Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41561527›Full record

ReviewEcancermedicalscience2025

Cancer stem cells and post-therapy tumour recurrence: a systematic review of mechanistic pathways and translational gaps.

Imad Barjij, Meryem Meliani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecancermedicalscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Imad BarjijMedical Oncology Department, National Institute of Oncology, Ibn Sina University Hospital, Rabat 10000, Morocco.
Meryem MelianiMedical Oncology Department, Regional Oncology Center of Laâyoune, Regional Hospital Center of Laâyoune, Laâyoune 70000, Morocco.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are increasingly recognised as pivotal drivers of tumour recurrence and treatment resistance across multiple malignancies. Despite extensive preclinical investigations, the mechanisms by which CSCs mediate relapse after therapy remain insufficiently integrated and poorly translated into clinical frameworks. Objective: This systematic review aimed to synthesise current mechanistic evidence linking CSC biology to post-therapeutic recurrence in solid and hematologic tumours, highlighting recurrent molecular pathways, experimental models and translational gaps. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines, five major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase and ResearchRabbit) were searched without time or language restriction. Eligible studies included original experimental articles investigating the mechanistic role of CSCs in tumour recurrence, therapy resistance or metastatic relapse. A total of 23 studies were included after rigorous screening and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using predefined methodological criteria. No meta-analysis was conducted due to mechanistic and qualitative heterogeneity. Results: Included studies spanned diverse tumour types, including glioblastoma, breast, pancreatic, hepatocellular, colorectal, lung, thyroid and hematologic cancers. CSC-related recurrence was linked to key mechanistic axes: chromatin remodeling (e.g., suppressor of variegation 3-9 Homolog 1, methyltransferase like 16), transcriptional regulators (e.g., SRY-box transcription factor 2, MYC and Transcription factor activating enhancer-binding protein 4), epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition-associated plasticity, immune evasion (Programmed death-ligand 1, stimulator of interferon genes pathway suppression), metabolic rewiring (P-element induced WImpy Testis-like 2-PDK1, ribosomal biosynthesis) and microenvironmental crosstalk (cancer-associated fibroblasts- and myeloid-derived suppressor cells-mediated niches). Across studies, CSCs demonstrated higher resistance to chemotherapy, prolonged survival under treatment stress and robust capacity for tumour regeneration. Limitations: The majority of studies were preclinical and varied in CSC definitions and recurrence models. Few incorporated longitudinal tracking or patient-level validation. Overall risk of bias was moderate due to lack of blinding, protocol registration or replication. Conclusion: CSC-driven recurrence is a multifaceted and dynamic process shaped by epigenetic, transcriptional, metabolic and immunologic adaptations. Single-target strategies are unlikely to achieve durable eradication. Future research must prioritise multi-targeted approaches, integrate CSC endpoints into clinical trials and develop predictive biomarkers of CSC burden. Addressing CSC-mediated relapse is essential for advancing precision oncology and achieving lasting therapeutic responses.

Indexed as

cancer stem cellsEMTepigeneticsimmunoevasionmechanistic pathwaysrecurrencesystematic reviewtherapy resistancetumour microenvironmenttumour relapse

Identifiers

PMID41561527
PMCPMC12812827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.