ReviewDiscover oncology2025
Gene-edited hematopoietic stem cells for leukemia and lymphoma treatment: a systematic review of preclinical and translational evidence.
Review in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced gene editing technologies for oncology mechanisms, applications, and clinical implementation.Cancer gene therapy · 2026Review
- Targeting Arterial Dysfunction in Cardiovascular Disease Using Stem Cell-Based Therapies.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are pivotal in regenerating the blood and immune systems and have been widely used in treating hematologic malignancies like leukemia and lymphoma. Advances in gene-editing technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9 and lentiviral vectors, have enabled the modification of HSCs to enhance their therapeutic potential, offering a continuous source of tumor-targeting immune cells. However, challenges related to long-term engraftment, safety, and delivery mechanisms remain.
methodsThis systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, evaluated 19 preclinical and translational studies on gene-edited HSCs for leukemia and lymphoma treatment. The review focused on gene-editing methodologies, preclinical outcomes, delivery challenges, and translational barriers. Databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched using keywords related to gene editing, HSCs, and hematologic malignancies.
findingsGene-edited HSCs demonstrated promising preclinical efficacy, with CAR-engineered HSCs showing durable tumor clearance and multilineage immune reconstitution. Lentiviral vectors were the most common delivery method, but concerns about insertional mutagenesis persist. CRISPR/Cas9 offered precise editing but faced challenges with low homology-directed repair (HDR) efficiency in quiescent HSCs. Non-viral delivery methods, such as electroporation, showed potential for safer gene editing but require further optimization. Base editing technologies, while not requiring HDR, present their own delivery challenges that need to be addressed. Suicide gene strategies were effective in mitigating safety risks, while preconditioning regimens improved engraftment success.
conclusionsGene-edited HSCs hold significant promise for treating leukemia and lymphoma, offering long-term immune persistence and tumor clearance. However, challenges in gene delivery efficiency, safety, and engraftment must be addressed for clinical translation. Future research should focus on improving editing precision, scalable manufacturing, and robust safety monitoring to advance these therapies toward clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.