1. Introduction
Cancer remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, characterized by the uncontrolled proliferation of abnormal cells capable of invasion and metastasis. It comprises a heterogeneous group of diseases including carcinomas, sarcomas, hematological malignancies, and others, each defined by distinct molecular signatures and clinical behaviors [
1]. The genetic basis of cancer involves mutations in oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, and genes regulating DNA repair, cell cycle, and apoptosis. Epigenetic alterations such as DNA methylation and histone modifications further contribute to tumor heterogeneity and plasticity [
2]. This heterogeneity underpins the complex nature of cancer progression and resistance to therapy, as tumor cells adapt dynamically to selective pressures.
Traditional therapeutic approaches have improved survival rates for many cancer types; however, their non-specific mechanisms often harm normal tissues and are insufficient against metastatic and resistant tumors. Genetic engineering techniques, which enable direct manipulation of cancer genomes, have thus gained considerable interest as tools to understand tumor biology and develop precise therapeutic interventions. Early methods, such as RNA interference and zinc finger nucleases, suffered from limitations in specificity and efficiency [
3]. The discovery and adaptation of CRISPR/Cas9, a bacterial adaptive immune mechanism, has revolutionized genome editing due to its simplicity, programmability, and multiplexing capabilities [
4,
5]. CRISPR/Cas9’s ability to induce targeted double-stranded DNA breaks guided by customizable RNA sequences has empowered researchers to model cancer genetics with unprecedented accuracy and to design innovative gene therapies.
2. Conventional Treatment Methods
The primary conventional treatment modalities for cancer include chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgical intervention. Chemotherapy involves systemic administration of cytotoxic agents targeting rapidly dividing cells. While effective at killing tumor cells, chemotherapy lacks selectivity, resulting in significant off-target toxicity that affects bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract, and other proliferative tissues. Side effects range from nausea, immunosuppression, to cardiotoxicity and secondary malignancies [
6]. Radiotherapy uses ionizing radiation to induce DNA damage in cancer cells, but collateral damage to surrounding healthy tissues can cause acute and chronic side effects such as mucositis, fibrosis, and radiation-induced cancers [
7].
Surgical resection remains a cornerstone for localized tumors, offering potential cure when complete excision is feasible. However, surgery alone is often insufficient for metastatic or infiltrative cancers, which require adjunct systemic therapies [
8]. These traditional approaches are further challenged by tumor heterogeneity and acquired resistance mechanisms, limiting long-term success.
Immunotherapy represents an important advancement by leveraging the patient’s immune system to target cancer cells. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), including antibodies against PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4, restore T-cell activity suppressed by tumors, leading to durable responses in some cancers [
9]. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, wherein patient T-cells are genetically engineered to express tumor-specific receptors, has achieved remarkable remission rates in hematologic malignancies [
10]. Despite their promise, immunotherapies face limitations including immune-related adverse events, primary or acquired resistance, and limited efficacy in solid tumors with immunosuppressive microenvironments [
11]. These challenges highlight the continued need for innovative, targeted approaches that improve specificity and overcome resistance.
To better understand the landscape of existing therapies,
Table 1 summarizes the primary conventional cancer treatment modalities, highlighting their mechanisms, benefits, and limitations.
3. Advanced Treatment Methods: A Shift Toward Precision Medicine
Precision medicine seeks to tailor cancer treatment based on the individual molecular characteristics of each tumor. Targeted therapies use small molecule inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies designed to interfere with oncogenic signaling pathways critical for tumor survival. For example, HER2-targeted agents such as trastuzumab and pertuzumab have revolutionized treatment for HER2-positive breast cancer by blocking receptor signaling [
12]. Similarly, EGFR inhibitors such as gefitinib and osimertinib target mutant EGFR in non-small cell lung cancer, yielding improved response rates and progression-free survival [
13].
Despite these successes, tumor heterogeneity and evolutionary pressure often result in drug resistance through secondary mutations, pathway bypass, or phenotypic plasticity [
14]. Additionally, predictive biomarkers to identify responsive patients are still limited, emphasizing the need for dynamic and comprehensive tumor profiling.
Immunotherapy advancements continue with second-generation CAR-T therapies engineered to resist exhaustion, secrete cytokines, or target multiple antigens [
15]. Therapeutic cancer vaccines aim to elicit robust and specific anti-tumor immunity but have yet to realize their full potential clinically [
16]. The integration of genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data into clinical decision-making is propelling personalized immuno-oncology forward.
4. Personalized Medicine: CRISPR/Cas9’s Role in Precision Oncology
The CRISPR/Cas9 system consists of a Cas9 nuclease guided by a synthetic single-guide RNA (sgRNA) to a complementary genomic sequence, where Cas9 induces a double-stranded break (DSB). The DSB is repaired by cellular mechanisms—non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), which often introduces frameshift mutations and gene knockout, or homology-directed repair (HDR), which can introduce precise edits when a repair template is provided [
17]. This programmability and multiplexing enable precise and simultaneous editing of multiple genes, making CRISPR highly suitable for dissecting cancer genetics.
In cancer research, CRISPR is used to generate isogenic cell lines and animal models that faithfully recapitulate oncogenic mutations such as those in TP53, KRAS, and EGFR, allowing the study of gene function, drug response, and resistance mechanisms [
18,
19]. Therapeutically, CRISPR holds potential to directly correct pathogenic mutations or disrupt oncogenes in cancer cells. For example, reactivation of silenced tumor suppressors or knockout of mutant alleles can halt tumor growth [
20].
CRISPR facilitates the creation of patient-derived organoids and xenografts with specific genetic alterations, enabling ex vivo testing of therapeutic agents to predict patient responses, a cornerstone of personalized medicine [
21]. Moreover, CRISPR-based diagnostic platforms, such as SHERLOCK and DETECTR, provide rapid and sensitive mutation detection from liquid biopsies, improving early diagnosis and monitoring [
22]. Beyond tumor cells, CRISPR enables the editing of immune checkpoint genes or angiogenic factors in the tumor microenvironment to enhance immunotherapy efficacy [
23].
Table 2 provides an overview of the key applications of CRISPR/Cas9 technology in cancer research, illustrating its versatility in modeling, therapeutic targeting, and diagnostics.
5. Current State of Therapeutic Development Using CRISPR/Cas9
Preclinical research has extensively utilized CRISPR to create sophisticated cancer models including genetically engineered mice and 3D tumor organoids, enhancing translational relevance [
24]. Studies targeting oncogenes such as KRAS and MYC in glioblastoma, melanoma, and lung cancer models have shown promising tumor regression [
25,
26].
Clinically, several trials are evaluating CRISPR-modified immune cells for hematologic malignancies. For instance, CRISPR-mediated PD-1 knockout in T-cells enhances their anti-leukemic activity [
27]. Trials of multiplex CRISPR editing to improve CAR-T cell specificity and persistence are ongoing [
28].
Despite progress, clinical translation faces obstacles. Off-target mutations remain a major safety concern, necessitating improved sgRNA design, high-fidelity Cas9 variants, and rigorous screening [
29]. Delivery to target tissues, especially solid tumors, is challenged by physiological barriers; thus, novel viral and non-viral delivery vehicles such as lipid nanoparticles and exosomes are under intense investigation [
30]. Ethical considerations, including germline editing risks and equitable access to these therapies, require robust regulatory oversight and public engagement [
31].
Though promising results, CRISPR/Cas9-based therapies face several critical challenges, summarized in
Table 3, which must be addressed to ensure safe and effective clinical translation.
6. Future Prospects
Next-generation CRISPR technologies promise enhanced precision and versatility. Cas12 and Cas13 enzymes enable editing of DNA and RNA respectively, expanding therapeutic targets to transient gene expression and RNA viruses [
32]. Base editing and prime editing allow single nucleotide alterations without DSBs, significantly reducing off-target effects and enhancing safety [
33].
Delivery systems are evolving rapidly; nanoparticle-mediated delivery and engineered viral vectors improve targeting efficiency and minimize immunogenicity [
34]. Exosome-based delivery offers a novel natural vehicle for CRISPR components, with potential for crossing biological barriers.
Emerging research indicates the microbiome’s influence on cancer development and therapy response. CRISPR tools could be employed to modulate microbial populations or engineer microbiota-derived therapeutics to complement cancer treatments [
35].
Ethical, social, and policy considerations will play a critical role in guiding responsible clinical application, ensuring equitable access, and addressing public concerns regarding gene editing technologies [
36].
Emerging CRISPR technologies, which offer improved precision and new therapeutic avenues, are summarized in
Table 4, showcasing innovations poised to overcome current limitations.
7. Conclusion
CRISPR/Cas9 technology has fundamentally transformed cancer research and therapeutic development by enabling unparalleled precision in genome editing, a cornerstone of personalized medicine. Its applications in generating accurate cancer models, correcting oncogenic mutations, and enhancing immunotherapeutic approaches are catalyzing the advancement of targeted and effective cancer treatments. However, challenges such as minimizing off-target effects, optimizing delivery systems, and addressing complex ethical considerations remain critical barriers to widespread clinical application.
The rapid progression of CRISPR-based tools—including base editing, prime editing, and RNA-targeting enzymes—offers promising avenues to mitigate these limitations, improving safety and expanding therapeutic scope. Concurrently, innovations in delivery methodologies, such as engineered viral vectors, lipid nanoparticles, and exosome-mediated transport, are enhancing the specificity and efficiency of CRISPR interventions, particularly for solid tumors.
Furthermore, CRISPR’s expanding role in modulating the tumor microenvironment and the microbiome underscores its potential to revolutionize cancer treatment through multifaceted mechanisms, especially when integrated with existing immunotherapies and targeted agents. These synergistic strategies are poised to overcome tumor heterogeneity and therapeutic resistance, which remain formidable challenges in oncology.
Realizing the transformative promise of CRISPR-based cancer therapies will require sustained interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, clinicians, ethicists, and regulatory bodies. Equally essential is fostering transparent public discourse and establishing robust ethical and regulatory frameworks to ensure equitable access and responsible use of genome editing technologies.
In conclusion, CRISPR/Cas9 represents a paradigm shift in precision oncology, offering unprecedented opportunities to develop safer, more effective, and personalized cancer therapies. Continued innovation, combined with thoughtful governance and inclusive engagement, is imperative to translate this powerful technology into tangible clinical benefits that improve patient outcomes on a global scale.
Take-Home Message
CRISPR/Cas9 stands at the forefront of a new era in cancer treatment, bridging the gap between genetic insight and clinical intervention. By enabling precise, customizable, and scalable genome editing, it offers the potential to overcome the limitations of conventional therapies and address the complexities of tumor heterogeneity and resistance. As the technology matures, integrating CRISPR-based strategies into clinical practice will demand careful balancing of innovation with safety, ethics, and accessibility—ultimately paving the way for truly personalized, effective cancer care worldwide.
Author Contributions
Conceptualisation: JM, VBSK. Manuscript drafting: AKM, RK. Proofread & Edit: AKM, HK
Acknowledgments
ICMR, Govt. of India, KSCSTE, Govt. of Kerala.
References
- Vogelstein, B.; Papadopoulos, N.; Velculescu, V.E.; Zhou, S.; Diaz LAJr Kinzler, K.W. Cancer genome landscapes. Science. 2013, 339, 1546–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marusyk, A.; Almendro, V.; Polyak, K. Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer? Nat Rev Cancer. 2012, 12, 323–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science. 2014, 346, 1258096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jinek, M.; Chylinski, K.; Fonfara, I.; Hauer, M.; Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science. 2012, 337, 816–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mali, P.; Yang, L.; Esvelt, K.M.; Aach, J.; Guell, M.; DiCarlo, J.E.; et al. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science. 2013, 339, 823–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chabner, B.A.; Roberts, T.G., Jr. Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005, 5, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentzen, SM. Preventing or reducing late side effects of radiation therapy: radiobiology meets molecular pathology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006, 6, 702–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardoll, D.M. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012, 12, 252–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- June, C.H.; O’Connor, R.S.; Kawalekar, O.U.; Ghassemi, S.; Milone, M.C. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. 2018, 359, 1361–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, P.; Allison, J.P. The future of immune checkpoint therapy. Science. 2015, 348, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slamon, D.J.; Clark, G.M.; Wong, S.G.; Levin, W.J.; Ullrich, A.; McGuire, W.L. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987, 235, 177–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lynch, T.J.; Bell, D.W.; Sordella, R.; Gurubhagavatula, S.; Okimoto, R.A.; Brannigan, B.W.; et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004, 350, 2129–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Holohan, C.; Van Schaeybroeck, S.; Longley, D.B.; Johnston, P.G. Cancer drug resistance: an evolving paradigm. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013, 13, 714–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Newick, K.; O’Brien, S.; Moon, E.; Albelda, S.M. CAR T Cell Therapy for Solid Tumors. Annu Rev Med. 2017, 68, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Melief, C.J.; van Hall, T.; Arens, R.; Ossendorp, F.; van der Burg, S.H. Therapeutic cancer vaccines. J Clin Invest. 2015, 125, 3401–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, P.D.; Lander, E.S.; Zhang, F. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell. 2014, 157, 1262–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Tao, Y.; Gao, X.; Zhang, L.; Li, X.; Zou, W.; et al. CRISPR-mediated genome editing restores TP53 function in cancer cells. Sci Rep. 2017, 7, 40011. [Google Scholar]
- Xue, W.; Chen, S.; Yin, H.; Tammela, T.; Papagiannakopoulos, T.; Joshi, N.S.; et al. CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver. Nature. 2014, 514, 380–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drost, J.; Clevers, H. Organoids in cancer research. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018, 18, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vlachogiannis, G.; Hedayat, S.; Vatsiou, A.; Jamin, Y.; Fernández-Mateos, J.; Khan, K.; et al. Patient-derived organoids model treatment response of metastatic gastrointestinal cancers. Science. 2018, 359, 920–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.S.; Ma, E.; Harrington, L.B.; Da Costa, M.; Tian, X.; Palefsky, J.M.; Doudna, J.A. CRISPR-Cas12a target binding unleashes indiscriminate single-stranded DNase activity. Science. 2018, 360, 436–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, Z.; Lv, X.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Jin, Y.; Zhang, Y.; et al. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated PD-1 Disruption Enhanced Anti-tumor Efficacy of Human Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells. Sci Rep. 2017, 7, 737. [Google Scholar]
- Platt, R.J.; Chen, S.; Zhou, Y.; Yim, M.J.; Swiech, L.; Kempton, H.R.; et al. CRISPR-Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell. 2014, 159, 440–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, Z.; Qiu, L.; Chen, J.; et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockdown of oncogene in glioblastoma multiforme cells. Oncol Rep. 2018, 39, 429–436. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, D.B.; Rioth, M.J.; Horn, L.; Flaherty, K.T. Melanoma: Past, present, and future. Cancer Treat Res. 2016, 167, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Stadtmauer, E.A.; Fraietta, J.A.; Davis, M.M.; Cohen, A.D.; Weber, K.L.; Lancaster, E.; et al. CRISPR-engineered T cells in patients with refractory cancer. Science. 2020, 367, eaba7365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Maude, S.L.; Frey, N.; Shaw, P.A.; Aplenc, R.; Barrett, D.M.; Bunin, N.J.; et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells for sustained remissions in leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2014, 371, 1507–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tsai, S.Q.; Joung, J.K. Defining and improving the genome-wide specificities of CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases. Nat Rev Genet. 2016, 17, 300–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lino, C.A.; Harper, J.C.; Carney, J.P.; Timlin, J.A. Delivering CRISPR: a review of the challenges and approaches. Drug Deliv. 2018, 25, 1234–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baltimore, D.; Berg, P.; Botchan, M.; Carroll, D.; Charo, R.A.; Church, G.M.; et al. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science. 2015, 348, 36–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, D. Genome engineering with zinc-finger nucleases. Genetics. 2011, 188, 773–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abudayyeh, O.O.; Gootenberg, J.S.; Konermann, S.; Joung, J.; Slaymaker, I.M.; Cox, D.B.; et al. C2c2 is a single-component programmable RNA-guided RNA-targeting CRISPR effector. Science. 2016, 353, aaf5573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anzalone, A.V.; Randolph, P.B.; Davis, J.R.; Sousa, A.A.; Koblan, L.W.; Levy, J.M.; et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature. 2019, 576, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.; Zuris, J.A.; Meng, F.; Rees, H.A.; Sun, S.; Deng, P.; et al. Efficient delivery of genome-editing proteins using bioreducible lipid nanoparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016, 113, 2868–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zitvogel, L.; Daillère, R.; Roberti, M.P.; Routy, B.; Kroemer, G. Anticancer effects of the microbiome and its products. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017, 15, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.
Table 1.
Comparison of Conventional Cancer Treatments.
Table 1.
Comparison of Conventional Cancer Treatments.
| Treatment |
Mechanism |
Advantages |
Limitations / Side Effects |
References |
| Chemotherapy |
Cytotoxic agents targeting rapidly dividing cells |
Effective against many cancers |
Non-specific toxicity (e.g., immunosuppression, cardiotoxicity) |
[6] Chabner & Roberts, 2005 |
| Radiotherapy |
Ionizing radiation causing DNA damage |
Localized tumor control |
Collateral damage, mucositis, fibrosis, secondary cancers |
[7] Bentzen, 2006 |
| Surgery |
Physical removal of tumors |
Potentially curative for localized tumors |
Limited use in metastatic/infiltrative cancers |
[8] Pardoll, 2012 |
Table 2.
CRISPR/Cas9 Applications in Cancer Research.
Table 2.
CRISPR/Cas9 Applications in Cancer Research.
| Application Area |
Description |
Example Genes / Targets |
References |
| Cancer modeling |
Generation of isogenic cell lines and animal models |
TP53, KRAS, EGFR |
[17] Xu et al., 2017; [18] Xue et al., 2014 |
| Therapeutic gene editing |
Correction or knockout of oncogenes/tumor suppressors |
Reactivation of TP53, knockout of mutant alleles |
[20] Vlachogiannis et al., 2018 |
| Patient-derived organoids |
Testing drug response ex vivo |
Patient-specific tumor organoids |
[19] Drost & Clevers, 2018; [20] Vlachogiannis et al., 2018 |
| Diagnostic platforms |
Rapid mutation detection from liquid biopsies |
SHERLOCK, DETECTR systems |
[21] Chen et al., 2018 |
| Tumor microenvironment editing |
Editing immune checkpoint or angiogenic genes |
PD-1, VEGF |
[22] Dong et al., 2017 |
Table 3.
Challenges in CRISPR/Cas9 Cancer Therapeutics.
Table 3.
Challenges in CRISPR/Cas9 Cancer Therapeutics.
| Challenge |
Description |
Strategies to Overcome |
References |
| Off-target effects |
Unintended mutations affecting genome integrity |
High-fidelity Cas9 variants, optimized sgRNAs |
[28] Tsai & Joung, 2016 |
| Delivery to solid tumors |
Physiological barriers limit CRISPR uptake |
Lipid nanoparticles, viral vectors, exosomes |
[29] Lino et al., 2018; [30] Baltimore et al., 2015 |
| Ethical concerns |
Germline editing risks, equitable access |
Regulatory oversight, public engagement |
[31] Carroll, 2011; [36] National Academies, 2017 |
Table 4.
Emerging CRISPR Technologies for Cancer Therapy.
Table 4.
Emerging CRISPR Technologies for Cancer Therapy.
| Technology |
Description |
Advantages |
References |
| Base editing |
Single nucleotide changes without DSBs |
Reduced off-target effects, improved safety |
[33] Anzalone et al., 2019 |
| Prime editing |
Search-and-replace genome editing |
Precise insertions/deletions without DSB |
[33] Anzalone et al., 2019 |
| RNA-targeting Cas enzymes (Cas13) |
Target RNA molecules transiently |
Targeting RNA viruses and gene expression |
[32] Abudayyeh et al., 2016 |
| Advanced delivery systems |
Nanoparticles, engineered viral vectors, exosomes |
Improved targeting, reduced immunogenicity |
[34] Wang et al., 2016 |
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).