ReviewBlood cancer journal2026
The search for safe and effective CAR-T targets in AML.
Review in Blood cancer journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains a highly aggressive malignancy with limited therapeutic options and poor long-term survival. A major barrier to curative treatment is the persistence of leukemic stem cells (LSCs), a chemo-resistant population that drives relapse. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T-cell therapy has transformed the treatment of B-cell hematological malignancies. However, its application in AML has been met with significant challenges. Among the key challenges are the scarcity of AML-specific antigens and the risk of on-target/off-tumor toxicity due to shared antigen expression on normal hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) and/or mature blood cells. Early clinical trials of CAR-T-cell therapy in AML -primarily targeting CD123, CD33, or CLL‑1- have demonstrated limited durable complete remissions and/or frequent myeloablation, underscoring the need for more selective targets. While other targets show more restricted expression profiles, they are often expressed only in a small subgroup of AML patients. In this review, we systematically evaluated 63 AML-associated antigens for which CAR constructs have been reported, using five criteria: (1) homogeneous expression across AML patients, (2) uniform expression on AML cells within individual patients; (3) presence on LSCs, (4) absence on normal HSCs, and (5) no or acceptable expression on mature blood cells. Applying a 20-point scoring framework, 13 novel antigens emerged as the most promising candidates for CAR-T-cell therapy in AML: ADGRE2, SIGLEC-6, IL1RAP, MUC1, CCR1, CD155, CD70, LILRB4, GRP78, CD37, ITGB2, TIM-3 and mesothelin. We discuss the advantages and limitations of each target, along with strategies to mitigate associated risks. With no CAR-T-cell therapy currently approved for AML, this comprehensive review provides a prioritized antigen landscape and a framework to guide the rational design of next-generation CARs for this challenging malignancy.
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.