Narrative review discusses TNFR2 modulation and nanoparticle approaches in overcoming cancer treatment challenges.
Cancer immunotherapy has fundamentally transformed the therapeutic landscape of multiple malignancies, particularly through immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) axis and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4). However, the clinical efficacy of these agents remains limited in many patients due to primary or acquired resistance and treatment-associated immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Among emerging immunoregulatory targets, tumor necrosis factor receptor 2 (TNFR2) has attracted increasing attention owing to its preferential overexpression on highly suppressive intratumoral regulatory T cells (Tregs), which play a crucial role in immune evasion, therapeutic resistance, and unfavorable clinical outcomes across diverse malignancies. Although conventional TNFR2-targeting approaches, including monoclonal antibodies and small-molecule inhibitors, have demonstrated promising biological activity, their broader clinical translation is hindered by inadequate tumor penetration, systemic toxicity, off-target effects, and limited selectivity toward TNFR2+ immunosuppressive cell populations within the tumor microenvironment (TME). Nanoparticle-based delivery systems offer a promising platform to address these challenges by improving pharmacokinetic stability, enhancing tumor-selective accumulation, enabling TNFR2-targeting surface functionalization, and facilitating controlled payload release within the TME. In this narrative review, we summarize the molecular and immunological roles of TNFR2, examine the contribution of the TNFR2-Treg axis to tumor immune escape, and discuss current nanoparticle engineering strategies for TNFR2-directed therapy. We also evaluate emerging preclinical evidence, key translational challenges, and future perspectives for TNFR2-targeted nanomedicine in cancer immunotherapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akbar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: