Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Review evaluates AML-associated antigens to identify safe targets for CAR-T-cell therapy, indicating potential for improved treatments.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Oers et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: