicts Survival in Pancreatic Cancer and Is Measurable With Collagen‐Targeted Molecular MRI ,” Clinical Cancer Research 26 ( 2020 ): 5007 – 5018 . 32611647 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1359 PMC7980315

355 D. Izquierdo‐Garcia , P. Désogère , M. L. Fur , et al., “ Biodistribution, Dosimetry, and Pharmacokinetics of (68)Ga‐CBP8: A Type I Collagen‐Targeted PET Probe ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 64 ( 2023 ): 775 – 781 . 37116909 10.2967/jnumed.122.264530 PMC10152126

356 S. A. Esfahani , H. Ma , S. Krishna , et al., “ Collagen Type I PET/MRI Enables Evaluation of Treatment Response in Pancreatic Cancer in Pre‐clinical and First‐in‐human Translational Studies ,” Theranostics 14 ( 2024 ): 5745 – 5761 . 39346545 10.7150/thno.100116 PMC11426233

357 P. Désogère , L. F. Tapias , L. P. Hariri , et al., “ Type I Collagen‐targeted PET Probe for Pulmonary Fibrosis Detection and Staging in Preclinical Models ,” Science Translational Medicine 9 ( 2017 ): eaaf4696 . 28381537 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf4696 PMC5568793

358 J. Xiong , L. Yan , C. Zou , et al., “ Integrins Regulate Stemness in Solid Tumor: An Emerging Therapeutic Target ,” Journal of Hematology & Oncology 14 ( 2021 ): 177 . 34715893 10.1186/s13045-021-01192-1 PMC8555177

359 F. Liu , Q. Wu , Z. Dong , K. Liu , “ Integrins in Cancer: Emerging Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities ,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics 247 ( 2023 ): 108458 . 37245545 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2023.108458

360 H. Hamidi , J. Ivaska , “ Every Step of the Way: Integrins in Cancer Progression and Metastasis ,” Nature Reviews Cancer 18 ( 2018 ): 533 – 548 . 30002479 10.1038/s41568-018-0038-z PMC6629548

361 J. S. Desgrosellier , D. A. Cheresh , “ Integrins in Cancer: Biological Implications and Therapeutic Opportunities ,” Nature Reviews Cancer 10 ( 2010 ): 9 – 22 . 20029421 10.1038/nrc2748 PMC4383089

362 R. J. Slack , S. J. F. Macdonald , J. A. Roper , R. G. Jenkins , R. J. D. Hatley , “ Emerging Therapeutic Opportunities for Integrin Inhibitors ,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 21 ( 2022 ): 60 – 78 . 34535788 10.1038/s41573-021-00284-4 PMC8446727

363 L. Koivisto , J. Bi , L. Häkkinen , H. Larjava , “ Integrin αvβ6: Structure, Function and Role in Health and Disease ,” International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology 99 ( 2018 ): 186 – 196 . 29678785 10.1016/j.biocel.2018.04.013

364 R. H. Kimura , L. Wang , B. Shen , et al., “ Evaluation of Integrin Αvβ(6) Cystine Knot PET Tracers to Detect Cancer and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ,” Nature Communications 10 ( 2019 ): 4673 . 10.1038/s41467-019-11863-w PMC6791878 31611594

365 E. Sahai , I. Astsaturov , E. Cukierman , et al., “ A Framework for Advancing Our Understanding of Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts ,” Nature Reviews Cancer 20 ( 2020 ): 174 – 186 . 31980749 10.1038/s41568-019-0238-1 PMC7046529

366 X. Chen , E. Song , “ Turning Foes to Friends: Targeting Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts ,” Nat Rev Drug Discovery 18 ( 2019 ): 99 – 115 . 30470818 10.1038/s41573-018-0004-1

367 K. C. Valkenburg , A. E. de Groot , K. J. Pienta , “ Targeting the Tumour Stroma to Improve Cancer Therapy ,” Nature reviews Clinical oncology 15 ( 2018 ): 366 – 381 . 10.1038/s41571-018-0007-1 PMC5960434 29651130

368 C. Berking , et al., “ Transforming Growth Factor‐beta1 Increases Survival of human Melanoma Through Stroma Remodeling ,” Cancer Research 61 ( 2001 ): 8306 – 8316 . 11719464

369 J. A. Tuxhorn , S. J. McAlhany , F. Yang , T. D. Dang , D. R. Rowley , “ Inhibition of Transforming Growth Factor‐beta Activity Decreases Angiogenesis in a human Prostate Cancer‐reactive Stroma Xenograft Model ,” Cancer Research 62 ( 2002 ): 6021 – 6025 . 12414622

370 N. Cheng , A. Chytil , Y. Shyr , A. Joly , H. L. Moses , “ Enhanced Hepatocyte Growth Factor Signaling by Type II Transforming Growth Factor‐beta Receptor Knockout Fibroblasts Promotes Mammary Tumorigenesis ,” Cancer Research 67 ( 2007 ): 4869 – 4877 . 17495323 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-3381

371 S. Mariathasan , S. J. Turley , D. Nickles , et al., “ TGFβ Attenuates Tumour Response to PD‐L1 Blockade by Contributing to Exclusion of T Cells ,” Nature 554 ( 2018 ): 544 – 548 . 29443960 10.1038/nature25501 PMC6028240

372 D. V. F. Tauriello , S. Palomo‐Ponce , D. Stork , et al., “ TGFβ Drives Immune Evasion in Genetically Reconstituted Colon Cancer Metastasis ,” Nature 554 ( 2018 ): 538 – 543 . 29443964 10.1038/nature25492

373 I. Belhabib , S. Zaghdoudi , C. Lac , C. Bousquet , C. Jean , “ Extracellular Matrices and Cancer‐Associated Fibroblasts: Targets for Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy? ,” Cancers (Basel) 13 ( 2021 ): 3466 . 34298680 10.3390/cancers13143466 PMC8303391

374 T. Yamazaki , A. J. Gunderson , M. Gilchrist , et al., “ Galunisertib plus Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Single‐arm, Phase 2 Trial ,” The Lancet Oncology 23 ( 2022 ): 1189 – 1200 . 35952709 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00446-6

375 A. Wick , A. Desjardins , C. Suarez , et al., “ Phase 1b/2a Study of galunisertib, a Small Molecule Inhibitor of Transforming Growth Factor‐beta Receptor I, in Combination With Standard Temozolomide‐based Radiochemotherapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Malignant Glioma ,” Investigational New Drugs 38 ( 2020 ): 1570 – 1579 . 32140889 10.1007/s10637-020-00910-9 PMC7497674

376 J. Rodon , M. A. Carducci , J. M. Sepulveda‐Sánchez , et al., “ First‐in‐human Dose Study of the Novel Transforming Growth Factor‐β Receptor I Kinase Inhibitor LY2157299 Monohydrate in Patients With Advanced Cancer and Glioma ,” Clinical Cancer Research 21 ( 2015 ): 553 – 560 . 25424852 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1380 PMC4337847

377 J. Rodón , M. Carducci , J. M. Sepulveda‐Sánchez , et al., “ Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic and Biomarker Evaluation of Transforming Growth Factor‐β Receptor I Kinase Inhibitor, galunisertib, in Phase 1 Study in Patients With Advanced Cancer ,” Investigational New Drugs 33 ( 2015 ): 357 – 370 . 25529192 10.1007/s10637-014-0192-4 PMC4387272

378 E. Nadal , M. Saleh , S. P. Aix , et al., “ A Phase Ib/II Study of galunisertib in Combination With nivolumab in Solid Tumors and Non‐small Cell Lung Cancer ,” BMC Cancer 23 ( 2023 ): 708 . 37507657 10.1186/s12885-023-11153-1 PMC10386782

379 D. Melisi , D.‐Y. Oh , A. Hollebecque , et al., “ Safety and Activity of the TGFβ Receptor I Kinase Inhibitor galunisertib plus the Anti‐PD‐L1 Antibody Durvalumab in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ,” Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 9 ( 2021 ): e002068 . 33688022 10.1136/jitc-2020-002068 PMC7944986

380 D. Melisi , R. Garcia‐Carbonero , T. Macarulla , et al., “ Galunisertib plus Gemcitabine vs. gemcitabine for First‐line Treatment of Patients With Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer ,” British Journal of Cancer 119 ( 2018 ): 1208 – 1214 . 30318515 10.1038/s41416-018-0246-z PMC6251034

381 R. K. Kelley , E. Gane , E. Assenat , et al., “ A Phase 2 Study of Galunisertib (TGF‐β1 Receptor Type I Inhibitor) and Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ,” Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology 10 ( 2019 ): e00056 . 31295152 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000056 PMC6708671

382 M. Ikeda , H. Takahashi , S. Kondo , et al., “ Phase 1b Study of galunisertib in Combination With Gemcitabine in Japanese Patients With Metastatic or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ,” Cancer Chemotheraphy and Pharmacology 79 ( 2017 ): 1169 – 1177 . 10.1007/s00280-017-3313-x 28451833

383 M. Ikeda , M. Morimoto , M. Tajimi , et al., “ A Phase 1b Study of Transforming Growth Factor‐beta Receptor I Inhibitor galunisertib in Combination With sorafenib in Japanese Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ,” Investigational New Drugs 37 ( 2019 ): 118 – 126 . 29995286 10.1007/s10637-018-0636-3 PMC6510840

384 J. J. Harding , R. K. Do , A. Yaqubie , et al., “ Phase 1b Study of Galunisertib and Ramucirumab in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ,” Cancer Medicine 10 ( 2021 ): 3059 – 3067 . 33811482 10.1002/cam4.3880 PMC8085979

385 Y. Fujiwara , H. Nokihara , Y. Yamada , et al., “ Phase 1 Study of galunisertib, a TGF‐beta Receptor I Kinase Inhibitor, in Japanese Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors ,” Cancer Chemotheraphy and Pharmacology 76 ( 2015 ): 1143 – 1152 . 10.1007/s00280-015-2895-4 26526984

386 S. Faivre , A. Santoro , R. K. Kelley , et al., “ Novel Transforming Growth Factor Beta Receptor I Kinase Inhibitor Galunisertib (LY2157299) in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ,” Liver International 39 ( 2019 ): 1468 – 1477 . 30963691 10.1111/liv.14113

387 E. G. Chiorean , V. Picozzi , C.‐P. Li , et al., “ Efficacy and Safety of abemaciclib Alone and With PI3K/mTOR Inhibitor LY3023414 or Galunisertib versus Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Controlled Trial ,” Cancer Medicine 12 ( 2023 ): 20353 – 20364 . 37840530 10.1002/cam4.6621 PMC10652308

388 A. A. Brandes , A. F. Carpentier , S. Kesari , et al., “ A Phase II Randomized Study of galunisertib Monotherapy or Galunisertib plus Lomustine Compared With Lomustine Monotherapy in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma ,” Neuro‐Oncology 18 ( 2016 ): 1146 – 1156 . 26902851 10.1093/neuonc/now009 PMC4933481

389 S. Pietrobono , F. Sabbadini , M. Bertolini , et al., “ Autotaxin Secretion Is a Stromal Mechanism of Adaptive Resistance to TGFβ Inhibition in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ,” Cancer Research 84 ( 2024 ): 118 – 132 . 37738399 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-23-0104 PMC10758691

390 T. A. Yap , M. Vieito , C. Baldini , et al., “ First‐In‐Human Phase I Study of a Next‐Generation, Oral, TGFβ Receptor 1 Inhibitor, LY3200882, in Patients With Advanced Cancer ,” Clinical Cancer Research 27 ( 2021 ): 6666 – 6676 . 34548321 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1504 PMC9414273

391 Z. Li , W. Xu , J. Yang , et al., “ A Tumor Microenvironments‐Adapted Polypeptide Hydrogel/Nanogel Composite Boosts Antitumor Molecularly Targeted Inhibition and Immunoactivation ,” Advanced Materials 34 ( 2022 ): e2200449 . 35291052 10.1002/adma.202200449

392 P. Zhang , C. Qin , N. Liu , et al., “ The Programmed Site‐specific Delivery of LY3200882 and PD‐L1 siRNA Boosts Immunotherapy for Triple‐negative Breast Cancer by Remodeling Tumor Microenvironment ,” Biomaterials 284 ( 2022 ): 121518 . 35462305 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121518

393 P. Hamon , M. Gerbé De Thoré , M. Classe , et al., “ TGFβ Receptor Inhibition Unleashes Interferon‐β Production by Tumor‐associated Macrophages and Enhances Radiotherapy Efficacy ,” Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer 10 ( 2022 ): e003519 . 35301235 10.1136/jitc-2021-003519 PMC8932273

394 E. Malek , P. S. Rana , M. Swamydas , et al., “ The TGFβ Type I Receptor Kinase Inhibitor vactosertib in Combination With pomalidomide in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Phase 1b Trial ,” Nature Communications 15 ( 2024 ): 7388 . 10.1038/s41467-024-51442-2 PMC11350185 39191755

395 S. Y. Jung , S. Hwang , J. M. Clarke , et al., “ Pharmacokinetic Characteristics of vactosertib, a New Activin Receptor‐Like Kinase 5 Inhibitor, in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors in a First‐in‐human Phase 1 Study ,” Investigational New Drugs 38 ( 2020 ): 812 – 820 . 31300967 10.1007/s10637-019-00835-y

396 J.‐H. Ahn , J. Lee , C. Park , et al., “ Clinical Activity of TGF‐β Inhibitor Vactosertib in Combination With Imatinib in Desmoid Tumors: A Multicenter Phase Ib/II Study ,” Clinical Cancer Research 30 ( 2024 ): 1457 – 1465 . 38363333 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-2823

397 C. Feig , J. O. Jones , M. Kraman , et al., “ Targeting CXCL12 From FAP‐expressing Carcinoma‐associated Fibroblasts Synergizes With Anti‐PD‐L1 Immunotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer ,” PNAS 110 ( 2013 ): 20212 – 20217 . 24277834 10.1073/pnas.1320318110 PMC3864274

398 D. Zboralski , K. Hoehlig , D. Eulberg , A. Frömming , A. Vater , “ Increasing Tumor‐Infiltrating T Cells Through Inhibition of CXCL12 With NOX‐A12 Synergizes With PD‐1 Blockade ,” Cancer Immunology Research 5 ( 2017 ): 950 – 956 . 28963140 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0303

399 J. B. Candido , J. P. Morton , P. Bailey , et al., “ CSF1R(+) Macrophages Sustain Pancreatic Tumor Growth Through T Cell Suppression and Maintenance of Key Gene Programs That Define the Squamous Subtype ,” Cell Reports 23 ( 2018 ): 1448 – 1460 . 29719257 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.131 PMC5946718

400 Y. Zhu , B. L. Knolhoff , M. A. Meyer , et al., “ CSF1/CSF1R blockade Reprograms Tumor‐infiltrating Macrophages and Improves Response to T‐cell Checkpoint Immunotherapy in Pancreatic Cancer Models ,” Cancer Research 74 ( 2014 ): 5057 – 5069 . 25082815 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-3723 PMC4182950

401 J. Yang , A. Kumar , A. E. Vilgelm , et al., “ Loss of CXCR4 in Myeloid Cells Enhances Antitumor Immunity and Reduces Melanoma Growth Through NK Cell and FASL Mechanisms ,” Cancer Immunology Research 6 ( 2018 ): 1186 – 1198 . 30108045 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0045 PMC6170679

402 B. Bockorny , V. Semenisty , T. Macarulla , et al., “ BL‐8040, a CXCR4 Antagonist, in Combination With pembrolizumab and Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Cancer: The COMBAT Trial ,” Nature Medicine 26 ( 2020 ): 878 – 885 . 10.1038/s41591-020-0880-x 32451495

403 M. Abraham , Y. Pereg , B. Bulvik , et al., “ Single Dose of the CXCR4 Antagonist BL‐8040 Induces Rapid Mobilization for the Collection of Human CD34(+) Cells in Healthy Volunteers ,” Clinical Cancer Research 23 ( 2017 ): 6790 – 6801 . 28835380 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2919

404 P. M. Voorhees , J. L. Kaufman , J. Laubach , et al., “ Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone for Transplant‐eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: The GRIFFIN Trial ,” Blood 136 ( 2020 ): 936 – 945 . 32325490 10.1182/blood.2020005288 PMC7441167

405 G. L. Uy , M. P. Rettig , R. M. Stone , et al., “ A Phase 1/2 Study of Chemosensitization With plerixafor plus G‐CSF in Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia ,” Blood Cancer Journal 7 ( 2017 ): e542 . 28282031 10.1038/bcj.2017.21 PMC5380905

406 S. Sidana , A. K. Bankova , H. Hosoya , et al., “ Phase II Study of Novel CXCR2 Agonist and Plerixafor for Rapid Stem Cell Mobilization in Patients With Multiple Myeloma ,” Blood Cancer Journal 14 ( 2024 ): 173 . 39384609 10.1038/s41408-024-01152-1 PMC11464886

407 B. Morland , T. Kepak , S. Dallorso , et al., “ Plerixafor Combined With Standard Regimens for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization in Pediatric Patients With Solid Tumors Eligible for Autologous Transplants: Two‐arm Phase I/II Study (MOZAIC) ,” Bone Marrow Transplantation 55 ( 2020 ): 1744 – 1753 . 32127657 10.1038/s41409-020-0836-2 PMC7452813

408 D. H. Mcdermott , D. Velez , E. Cho , et al., “ A Phase III Randomized Crossover Trial of plerixafor versus G‐CSF for Treatment of WHIM Syndrome ,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 133 ( 2023 ): e164918 . 37561579 10.1172/JCI164918 PMC10541188

409 S. M. Devine , R. Vij , M. Rettig , et al., “ Rapid Mobilization of Functional Donor Hematopoietic Cells Without G‐CSF Using AMD3100, an Antagonist of the CXCR4/SDF‐1 Interaction ,” Blood 112 ( 2008 ): 990 – 998 . 18426988 10.1182/blood-2007-12-130179

410 S. M. Devine , N. Flomenberg , D. H. Vesole , et al., “ Rapid Mobilization of CD34+ Cells Following Administration of the CXCR4 Antagonist AMD3100 to Patients With Multiple Myeloma and non‐Hodgkin's Lymphoma ,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 22 ( 2004 ): 1095 – 1102 . 15020611 10.1200/JCO.2004.07.131

411 S. A. Patel , M. B. Nilsson , Y. Yang , et al., “ IL6 Mediates Suppression of T‐ and NK‐cell Function in EMT‐associated TKI‐resistant EGFR‐mutant NSCLC ,” Clinical Cancer Research 29 ( 2023 ): 1292 – 1304 . 36595561 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3379 PMC10290888

412 T. A. Mace , R. Shakya , J. R. Pitarresi , et al., “ IL‐6 and PD‐L1 Antibody Blockade Combination Therapy Reduces Tumour Progression in Murine Models of Pancreatic Cancer ,” Gut 67 ( 2018 ): 320 – 332 . 27797936 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311585 PMC5406266

413 Z. Guo , H. Zhang , Y. Fu , et al., “ Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts Induce Growth and Radioresistance of Breast Cancer Cells Through Paracrine IL‐6 ,” Cell Death Discov 9 ( 2023 ): 6 . 36635302 10.1038/s41420-023-01306-3 PMC9837084

414 A. Dittmer , J. Dittmer , “ A CAF‐Fueled TIMP‐1/CD63/ITGB1/STAT3 Feedback Loop Promotes Migration and Growth of Breast Cancer Cells ,” Cancers (Basel) 14 ( 2022 ): 4983 . 36291767 10.3390/cancers14204983 PMC9599197

415 A. M. Skoda , D. Simovic , V. Karin , V. Kardum , S. Vranic , L. Serman , “ The Role of the Hedgehog Signaling Pathway in Cancer: A Comprehensive Review ,” Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 18 ( 2018 ): 8 – 20 . 29274272 10.17305/bjbms.2018.2756 PMC5826678

416 A. Giammona , E. Crivaro , B. Stecca , “ Emerging Roles of Hedgehog Signaling in Cancer Immunity ,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24 ( 2023 ): 1321 . 36674836 10.3390/ijms24021321 PMC9864846

417 N. Geyer , M. Gerling , “ Hedgehog Signaling in Colorectal Cancer: All in the Stroma? ,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22 ( 2021 ): 1025 . 33498528 10.3390/ijms22031025 PMC7864206

418 G. J. Yoshida , “ Regulation of Heterogeneous Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts: The Molecular Pathology of Activated Signaling Pathways ,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 39 ( 2020 ): 112 . 32546182 10.1186/s13046-020-01611-0 PMC7296768

419 T. Østerlund , P. Kogerman , “ Hedgehog Signalling: How to Get From Smo to Ci and Gli ,” Trends in Cell Biology 16 ( 2006 ): 176 – 180 . 16516476 10.1016/j.tcb.2006.02.004

420 J. Jiang , “ Hedgehog Signaling Mechanism and Role in Cancer ,” Seminars in Cancer Biology 85 ( 2022 ): 107 – 122 . 33836254 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.04.003 PMC8492792

421 A. Sekulic , M. R. Migden , A. E. Oro , et al., “ Efficacy and Safety of vismodegib in Advanced Basal‐cell Carcinoma ,” New England Journal of Medicine 366 ( 2012 ): 2171 – 2179 . 22670903 10.1056/NEJMoa1113713 PMC5278761

422 V. Ruiz‐Salas , M. Alegre , A. López‐Ferrer , J. R. Garcés , “ Vismodegib: A Review ,” Actas Dermo‐Sifiliograficas 105 ( 2014 ): 744 – 751 . 24359667 10.1016/j.ad.2013.09.012

423 J. E. Frampton , N. Basset‐Séguin , “ Vismodegib: A Review in Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma ,” Drugs 78 ( 2018 ): 1145 – 1156 . 30030732 10.1007/s40265-018-0948-9

424 R. Dummer , P. A. Ascierto , N. Basset‐Seguin , et al., “ Sonidegib and vismodegib in the Treatment of Patients With Locally Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Joint Expert Opinion ,” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 34 ( 2020 ): 1944 – 1956 . 31990414 10.1111/jdv.16230

425 B. Stecca , C. Mas , A. R. I. Altaba , “ Interference With HH‐GLI Signaling Inhibits Prostate Cancer ,” Trends in Molecular Medicine 11 ( 2005 ): 199 – 203 . 15882606 10.1016/j.molmed.2005.03.004

426 A. N. Sigafoos , B. D. Paradise , M. E. Fernandez‐Zapico , “ Hedgehog/GLI Signaling Pathway: Transduction, Regulation, and Implications for Disease ,” Cancers (Basel) 13 ( 2021 ): 3410 . 34298625 10.3390/cancers13143410 PMC8304605

427 P. Zhu , Li Wang , P. Xu , et al., “ GANT61 elevates Chemosensitivity to Cisplatin Through Regulating the Hedgehog, AMPK and cAMP Pathways in Ovarian Cancer ,” Future Medicinal Chemistry 14 ( 2022 ): 479 – 500 . 35322690 10.4155/fmc-2021-0310

428 K. Q. Zhang , X. D. Chu , “ GANT61 plays Antitumor Effects by Inducing Oxidative Stress Through the miRNA‐1286/RAB31 Axis in Osteosarcoma ,” Cell Biology International 45 ( 2021 ): 61 – 73 . 32936498 10.1002/cbin.11467

429 A. H. M. El‐Kishky , N. Moussa , M. W. Helmy , M. Haroun , “ GANT61/BI‐847325 Combination: A New Hope in Lung Cancer Treatment ,” Medical Oncology 39 ( 2022 ): 144 . 35834029 10.1007/s12032-022-01738-4 PMC9283175

430 Y. Jiang , T. L. Benz , S. B. Long , “ Substrate and Product Complexes Reveal Mechanisms of Hedgehog Acylation by HHAT ,” Science 372 ( 2021 ): 1215 – 1219 . 34112694 10.1126/science.abg4998 PMC8734478

431 J. A. Buglino , M. D. Resh , “ Hhat Is a Palmitoylacyltransferase With Specificity for N‐palmitoylation of Sonic Hedgehog ,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 283 ( 2008 ): 22076 – 22088 . 18534984 10.1074/jbc.M803901200 PMC2494920

432 G. Xu , B. An , R. Wang , et al., “ RBM10 deficiency Promotes Brain Metastasis by Modulating Sphingolipid Metabolism in a BBB Model of EGFR Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma ,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 44 ( 2025 ): 95 . 40069781 10.1186/s13046-025-03347-1 PMC11895392

433 E. Petrova , A. Matevossian , M. D. Resh , “ Hedgehog Acyltransferase as a Target in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ,” Oncogene 34 ( 2015 ): 263 – 268 . 24469057 10.1038/onc.2013.575 PMC4513646

434 A. Matevossian , M. D. Resh , “ Hedgehog Acyltransferase as a Target in Estrogen Receptor Positive, HER2 Amplified, and Tamoxifen Resistant Breast Cancer Cells ,” Molecular Cancer 14 ( 2015 ): 72 . 25889650 10.1186/s12943-015-0345-x PMC4711017

435 B. C. Özdemir , T. Pentcheva‐Hoang , J. L. Carstens , et al., “ Depletion of Carcinoma‐associated Fibroblasts and Fibrosis Induces Immunosuppression and Accelerates Pancreas Cancer With Reduced Survival ,” Cancer Cell 25 ( 2014 ): 719 – 734 . 24856586 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.04.005 PMC4180632

436 A. D. Rhim , P. E. Oberstein , D. H. Thomas , et al., “ Stromal Elements Act to Restrain, Rather Than Support, Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma ,” Cancer Cell 25 ( 2014 ): 735 – 747 . 24856585 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.04.021 PMC4096698

437 S. Shahvali , N. Rahiman , M. R. Jaafari , L. Arabi , “ Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP): Advances in CAR‐T Cell, Antibody, and Vaccine in Cancer Immunotherapy ,” Drug Delivery and Translational Research 13 ( 2023 ): 2041 – 2056 . 36840906 10.1007/s13346-023-01308-9

438 M. Nurmik , P. Ullmann , F. Rodriguez , S. Haan , E. Letellier , “ In Search of Definitions: Cancer‐associated Fibroblasts and Their Markers ,” International Journal of Cancer 146 ( 2020 ): 895 – 905 . 30734283 10.1002/ijc.32193 PMC6972582

439 E. J. Hamson , F. M. Keane , S. Tholen , O. Schilling , M. D. Gorrell , “ Understanding Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP): Substrates, Activities, Expression and Targeting for Cancer Therapy ,” Proteomics Clinical Applications 8 ( 2014 ): 454 – 463 . 24470260 10.1002/prca.201300095

440 A. A. Fitzgerald , L. M. Weiner , “ The Role of Fibroblast Activation Protein in Health and Malignancy ,” Cancer and Metastasis Reviews 39 ( 2020 ): 783 – 803 . 32601975 10.1007/s10555-020-09909-3 PMC7487063

441 S. Welt , C. R. Divgi , A. M. Scott , et al., “ Antibody Targeting in Metastatic Colon Cancer: A Phase I Study of Monoclonal Antibody F19 Against a Cell‐surface Protein of Reactive Tumor Stromal Fibroblasts ,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 12 ( 1994 ): 1193 – 1203 . 8201382 10.1200/JCO.1994.12.6.1193

442 R. D. Hofheinz , et al., “ Stromal Antigen Targeting by a Humanised Monoclonal Antibody: An Early Phase II Trial of sibrotuzumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ,” Onkologie 26 ( 2003 ): 44 – 48 . 12624517 10.1159/000069863

443 A. M. Scott , G. Wiseman , S. Welt , et al., “ A Phase I Dose‐escalation Study of sibrotuzumab in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Fibroblast Activation Protein‐positive Cancer ,” Clinical Cancer Research 9 ( 2003 ): 1639 – 1647 . 12738716

444 J. Fang , L. Xiao , K.‐I. Joo , et al., “ A Potent Immunotoxin Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein for Treatment of Breast Cancer in Mice ,” International Journal of Cancer 138 ( 2016 ): 1013 – 1023 . 26334777 10.1002/ijc.29831 PMC4715643

445 J. Fang , B. Hu , S. Li , C. Zhang , Y. Liu , P. Wang , “ A Multi‐antigen Vaccine in Combination With an Immunotoxin Targeting Tumor‐associated Fibroblast for Treating Murine Melanoma ,” Molecular Therapy Oncology 3 ( 2016 ): 16007 . 10.1038/mto.2016.7 PMC4824564 27119119

446 X.‐Y. Cui , Z. Li , Z. Kong , et al., “ Covalent Targeted Radioligands Potentiate Radionuclide Therapy ,” Nature 630 ( 2024 ): 206 – 213 . 38778111 10.1038/s41586-024-07461-6

447 M. Xu , P,. Zhang , J. Ding , J. Chen , L. Huo , Z. Liu , “ Albumin Binder‐Conjugated Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor Radiopharmaceuticals for Cancer Therapy ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 63 ( 2022 ): 952 – 958 . 34593598 10.2967/jnumed.121.262533 PMC9157728

448 Y. Liu , T. Watabe , K. Kaneda‐Nakashima , et al., “ Fibroblast Activation Protein Targeted Therapy Using [(177)Lu]FAPI‐46 Compared With [(225)Ac]FAPI‐46 in a Pancreatic Cancer Model ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 ( 2022 ): 871 – 880 . 34537893 10.1007/s00259-021-05554-2 PMC8803706

449 S. Boinapally , A. Lisok , G. Lofland , et al., “ Hetero‐bivalent Agents Targeting FAP and PSMA ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 49 ( 2022 ): 4369 – 4381 . 35965291 10.1007/s00259-022-05933-3

450 W. Huang , Y. Pang , Q. Liu , et al., “ Development and Characterization of Novel FAP‐Targeted Theranostic Pairs: A Bench‐to‐Bedside Study ,” Research (Wash D C) 6 ( 2023 ): 0282 . 38706713 10.34133/research.0282 PMC11066877

451 W. P. Fendler , K. M. Pabst , L. Kessler , et al., “ Safety and Efficacy of 90Y‐FAPI‐46 Radioligand Therapy in Patients With Advanced Sarcoma and Other Cancer Entities ,” Clinical Cancer Research 28 ( 2022 ): 4346 – 4353 . 35833949 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-1432 PMC9527500

452 T. Lindner , A. Altmann , S. Krämer , et al., “ Design and Development of (99m)Tc‐Labeled FAPI Tracers for SPECT Imaging and (188)Re Therapy ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 61 ( 2020 ): 1507 – 1513 . 32169911 10.2967/jnumed.119.239731 PMC7539653

453 J. Ferdinandus , P. F. Costa , L. Kessler , et al., “ Initial Clinical Experience With (90)Y‐FAPI‐46 Radioligand Therapy for Advanced‐Stage Solid Tumors: A Case Series of 9 Patients ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 63 ( 2022 ): 727 – 734 . 34385340 10.2967/jnumed.121.262468 PMC9051597

454 H. Fu , J. Huang , L. Sun , H. Wu , H. Chen , “ FAP‐Targeted Radionuclide Therapy of Advanced Radioiodine‐Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer with Multiple Cycles of 177 Lu‐FAPI‐46 ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 47 ( 2022 ): 906 – 907 . 35485857 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004260

455 S. Ballal , M. P. Yadav , E. S. Moon , et al., “ First‐in‐Human Experience with 177Lu‐DOTAGA.(SA.FAPi)2 Therapy in an Uncommon Case of Aggressive Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma Clinically Mimicking as Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 47 ( 2022 ): e444 ‐ e445 . 35507435 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004164

456 S. S. Banihashemian , M. Bayat , E. Pirayesh , G. Divband , A. Abolhosseini , M. E. Akbari , “ First Experience of Radionuclide Therapy with 177Lu‐FAPI‐2286 in a Patient with Metastatic Mediastinal Sarcoma ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 49 ( 2024 ): e334 ‐ e337 . 38831513 10.1097/RLU.0000000000005255

457 C. Kratochwil , F. L. Giesel , H. Rathke , et al., “ [(153)Sm]Samarium‐labeled FAPI‐46 Radioligand Therapy in a Patient With Lung Metastases of a Sarcoma ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 48 ( 2021 ): 3011 – 3013 . 33728499 10.1007/s00259-021-05273-8 PMC8263436

458 Y. Dekempeneer , S. Massa , F. Santens , et al., “ Preclinical Evaluation of a Radiotheranostic Single‐Domain Antibody against Fibroblast Activation Protein α ,” Journal of Nuclear Medicine 64 ( 2023 ): 1941 – 1948 . 38040444 10.2967/jnumed.123.266381

459 S. Ballal , M. P. Yadav , S. Raju , et al., “ [(177)Lu]Lu‐DOTAGA.Glu.(FAPi)(2) Radionuclide Therapy: A New Treatment Option for Patients With Glioblastoma Multiforme ,” Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 58 ( 2024 ): 32 – 34 . 38261876 10.1007/s13139-023-00814-5 PMC10796854

460 L. Meng , J. Fang , L. Zhao , et al., “ Rational Design and Pharmacomodulation of Protein‐Binding Theranostic Radioligands for Targeting the Fibroblast Activation Protein ,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 65 ( 2022 ): 8245 – 8257 . 35658448 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c02162

461 L. Zhao , J. Chen , Y. Pang , et al., “ Development of Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor‐Based Dimeric Radiotracers With Improved Tumor Retention and Antitumor Efficacy ,” Molecular Pharmaceutics 19 ( 2022 ): 3640 – 3651 . 35917335 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00424

462 M. Assadi , S. J. Rekabpour , E. Jafari , et al., “ Feasibility and Therapeutic Potential of 177Lu‐Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor‐46 for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Cancers: A Preliminary Study ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 46 ( 2021 ): e523 ‐ e530 . 34269729 10.1097/RLU.0000000000003810

463 J. Mcconathy , M. Dhawan , A. H. Goenka , et al., “ Abstract CT251: LuMIERE: A Phase 1/2 Study Investigating Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Dosimetry, and Preliminary Antitumor Activity of 177Lu‐FAP‐2286 in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors ,” Cancer Research 82 ( 2022 ): CT251 ‐ CT251 .

464 Z. Rao , Y. Zhang , L. Liu , M. Wang , C. Zhang , “ (177)Lu]Lu‐FAP‐2286 Therapy in a Case of Right Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma With Systemic Metastases ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 50 ( 2023 ): 1266 – 1267 . 36418590 10.1007/s00259-022-06048-5

465 S. Ballal , M. P. Yadav , V. Kramer , et al., “ A Theranostic Approach of [(68)Ga]Ga‐DOTA.SA.FAPi PET/CT‐guided [(177)Lu]Lu‐DOTA.SA.FAPi Radionuclide Therapy in an End‐stage Breast Cancer Patient: New Frontier in Targeted Radionuclide Therapy ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 48 ( 2021 ): 942 – 944 . 32783111 10.1007/s00259-020-04990-w

466 M. P. Yadav , S. Ballal , M. Martin , et al., “ Therapeutic Potential of [(177)Lu]Lu‐DOTAGA‐FAPi Dimers in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients With Limited Treatment Options: Efficacy and Safety Assessment ,” European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 51 ( 2024 ): 805 – 819 . 37932560 10.1007/s00259-023-06482-z

467 S. Barashki , G. Divband , E. Askari , H. Amini , K. Aryana , “ Fibroblast Activation Protein Inhibitor Imaging and Therapy in a Patient with Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Type 2A Syndrome ,” Clinical Nuclear Medicine 47 ( 2022 ): e284 ‐ e286 . 35067538 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004051

468 L. Zhao , Y. Pang , Y. Zhou , et al., “ Antitumor Efficacy and Potential Mechanism of FAP‐targeted Radioligand Therapy Combined With Immune Checkpoint Blockade ,” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 9 ( 2024 ): 142 . 38825657 10.1038/s41392-024-01853-w PMC11144707

469 S. Rafiq , C. S. Hackett , R. J. Brentjens , “ Engineering Strategies to Overcome the Current Roadblocks in CAR T Cell Therapy ,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 17 ( 2020 ): 147 – 167 . 10.1038/s41571-019-0297-y PMC7223338 31848460

470 N. Muhammad , Q. Mao , H. Xia , “ CAR T‐cells for Cancer Therapy ,” Biotechnology & Genetic Engineering Reviews 33 ( 2017 ): 190 – 226 . 29431047 10.1080/02648725.2018.1430465

471 L. Labanieh , R. G. Majzner , C. L. Mackall , “ Programming CAR‐T Cells to Kill Cancer ,” Nature Biomedical Engineering 2 ( 2018 ): 377 – 391 . 10.1038/s41551-018-0235-9 31011197

472 L. Chen , F. Chen , J. Li , et al., “ CAR‐T Cell Therapy for Lung Cancer: Potential and Perspective ,” Thorac Cancer 13 ( 2022 ): 889 – 899 . 35289077 10.1111/1759-7714.14375 PMC8977151

473 R. Bughda , P. Dimou , R. R. D'Souza , A. Klampatsa , “ Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP)‐Targeted CAR‐T Cells: Launching an Attack on Tumor Stroma ,” ImmunoTargets and Therapy 10 ( 2021 ): 313 – 323 . 34386436 10.2147/ITT.S291767 PMC8354246

474 L.‐C. S. Wang , A. Lo , J. Scholler , et al., “ Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein in Tumor Stroma With Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells Can Inhibit Tumor Growth and Augment Host Immunity Without Severe Toxicity ,” Cancer Immunology Research 2 ( 2014 ): 154 – 166 . 24778279 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0027 PMC4007316

475 A. Curioni , C. Britschgi , S. Hiltbrunner , et al., “ 1226P—A Phase I Clinical Trial of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Treated With Locally Delivered Autologous Anti‐FAP‐targeted CAR T‐cells ,” Annals of Oncology 30 ( 2019 ): v501 .

476 H. Wu , X. Fu , Y. Zhai , S. Gao , X. Yang , G. Zhai , “ Development of Effective Tumor Vaccine Strategies Based on Immune Response Cascade Reactions ,” Advanced Healthcare Materials 10 ( 2021 ): e2100299 . 34021717 10.1002/adhm.202100299

477 M. Saxena , S. H. van der Burg , C. J. M. Melief , N. Bhardwaj , “ Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines ,” Nature Reviews Cancer 21 ( 2021 ): 360 – 378 . 33907315 10.1038/s41568-021-00346-0

478 M. Peng , Y. Mo , Y. Wang , et al., “ Neoantigen Vaccine: An Emerging Tumor Immunotherapy ,” Molecular Cancer 18 ( 2019 ): 128 . 31443694 10.1186/s12943-019-1055-6 PMC6708248

479 Y. Li , X. Ma , Y. Yue , et al., “ Rapid Surface Display of mRNA Antigens by Bacteria‐Derived Outer Membrane Vesicles for a Personalized Tumor Vaccine ,” Advanced Materials 34 ( 2022 ): e2109984 . 35315546 10.1002/adma.202109984

480 M. Loeffler , “ Targeting Tumor‐associated Fibroblasts Improves Cancer Chemotherapy by Increasing Intratumoral Drug Uptake ,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 116 ( 2006 ): 1955 – 1962 . 16794736 10.1172/JCI26532 PMC1481657

481 E. K. Duperret , A. Trautz , D. Ammons , et al., “ Alteration of the Tumor Stroma Using a Consensus DNA Vaccine Targeting Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) Synergizes With Antitumor Vaccine Therapy in Mice ,” Clinical Cancer Research 24 ( 2018 ): 1190 – 1201 . 29269377 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2033 PMC5844837

482 D. Liao , Y. Luo , D. Markowitz , R. Xiang , R. A. Reisfeld , “ Cancer Associated Fibroblasts Promote Tumor Growth and Metastasis by Modulating the Tumor Immune Microenvironment in a 4T1 Murine Breast Cancer Model ,” PLoS ONE 4 ( 2009 ): e7965 . 19956757 10.1371/journal.pone.0007965 PMC2775953

483 I. A. Vathiotis , M. K. Moutafi , P. Divakar , et al., “ Alpha‐smooth Muscle Actin Expression in the Stroma Predicts Resistance to Trastuzumab in Patients With Early‐stage HER2‐positive Breast Cancer ,” Clinical Cancer Research 27 ( 2021 ): 6156 – 6163 . 34465600 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2103 PMC8595766

484 M. Murakami , M. J. Ernsting , E. Undzys , N. Holwell , W. D. Foltz , S.‐D. Li , “ Docetaxel Conjugate Nanoparticles That Target α‐smooth Muscle Actin‐expressing Stromal Cells Suppress Breast Cancer Metastasis ,” Cancer Research 73 ( 2013 ): 4862 – 4871 . 23907638 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-0062

485 M. Yang , J. Li , P. Gu , X. Fan , “ The Application of Nanoparticles in Cancer Immunotherapy: Targeting Tumor Microenvironment ,” Bioact Mater 6 ( 2021 ): 1973 – 1987 . 33426371 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.12.010 PMC7773537

486 H. Venugopal , A. Hanna , C. Humeres , N. G. Frangogiannis , “ Properties and Functions of Fibroblasts and Myofibroblasts in Myocardial Infarction ,” Cells 11 ( 2022 ): 1386 . 35563692 10.3390/cells11091386 PMC9102016

487 G. Cao , X. Xuan , J. Hu , R. Zhang , H. Jin , H. Dong , “ How Vascular Smooth Muscle Cell Phenotype Switching Contributes to Vascular Disease ,” Cell Communication and Signaling 20 ( 2022 ): 180 . 36411459 10.1186/s12964-022-00993-2 PMC9677683

488 X. Xu , T. Xia , “ Recent Advances in Site‐Specific Lipid Nanoparticles for mRNA Delivery ,” ACS Nanoscience Au 3 ( 2023 ): 192 – 203 . 37360845 10.1021/acsnanoscienceau.2c00062 PMC10288611

489 D. Song , Y. Zhao , Z. Wang , Q. Xu , “ Tuning Lipid Nanoparticles for RNA Delivery to Extrahepatic Organs ,” Advanced Materials 36 ( 2024 ): e2401445 . 39233550 10.1002/adma.202401445 PMC11530311

490 H. Liao , J. Liao , L. Zeng , X. Cao , H. Fan , J. Chen , “ Strategies for Organ‐Targeted mRNA Delivery by Lipid Nanoparticles ,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology 16 ( 2024 ): e2004 . 39400518 10.1002/wnan.2004

491 M. Alsaggar , D. Liu , “ Organ‐based Drug Delivery ,” Journal of Drug Targeting 26 ( 2018 ): 385 – 397 . 29419330 10.1080/1061186X.2018.1437919

492 M. Erkan , G. Adler , M. V. Apte , et al., “ StellaTUM: Current Consensus and Discussion on Pancreatic Stellate Cell Research ,” Gut 61 ( 2012 ): 172 – 178 . 22115911 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301220 PMC3245897

493 M. V. Apte , J. S. Wilson , A. Lugea , S. J. Pandol , “ A Starring Role for Stellate Cells in the Pancreatic Cancer Microenvironment ,” Gastroenterology 144 ( 2013 ): 1210 – 1219 . 23622130 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.11.037 PMC3729446

494 M. V. Apte , S. Park , P. A. Phillips , et al., “ Desmoplastic Reaction in Pancreatic Cancer: Role of Pancreatic Stellate Cells ,” Pancreas 29 ( 2004 ): 179 – 187 . 15367883 10.1097/00006676-200410000-00002

495 Y. Yu , K. Schuck , H. Friess , B. Kong , “ Targeting Aggressive Fibroblasts to Enhance the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer ,” Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets 25 ( 2021 ): 5 – 13 . 33246383 10.1080/14728222.2021.1857727

496 F. E. M. Froeling , C. Feig , C. Chelala , et al., “ Retinoic Acid‐induced Pancreatic Stellate Cell Quiescence Reduces Paracrine Wnt‐β‐catenin Signaling to Slow Tumor Progression ,” Gastroenterology 141 ( 2011 ): 1486 – 1497 , e1481‐1414. 21704588 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.06.047

497 E. F. Carapuça , E. Gemenetzidis , C. Feig , et al., “ Anti‐stromal Treatment Together With Chemotherapy Targets Multiple Signalling Pathways in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ,” Journal of Pathology 239 ( 2016 ): 286 – 296 . 27061193 10.1002/path.4727 PMC5025731

498 H. M. Kocher , B. Basu , F. E. M. Froeling , et al., “ Phase I Clinical Trial Repurposing all‐trans Retinoic Acid as a Stromal Targeting Agent for Pancreatic Cancer ,” Nature Communications 11 ( 2020 ): 4841 . 10.1038/s41467-020-18636-w PMC7518421 32973176

499 Y. Gao , J. Li , W. Cheng , et al., “ Cross‐tissue human Fibroblast Atlas Reveals Myofibroblast Subtypes With Distinct Roles in Immune Modulation ,” Cancer Cell 42 ( 2024 ): 1764 – 1783 . e1710. 39303725 10.1016/j.ccell.2024.08.020