ReviewJournal of hematology & oncology2026
Nanoengineered STING agonists for cancer therapy: toward immunodynamic control.
Review in Journal of hematology & oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Activation of the cyclic GMP-AMP synthase-stimulator of interferon genes (cGAS-STING) pathway is a mechanistically compelling strategy for cancer immunotherapy, but first-generation STING agonists have shown limited clinical activity despite clear pharmacodynamic induction of interferon-related signals. This translational gap suggests that therapeutic benefit depends not only on pathway engagement but also on where, in which cells, at what amplitude, and for how long STING is activated. In this review, we summarize the cellular context of cGAS-STING signaling, the pharmacological evolution and clinical experience of STING agonists, and the major barriers imposed by route, species differences, biological heterogeneity, and systemic inflammatory toxicity. We then examine how nanoengineering may improve agonist protection, cytosolic access, tissue and cell-type selectivity, and temporal exposure. Importantly, we distinguish improved delivery or tumor accumulation from direct evidence of altered signaling kinetics or a wider therapeutic window. Representative lipid, polymeric, inorganic, biogenic, biomimetic, antibody-directed, and prodrug-based platforms are evaluated together with mechanism-based combination sequencing, hematologic malignancy-specific considerations, biomarker-guided patient selection, repeated-dose safety, and manufacturability. Overall, nano-STING therapy should be developed toward immunodynamic control rather than simple delivery enhancement, with benefit judged by the relationship among delivery, cell-resolved pharmacodynamics, antitumor efficacy, and toxicity.
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.