Submitted:
15 November 2025
Posted:
17 November 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
The advent of CRISPR-based genome editing has transformed the conceptual framework of oncology—from descriptive molecular profiling to functional genome engineering. By enabling precise, programmable, and multiplex control of cancer-associated genes, CRISPR/Cas systems are reshaping how we model tumorigenesis, predict drug response, and design patient-tailored interventions. This Perspective discusses how CRISPR technologies are redefining precision oncology, the biological and ethical challenges that impede their clinical translation, and emerging strategies that integrate gene editing with immunotherapy, synthetic biology, and systems medicine. We argue that the future of cancer therapy lies not merely in editing genes but in orchestrating the dynamic networks that sustain malignancy.
Keywords:
precision medicine
; anticancer therapeutics
; tumorigenesis
; immunotherapy
; chemotherapy
The CRISPR Inflection Point in Cancer Biology
Cancer therapy has historically been constrained by the trade-off between efficacy and selectivity. Conventional approaches such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy target proliferating cells indiscriminately, often leading to toxicity and resistance [1]. The discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 as an adaptive bacterial immune mechanism [2,3] and its adaptation for genome editing [4] revolutionized biomedical research by enabling precise and programmable manipulation of virtually any gene.
Beyond its utility as a molecular scalpel, CRISPR marks a conceptual turning point in oncology. Traditional targeted therapies inhibit specific signaling nodes, yet are vulnerable to bypass mutations and tumor heterogeneity [5]. CRISPR allows causal interrogation of cancer dependencies, reframing cancer not as a static collection of mutations but as a dynamic genetic network that can be rewired to therapeutic advantage.
Beyond Mutation Catalogues: Functional Dissection of Tumor Genomes
Large-scale sequencing consortia such as TCGA and ICGC catalogued the mutational landscape of cancer, but functional validation remained a bottleneck [6]. CRISPR-based perturbation screens now bridge this gap by systematically mapping gene essentiality and synthetic lethal interactions in tumor models [7,8].
Multiplex genome editing enables the generation of combinatorial mutations that mirror human tumor complexity. For instance, co-editing of TP53 and KRAS recapitulates pancreatic tumorigenesis and therapeutic resistance in vivo [9]. These models allow the temporal and spatial dissection of clonal evolution and highlight context-dependent vulnerabilities inaccessible to single-gene studies.
This shift from static genomic catalogues to functional oncogenomics signifies the emergence of precision oncology grounded in mechanism rather than mutation count.
Therapeutic Editing: Correcting, Disrupting, and Reprogramming
The therapeutic applications of CRISPR extend across a spectrum—from correcting pathogenic mutations to disrupting oncogenic drivers and reprogramming cellular pathways. Proof-of-concept studies demonstrate tumor regression following CRISPR-mediated inactivation of MYC or EGFR in preclinical models [10,11].
Next-generation editors such as base editors and prime editors allow single-nucleotide changes without inducing double-strand breaks, reducing genotoxicity and improving precision [12]. Such “scarless” editing is especially promising for restoring tumor suppressor function in vivo.
However, the transition from laboratory to clinic requires overcoming barriers in efficiency, delivery, and off-target safety. High-fidelity Cas variants [13], optimized guide RNA design [14], and transient expression strategies collectively aim to minimize unwanted edits while maximizing therapeutic benefit.
Engineering the Immune System
Immunotherapy has redefined modern oncology, but resistance and toxicity remain substantial hurdles. CRISPR offers a powerful means to reprogram immune cells for improved specificity and persistence.
CRISPR-mediated knockout of PD-1 enhances T-cell cytotoxicity against leukemia cells [15], while multiplex-edited CAR-T cells lacking endogenous receptors or inhibitory checkpoints are advancing in clinical evaluation [16,17]. Editing NK cells and macrophages further broadens the immunotherapeutic spectrum [18].
Looking forward, integration of CRISPR with synthetic biology may yield intelligent immune circuits capable of sensing tumor cues and dynamically modulating effector functions. Such programmable immunity could overcome the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that limits current therapies [19].
Barriers to Translation
Despite its potential, CRISPR-based therapy faces significant challenges.
Off-target effects. Even low-frequency unintended edits can cause genomic instability. High-fidelity Cas9 variants and genome-wide off-target mapping tools such as GUIDE-seq and CIRCLE-seq have improved accuracy [20,21], yet comprehensive validation remains essential for regulatory approval.
Delivery. Efficient and tumor-specific delivery of CRISPR components is the major technical barrier. Viral vectors (AAV, lentivirus) ensure high efficiency but carry immunogenicity risks and limited cargo capacity [22]. Non-viral strategies—lipid nanoparticles [23], polymeric vehicles, and exosome-based carriers [24]—offer safer, transient delivery platforms for systemic use.
Ethical and regulatory considerations. Somatic editing for cancer treatment is less ethically fraught than germline modification, yet concerns around consent, safety, and equitable access persist [25,26]. Transparent governance frameworks will be critical to ensure public trust and equitable distribution of future CRISPR therapies.
CRISPR at the Systems Level: Toward Integrated Precision Oncology
The next phase of CRISPR-driven cancer research will hinge on integration rather than innovation alone. Gene editing must interface with multi-omics, machine learning, and systems biology to construct predictive therapeutic frameworks [27].
In a future adaptive oncology paradigm:
- Multi-omics profiling defines a patient’s mutational landscape;
- AI algorithms simulate optimal CRISPR targets and drug synergies;
- Iterative CRISPR editing and real-time liquid biopsy monitoring enable dynamic adjustment of therapy.
Such a closed-loop system—where diagnosis, modeling, and intervention continuously inform one another—could transform oncology from reactive to self-learning and adaptive medicine.
Expanding Horizons: The Tumor Microenvironment and Microbiome
CRISPR technology extends beyond tumor cells to the broader tumor microenvironment (TME). Editing angiogenic mediators (e.g., VEGF) or immune checkpoints (e.g., PD-L1) within stromal or immune compartments can reshape tumor immunity and improve response to therapy [28].
Parallel interest is growing in microbiome editing. Gut microbes influence carcinogenesis, immunotherapy response, and drug metabolism [29]. CRISPR tools can selectively modulate bacterial populations or engineer commensals to deliver anticancer molecules [30], establishing a new frontier in host–microbe co-therapies.
Together, these dimensions highlight CRISPR’s potential to remodel cancer ecosystems, not just cancer genomes.
From Editing to Orchestration
The evolution of CRISPR-based oncology mirrors a conceptual transformation in biology: from editing individual genes to orchestrating interconnected systems. Tumor evolution involves nonlinear network dynamics where perturbation of one node can reverberate across pathways.
CRISPR’s future lies in programmable network control—using dCas9-based transcriptional regulators, epigenome editors, or RNA-targeting Cas enzymes to modulate pathways with temporal precision [31,32]. By coupling CRISPR with synthetic circuits, it may be possible to engineer feedback-responsive cancer therapies that adapt in real time to tumor evolution.
Ethical Imperatives and Global Equity
The power to rewrite the human genome demands proportionate responsibility. As CRISPR-based cancer therapies advance, ensuring ethical integrity and global accessibility will be paramount [33,34].
Without equitable frameworks, genome editing risks deepening disparities between high- and low-income populations. International cooperation must prioritize open science, standardized safety protocols, and capacity-building initiatives to democratize access to CRISPR innovations.
Outlook: The Future of Cancer Therapy in the CRISPR Era
Within a decade, CRISPR is poised to transition from a research tool to a therapeutic mainstay. Its enduring legacy may not lie solely in the act of editing, but in how it redefines precision oncology as a data-driven, adaptive, and ethically conscious discipline.
The convergence of CRISPR with AI, synthetic biology, and immunoengineering will enable programmable therapies that evolve alongside the tumor they target. This systems-level integration marks the next frontier—from editing genomes to orchestrating them.
CRISPR challenges us not only to alter cancer’s code but to reconsider how we design, deliver, and democratize the cures of tomorrow.
Take-Home Message
CRISPR/Cas technologies are redefining precision oncology by enabling targeted, adaptive, and systems-level control of cancer biology. The next phase of innovation must focus on improving safety, delivery, and ethical governance while integrating gene editing with multi-omics and immunotherapy. The ultimate goal is not merely to edit cancer genomes, but to orchestrate them—transforming cancer therapy from treatment to intelligent reprogramming.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: RP. Original Manuscript Drafting: AKM, HN, SB. Proofread and Edit: VK.
References
- Chabner, B.A. & Roberts, T.G. Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5, 65–72 (2005). [CrossRef]
- Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science337, 816–821 (2012). [CrossRef]
- Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007). [CrossRef]
- Cong, L. et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339, 819–823 (2013). [CrossRef]
- Holohan, C. et al. Cancer drug resistance: an evolving paradigm. Nat. Rev. Cancer 13, 714–726 (2013). [CrossRef]
- The Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human cancers. Nature 505, 333–339 (2014).
- Shalem, O. et al. Genome-scale CRISPR–Cas9 knockout screening in human cells. Science 343, 84–87 (2014). [CrossRef]
- Wang, T. et al. Genetic screens in human cells using the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Science 343, 80–84 (2014). [CrossRef]
- Platt, R.J. et al. CRISPR–Cas9 knockin mice for genome editing and cancer modeling. Cell 159, 440–455 (2014). [CrossRef]
- Xue, W. et al. CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver. Nature 514, 380–384 (2014). [CrossRef]
- Maddalo, D. et al. In vivo engineering of oncogenic chromosomal rearrangements with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Nature 516, 423–427 (2014). [CrossRef]
- Anzalone, A.V. et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 576, 149–157 (2019). [CrossRef]
- Slaymaker, I.M. et al. Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351, 84–88 (2016). [CrossRef]
- Hsu, P.D. et al. DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 827–832 (2013). [CrossRef]
- Ren, J. et al. A versatile system for rapid multiplex genome-edited CAR T cell generation. Oncotarget 8, 17002–17011 (2017). [CrossRef]
- Stadtmauer, E.A. et al. CRISPR-engineered T cells in patients with refractory cancer. Science 367, eaba7365 (2020). [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y. et al. Safety and feasibility of CRISPR-edited T cells in patients with refractory cancers. Nat. Med. 26, 732–740 (2020). [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing enhances anti-tumor activity of primary NK cells. Mol. Ther.28, 3301–3311 (2020).
- Fesnak, A.D., June, C.H. & Levine, B.L. Engineered T cells: the promise and challenges of cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 16, 566–581 (2016). [CrossRef]
- Tsai, S.Q. & Joung, J.K. Defining and improving the genome-wide specificities of CRISPR–Cas9 nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 300–312 (2016). [CrossRef]
- Kim, D. et al. Genome-wide target specificities of CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases revealed by multiplex Digenome-seq. Genome Res. 26, 406–415 (2016). [CrossRef]
- Lino, C.A., Harper, J.C., Carney, J.P. & Timlin, J.A. Delivering CRISPR: a review of the challenges and approaches. Drug Deliv. 25, 1234–1257 (2018).
- Wang, P. et al. Delivery of genome-editing proteins by engineered exosomes. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 0091 (2017).
- Mendell, J.R. et al. AAV-mediated gene therapy for muscular dystrophy. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 199–201 (2019).
- Carroll, D. Genome editing: past, present, and future. Yale J. Biol. Med. 84, 191–203 (2011).
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance. (National Academies Press, 2017).
- Drost, J. & Clevers, H. Organoids in cancer research. Nat. Rev. Cancer 18, 407–418 (2018). [CrossRef]
- Dong, M.B. et al. Systematic immunoengineering with CRISPR to enhance cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 21, 161–175 (2021).
- Routy, B. et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1–based immunotherapy. Science 359, 91–97 (2018).
- Mimee, M. et al. Programmable modulation of bacterial populations by CRISPR interference. Nature 548, 588–592 (2017).
- Hilton, I.B. et al. Epigenome editing by a CRISPR–Cas9-based acetyltransferase. Science 351, 736–739 (2016).
- Abudayyeh, O.O. et al. RNA targeting with CRISPR–Cas13. Nature 550, 280–284 (2017).
- Brokowski, C. Do CRISPR germline ethics statements cut it? Crispr J. 1, 115–125 (2018). [CrossRef]
- Baylis, F. & Darnovsky, M. The ethics of germline gene editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 473–475 (2018).
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/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
