
==== Front
MedComm (2020)
MedComm (2020)
10.1002/(ISSN)2688-2663
MCO2
MedComm
2688-2663
John Wiley and Sons Inc. Hoboken

10.1002/mco2.693
MCO2693
Review
Review
Cell death pathways: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets for cancer
WANG et al.
Wang Shaohui 1
Guo Sa 2
Guo Jing 3
Du Qinyun 2
Wu Cen 2
Wu Yeke 3 wuyeke@cdutcm.edu.cn

Zhang Yi 1 zhangyi@cdutcm.edu.cn

1 State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, School of Ethnic Medicine Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Chengdu China
2 State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, School of Pharmacy Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Chengdu China
3 College of Clinical Medicine Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Chengdu China
* Correspondence
Yi Zhang, State Key Laboratory of Southwestern Chinese Medicine Resources, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine 1166 Liutai Avenue, Wenjiang District, Chengdu 611137, China.
Email: zhangyi@cdutcm.edu.cn
Yeke Wu, Hospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 39, Shierqiao Rd., Chengdu 610072, China.
Email: wuyeke@cdutcm.edu.cn

04 9 2024
9 2024
5 9 10.1002/mco2.v5.9 e69324 7 2024
08 4 2024
28 7 2024
© 2024 The Author(s). MedComm published by Sichuan International Medical Exchange & Promotion Association (SCIMEA) and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Cell death regulation is essential for tissue homeostasis and its dysregulation often underlies cancer development. Understanding the different pathways of cell death can provide novel therapeutic strategies for battling cancer. This review explores several key cell death mechanisms of apoptosis, necroptosis, autophagic cell death, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis. The research gap addressed involves a thorough analysis of how these cell death pathways can be precisely targeted for cancer therapy, considering tumor heterogeneity and adaptation. It delves into genetic and epigenetic factors and signaling cascades like the phosphatidylinositol 3‐kinase/protein kinase B/mammalian target of rapamycin (PI3K/AKT/mTOR) and mitogen‐activated protein kinase/extracellular signal‐regulated kinase (MAPK/ERK) pathways, which are critical for the regulation of cell death. Additionally, the interaction of the microenvironment with tumor cells, and particularly the influence of hypoxia, nutrient deprivation, and immune cellular interactions, are explored. Emphasizing therapeutic strategies, this review highlights emerging modulators and inducers such as B cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) homology domain 3 (BH3) mimetics, tumour necrosis factor‐related apoptosis‐inducing ligand (TRAIL), chloroquine, and innovative approaches to induce ferroptosis and pyroptosis. This review provides insights into cancer therapy's future direction, focusing on multifaceted approaches to influence cell death pathways and circumvent drug resistance. This examination of evolving strategies underlines the considerable clinical potential and the continuous necessity for in‐depth exploration within this scientific domain.

This graphical abstract provides a comprehensive view of therapeutic strategies for studying cell death pathways in cancer.

apoptosis
autophagy
cancer therapy
cell death
drug resistance
ferroptosis
necroptosis
pyroptosis
tumor microenvironment
National Natural Science Foundation of China 10.13039/501100001809 82474191 82104534 National Key R&D Program of China 10.13039/501100012166 2023YFC3504400 source-schema-version-number2.0
cover-dateSeptember 2024
details-of-publishers-convertorConverter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.4.8 mode:remove_FC converted:04.09.2024
Wang S , Guo S , Guo J , et al. Cell death pathways: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets for cancer. MedComm. 2024;5 :e693. 10.1002/mco2.693
==== Body
pmc1 INTRODUCTION

Cancer remains a formidable global health challenge, largely due to its complex biology and the ability to adapt and resist traditional treatment methods. Historically, understanding of cancer has expanded from not only seeing it as a disease characterized by uncontrolled cell growth but also involving aberrant cell death mechanisms that are crucial for tumor sustenance and progression. 1 , 2 The dysregulation of cell death pathways is central in cancer pathogenesis, promoting tumor development while offering potential therapeutic targets. 3 , 4 Importantly, the subversion of programmed cell death by cancer cells plays a critical role in tumor initiation, progression, and their resistance to therapies, making it imperative to understand and control these pathways. 5

Cellular homeostasis necessitates a balance between cell proliferation and cell death. 6 In malignancies, this balance is disrupted, skewing toward proliferation largely due to impaired cell death mechanisms. 7 , 8 Apoptosis, once considered the sole programmatic avenue of cell death, is critically involved in preventing cancer by eliminating defective cells potentially harboring oncogenic mutations. 7 However, cancer cells frequently acquire mutations that enable them to circumvent apoptotic signaling, contributing to tumor survival and growth. 9 Besides apoptosis, emerging aspects of other cell death forms like necroptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis each contribute uniquely to cancer dynamics, influencing not only tumor cell fate but also the tumor microenvironment (TME) and immune surveillance. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 These alternative forms of cell death offer a breadth of therapeutic possibilities. 16 , 17 For instance, the selective induction of necroptosis in apoptosis‐resistant cells, or the initiation of ferroptosis in cells laden with iron and undergoing oxidative stress, represents precision strategies in cancer treatment. 10 , 18 Furthermore, the role of cell death extends beyond the mere elimination of cancer cells, it also shapes the immune response against tumors. 19 For example, the release of damage‐associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) during necroptosis can enhance antitumor immunity, suggesting a dual benefit of targeting cell death pathways. 20 , 21 All in all, recent studies have revealed that these pathways are not only pivotal for tumor suppression but also offer new therapeutic opportunities. Cancer cells often adapt to avoid traditional apoptosis, necessitating research into alternative cell death pathways that can potentially remove these resistant cells.

Therefore, the review aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of principal cell death pathways implicated in cancer, detailing their molecular characteristics, regulation, and significance in cancer therapeutics. By dissecting the specifics of each pathway, including apoptosis, necroptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis, this study will illuminate their unique impacts in oncology and emerging therapeutic angles. We intend to scrutinize key regulatory proteins in these pathways, evaluate current drugs targeting these mechanisms, and discuss ongoing clinical trials and associated challenges such as drug resistance. Special attention will be given to the modulation of these pathways by the TME and significant signaling cascades like phosphoinositide 3‐kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT)/mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR), mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK)/extracellular signal‐regulated kinase (ERK), and nuclear factor‐kappaB (NF‐κB).

In conclusion, this review promises to provide a comprehensive overview of cell death mechanisms in cancer, from molecular underpinnings to therapeutic applications, offering insights into the development of more effective and selective cancer therapies. It is intended not only to guide current therapeutic approaches but also to spur further research and innovation in personalized medicine, potentially revolutionizing cancer treatment strategies. Through meticulous analysis and a forward‐looking perspective, we aim to contribute significantly to the field of cancer research and therapy.

2 TYPES OF CELL DEATH PATHWAYS

2.1 Apoptosis

Apoptosis, a programmed cell death process, is crucial for maintaining cellular balance and development. 22 Two main pathways, the intrinsic (mitochondrial) and the extrinsic (death receptor) pathways, regulate this process (Figure 1). 23 This portion will examine the molecular mechanisms of these pathways, emphasizing the roles of Bcl‐2 family proteins, cytochrome c release, and caspase activation in the intrinsic pathway, along with the participation of death receptors and caspase‐8 activation in the extrinsic pathway.

FIGURE 1 Schematic overview of apoptotic pathways. (A) Intrinsic pathway of apoptosis: Stress signals such as DNA damage or growth factor deprivation induce the activation of proapoptotic BH3‐only proteins (e.g., Bid, Bim, Puma) that activate Bax and Bak. These proteins oligomerize to form pores in the mitochondrial outer membrane, leading to the release of cytochrome c into the cytosol. Cytochrome c then binds to Apaf‐1 and ATP, resulting in the formation of the apoptosome complex that activates procaspase‐9. Activated caspase‐9 cleaves and activates downstream effector caspases (caspase‐3, caspase‐7), culminating in cell dismantling and apoptosis. (B) Extrinsic pathway of apoptosis: Binding of death ligands (e.g., FasL, TRAIL) to their respective death receptors (e.g., Fas, DR4, DR5) on the cell surface promotes receptor trimerization and the recruitment of the adaptor protein FADD. FADD attracts procaspase‐8, leading to the formation of the death‐inducing signaling complex (DISC). BAK, BCL2 antagonist/killer; BAX, Bcl‐2 associated X protein; Bcl‐2, B‐cell lymphoma‐2; BCL‐XL, B‐cell lymphoma‐extra large; FAS, soluble Fas ligand; FADD, Fas‐associating protein with a novel death domain; MCL1, myeloid cell leukemia‐1; TRAIL, TNF‐related apoptosis‐inducing ligand.

2.1.1 Intrinsic (mitochondrial) pathway

The intrinsic pathway of apoptosis is primarily regulated by mitochondrial signals and is critically dependent on the balance between proapoptotic and antiapoptotic members of the Bcl‐2 family of proteins (Figure 1A). This pathway is typically triggered by various forms of cellular stress, including DNA damage, oxidative stress, and growth factor deprivation. 24 , 25

Role of Bcl‐2 family proteins

The Bcl‐2 family of proteins is crucial in controlling the intrinsic pathway, with both proapoptotic and antiapoptotic members determining cell fate. 26 , 27 Antiapoptotic proteins like Bcl‐2 and Bcl‐xL maintain mitochondrial function by blocking proapoptotic proteins. 28 Proapoptotic proteins like Bax, Bak, Bid, Bim, and Puma are activated by BH3‐only proteins upon apoptotic stimuli, leading to the oligomerization and permeabilization of the outer mitochondrial membrane. 29 , 30 , 31

Cytochrome c release and caspase activation

The release of mitochondrial intermembrane space proteins, including cytochrome c, occurs when Bax and Bak permeabilize the outer membrane of the mitochondria. 32

Cytochrome c then binds to apoptotic protease activating factor‐1 (Apaf‐1) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in the cytosol, which helps in the formation of the apoptosome. This complex recruit and activates procaspase‐9, leading to the activation of downstream effector caspases like caspase‐3 and caspase‐7, ultimately causing apoptosis by cleaving cellular substrates. 33 , 34 , 35

2.1.2 Extrinsic (death receptor) pathway

The initiation of the extrinsic pathway occurs when extracellular death ligands bind to their respective death receptors on the cell surface (Figure 1B), a process essential for the immune system in eliminating infected or transformed cells. 36 , 37 , 38

Death receptors (e.g., Fas, TRAIL)

Members of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily are death receptors, which consist of receptors like Fas (CD95) and TNF‐related apoptosis‐inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptors (DR4 and DR5). These receptors have a crucial intracellular death domain (DD) that is necessary for transmitting signals that lead to apoptosis. When death ligands (such as FasL and TRAIL) bind to their respective receptors, it causes receptor trimerization and the recruitment of adaptor proteins such as Fas‐associated protein with death domain (FADD). 39 , 40

Caspase‐8 activation

Recruiting FADD to the death receptor complex helps facilitate the binding of procaspase‐8 via its death effector domain, forming the death‐inducing signaling complex (DISC). Within the DISC, procaspase‐8 molecules are brought close together, leading to their dimerization and activation. Once activated, caspase‐8 can directly cleave and activate downstream effector caspases, like caspase‐3, to start the apoptotic process. Furthermore, caspase‐8 can also cleave the BH3‐only protein Bid, generating truncated Bid, which moves to mitochondria to enhance apoptotic signaling through the intrinsic pathway. 41 , 42 , 43

In summary, the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways of apoptosis are intricate and closely controlled mechanisms crucial for upholding cellular integrity and overall organismal well‐being. Studying the molecular details of these pathways provides valuable information for developing therapeutic approaches for conditions marked by perturbed apoptosis, including cancer.

2.2 Necrosis and necroptosis

Cell death is a fundamental biological process that ensures the removal of damaged or unnecessary cells. 44 While apoptosis has been extensively studied, necrosis and its regulated form, necroptosis, have gained increasing attention, particularly in the context of disease pathogenesis. 45 This section will delineate the characteristics of necrosis and necroptosis, emphasizing the molecular mechanisms and the roles of key players such as receptor‐interacting protein kinase 1 (RIPK1), receptor‐interacting protein kinase 3 (RIPK3), and mixed lineage kinase domain‐like protein (MLKL). 46 , 47

2.2.1 Characteristics of necrosis

Necrosis is typically seen as a type of cell death that occurs when there is sudden damage to the cells. 24 This kind of cell death is identified by a breakdown in membrane integrity, uncontrolled release of cell contents, and inflammation that follows. 46 Unlike apoptosis, necrosis does not involve specific signaling pathways, and it typically results from factors such as trauma, infection, or ischemia. Morphologically, necrotic cells exhibit swelling (oncosis), organelle disruption, and eventual rupture of the plasma membrane. The release of intracellular components into the extracellular space due to these events triggers an inflammatory response from the immune system, which can lead to tissue damage and disease progression because of the uncontrolled nature of necrosis and the associated inflammation. 48

2.2.2 Regulated necrosis: necroptosis

Necroptosis is a form of programmed necrosis that shares morphological features with necrosis but is executed through regulated signaling pathways. This process can be triggered under conditions where apoptosis is inhibited, serving as a backup mechanism to ensure cell death. 49 , 50 , 51 Necroptosis plays a crucial role in various physiological and pathological contexts, including development, immune response, and disease. 52 , 53 , 54 The molecular machinery governing necroptosis involves a well‐coordinated interaction between RIPKs and MLKL. 55 The key steps in the necroptotic pathway are as follows: ① RIPK1 activation: Necroptosis is often initiated by the activation of death receptors, such as TNF receptor 1 (TNFR1), which can recruit RIPK1 through its DD. Upon activation, RIPK1 undergoes autophosphorylation and forms a complex with RIPK3, known as the necrosome. 56 , 57 ② RIPK3 activation: Within the necrosome, RIPK3 is phosphorylated by RIPK1. This phosphorylation event is critical for the downstream signaling cascade that leads to necroptosis. RIPK3, in turn, recruits and phosphorylates MLKL. 58 , 59 ③ MLKL activation and membrane disruption: Phosphorylated MLKL undergoes a conformational change, allowing it to oligomerize and translocate to the plasma membrane. Once at the membrane, MLKL disrupts membrane integrity by forming pores, leading to cell swelling, membrane rupture, and ultimately necrotic cell death (Figure 2A). 60

FIGURE 2 Molecular pathways and cellular mechanisms of different forms of cell death. (A) Necrosis is characterized by the loss of plasma membrane integrity and release of cellular contents, leading to inflammation. Morphologically, necrotic cells show cell and organelle swelling, and membrane rupture. Necroptosis involves the regulated activation of RIPK1, RIPK3, and MLKL following the triggering by death receptors like TNFR1. RIPK1 forms a complex with RIPK3, leading to RIPK3 activation and subsequent phosphorylation of MLKL, which then translocates to the plasma membrane to form disruptive pores. (B) Autophagy proceeds through stages of initiation by the ULK1 complex, nucleation of the phagophore mediated by the class III PI3K complex, elongation involving two ubiquitin‐like systems, and ultimately maturation into an autolysosome where contents are degraded and recycled. (C) Ferroptosis is driven by iron‐dependent lipid peroxidation. Iron uptake via transferrin receptors and its storage or availability in the labile iron pool enables the Fenton reaction, leading to lipid peroxidation at cellular membranes. Regulatory mechanisms involve the antioxidative actions of GPX4 and the cystine/glutamate antiporter system Xc⁻. (D) Pyroptosis features the activation of inflammatory caspases and the formation of gasdermin D pores in the plasma membrane. Activation of caspase‐1, ‐4, ‐5, and ‐11, leads to the cleavage of GSDMD, and the N‐terminal pore‐forming fragment of GSDMD induces the formation of membrane pores, resulting in cell swelling, lysis, and release of inflammatory cytokines. ACSL4, acyl‐CoA synthetase long chain family member 4; AMP, antimicrobial peptides; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; AMPK, adenosine 5′‐monophosphate (AMP)‐activated protein kinase; ALOXs, arachidonic acid lipoxygenase; AIFM2, ferroptosis suppressor protein 1; ATG5, autophagy‐related gene 5; ATG7, autophagy‐related gene 7; ATG9, autophagy‐related gene 9; ATG10, autophagy‐related gene 10; ATG12, autophagy‐related gene 12; CIAP, Cellular inhibitor of apoptosis; FADD, Fas‐associating protein with a novel death domain; GCH1, guanosine triposphate cyclohydrolase1; GPX4, glutathione peroxidase 4; LPS, lipopolysaccharides; MLKL, mixed lineage kinase domain‐like protein; NCOA4, nuclear receptor coactivator 4; NLRP1, NLR family pyrin domain containing 1; NLRP3, NLR family pyrin domain containing 3; NLRP4, NLR family pyrin domain containing 4; P62, sequestosome; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acids; RIPK, receptor‐interacting protein kinase 1; RIP1, receptor‐interacting protein 1; RAB7A, RAS‐related in brain 7A; SLC40A1, solute carrier family 40 member 1; TNFα, tumor necrosis factor‐α; TNFR1, tumor necrosis factor receptor 1; TRAF, tumor necrosis factor receptor‐associated factors; TRADD, TNFR1‐associated death domain protein; TFRC, transferrin receptor.

To sum up, necrosis and necroptosis are two different but related types of cell death. Whereas necrosis occurs from sudden damage to cells, necroptosis is a controlled form of cell death involving RIPK1, RIPK3, and MLKL. 61 , 62 Understanding the molecular mechanisms behind these processes can help us better comprehend their impact on health and disease, and potentially identify new treatment targets for disorders marked by abnormal cell death.

2.3 Autophagic cell death

Autophagy is an essential cellular process that is responsible for breaking down and recycling components of the cytoplasm. Although it is mainly a survival mechanism, autophagy can sometimes result in a type of programmed cell demise referred to as autophagic cell death. 63 , 64 This segment will delve into the mechanisms of autophagy and its dual function in cancer.

2.3.1 Mechanisms of autophagy

Autophagy, a catabolic process involving the breakdown of cellular components through lysosomal machinery, is derived from the Greek words “self” and “eating.” 65 The process can be divided into several key stages: ① Initiation: Autophagy starts with the activation of the ULK1 complex, which consists of ULK1, FIP200, ATG13, and ATG101, and is regulated by nutrient and energy sensors like mTOR and AMP‐activated protein kinase (AMPK). 66 ② Nucleation: The activated ULK1 complex triggers the formation of the phagophore, a double‐membraned structure, with the help of the class III PI3K complex containing VPS34, Beclin‐1, and ATG14L, creating phosphatidylinositol 3‐phosphate (PI3P) to recruit other autophagy‐related proteins. 66 ③ Elongation and maturation: The phagophore expands to engulf cytoplasmic material, with the assistance of the ATG12–ATG5–ATG16L complex and the LC3–PE conjugation system. LC3‐II is crucial for membrane expansion and cargo recognition. 67 ④ The autophagosome merges with lysosomes to form an autolysosome, where lysosomal hydrolases break down the sequestered material into basic biomolecules that can be recycled for reuse in the cytoplasm (Figure 2B). 68

2.3.2 Role of autophagy in cancer

Autophagy plays a complex and context‐dependent role in cancer, acting as a double‐edged sword with both tumor‐suppressive and tumor‐promoting effects. 69 In the early stages of cancer development, autophagy can act as a tumor suppressor. 70 By degrading damaged organelles and proteins, autophagy prevents the accumulation of cellular damage and maintains genomic stability. This process reduces oxidative stress and inhibits chronic inflammation, both of which are associated with oncogenesis. Furthermore, autophagy can induce autophagic cell death in cancer cells, especially under conditions of metabolic stress or treatment with chemotherapeutic agents. 69 , 71 Paradoxically, in established tumors, autophagy often supports cancer cell survival and growth. Tumor cells exploit autophagy to withstand metabolic stress, hypoxia, and nutrient deprivation commonly found in the TME. By recycling intracellular components, autophagy provides essential substrates for energy production and biosynthesis, promoting tumor cell proliferation and survival. Additionally, autophagy can contribute to therapy resistance by enabling cancer cells to survive cytotoxic treatments. 72 , 73 Given its dual role, targeting autophagy in cancer therapy requires a nuanced approach. Inhibiting autophagy may be beneficial in established tumors where autophagy supports survival and growth. Several clinical trials are investigating autophagy inhibitors, such as hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in combination with conventional therapies. 74 Conversely, enhancing autophagy could be a strategy to induce autophagic cell death in certain cancer types or sensitize tumors to chemotherapy and radiation. 75

In conclusion, autophagy is a multifaceted process that plays critical roles in cellular homeostasis and disease. Its involvement in cancer is particularly complex, encompassing both tumor‐suppressive and tumor‐promoting functions. 76 Understanding the context‐dependent nature of autophagy in cancer is essential for developing effective therapeutic strategies that harness or inhibit this process to benefit patients.

2.4 Ferroptosis

Ferroptosis is a unique type of controlled cell death that involves iron‐dependent lipid peroxidation. 77 This process is distinct in its morphology, biochemistry, and genetics compared with other forms of cell death like apoptosis, necrosis, and autophagy. 12 , 78 Recent years have seen a significant advancement in the understanding of ferroptosis, highlighting its crucial functions in different physiological and pathological situations, including cancer. 79 , 80

2.4.1 Iron‐dependent lipid peroxidation

The accumulation of lipid peroxides drives ferroptosis, which can become toxic when levels are excessive, and is reliant on iron, a transition metal that triggers the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) via the Fenton reaction. 81 , 82 The key steps in iron‐dependent lipid peroxidation include iron uptake and storage, ROS generation, and lipid peroxidation. 83 Iron is taken up by cells via transferrin receptor‐mediated endocytosis of transferrin‐bound iron, which is then released from endosomes and stored in the cytosol in a labile iron pool or sequestered in ferritin. Free iron in the labile iron pool can participate in the Fenton reaction, converting hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) into highly reactive hydroxyl radicals (•OH), which initiate lipid peroxidation by abstracting hydrogen atoms from polyunsaturated fatty acids in membrane phospholipids. The initial lipid radicals formed are further oxidized to lipid peroxides, which, if not adequately detoxified, can decompose into reactive aldehydes and propagate further lipid peroxidation, leading to the loss of membrane integrity and cell death. 84 , 85 , 86

2.4.2 Regulation by GPX4 and system Xc−

Critical antioxidant systems are involved in regulating ferroptosis to prevent the buildup of lipid peroxides, with two main regulators being glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) and the cystine/glutamate antiporter system Xc⁻. 87 GPX4, a selenoprotein, is essential in protecting cells from ferroptosis by converting lipid hydroperoxides (LOOH) into alcohols, thus stopping lipid peroxidation. 88 , 89 GPX4 requires glutathione (GSH) as a substrate to exert its peroxidase activity. It specifically reduces LOOH within membranes to nontoxic lipid alcohols, thus inhibiting the chain reaction of lipid peroxidation. The activity of GPX4 is directly linked to the intracellular levels of GSH, which in turn is synthesized from cysteine. Therefore, the availability of cysteine is crucial for maintaining GPX4 activity and preventing ferroptosis. 90 System Xc⁻ is a plasma membrane transporter composed of two subunits, SLC7A11 and SLC3A2, which mediates the exchange of extracellular cystine and intracellular glutamate. By importing cystine into the cell in exchange for glutamate, system Xc⁻ facilitates the synthesis of GSH. Cystine is reduced to cysteine inside the cell, which is then used to synthesize GSH. The activity of system Xc⁻ is influenced by various factors, including oxidative stress and nutrient availability. 91 , 92

In summary, ferroptosis is a controlled form of cell death triggered by iron‐induced lipid peroxidation. The susceptibility of cells to ferroptosis depends on the balance between the production of lipid peroxides and their removal by antioxidant mechanisms like GPX4 and system Xc⁻ (Figure 2C). Understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying ferroptosis provides valuable insights into its role in various diseases and offers potential therapeutic targets for conditions where ferroptosis plays a critical role.

2.5 Pyroptosis

Pyroptosis is a unique form of programmed cell death that differs from apoptosis and necrosis, known for its inflammatory characteristics. 93 It is usually induced by infections and various diseases, resulting in the activation of inflammatory caspases and the creation of gasdermin pores in the cell membrane. 94 , 95 Here, we will delve into the key mechanisms involved in pyroptosis, focusing on the role of inflammatory caspases and gasdermin proteins.

2.5.1 Inflammatory caspases

Inflammatory caspases, including caspase‐1, ‐4, ‐5, and ‐11, are crucial for initiating and carrying out pyroptosis. 96 , 97 Caspase‐1 is activated by pathogen‐associated molecular patterns and DAMPs through inflammasomes like the NLRP3 inflammasome. 98 , 99 Once activated, it converts pro‐IL‐1β and pro‐IL‐18 into IL‐1β and IL‐18, and triggers pyroptosis by cleaving GSDMD. 100 On the other hand, caspase‐4, ‐5, and ‐11 are activated by intracellular lipopolysaccharides without an inflammasome, also leading to pyroptosis by cleaving GSDMD. While they do not directly process pro‐IL‐1β and pro‐IL‐18, their activation can enhance the inflammatory response through secondary pathways. 101 , 102

2.5.2 Formation of gasdermin pores

The main mechanism behind pyroptosis involves GSDMD, a protein from the gasdermin family, creating pores in the cell membrane. 103 When activated, inflammatory caspases break down GSDMD at a specific location, separating its pore‐forming domain from its inhibitory domain. This separation releases the pore‐forming domain, which moves to the cell membrane and binds to phospholipids. Multiple pore‐forming domains then come together to create large pores, disrupting the cell membrane and causing cell swelling, membrane rupture, and the release of cell contents. These pores allow proinflammatory cytokines like IL‐1β and IL‐18 to be released, promoting inflammation by attracting and activating immune cells. Ultimately, the cell membrane ruptures, releasing DAMPs and amplifying the immune response to further contribute to inflammation. 96 , 104 , 105

In summary, pyroptosis is a type of cell death that involves inflammation, triggered by activating inflammatory caspases and creating gasdermin pores. Inflammatory caspases like caspase‐1, ‐4, ‐5, and ‐11 are essential for detecting harmful signals, causing the breakdown of GSDMD. The GSDMD N‐terminal pieces generate pores in the cell membrane, leading to cell rupture and the discharge of proinflammatory substances (Figure 2D). Understanding the mechanisms of pyroptosis provides insights into its roles in various diseases, particularly those involving infection and inflammation, and offers potential targets for therapeutic intervention.

3 MOLECULAR MECHANISMS REGULATING CELL DEATH

The regulation of cell death pathways is intricately controlled by both genetic and epigenetic factors. 106 Genetic mutations and epigenetic modifications can significantly influence the susceptibility of cells to various forms of cell death, including apoptosis, necrosis, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis. 107 Here, we will focus on the impact of mutations in key regulators such as tumor protein p53 (TP53) and Bcl‐2 family genes, as well as epigenetic modifications like DNA methylation and histone modification.

3.1 Genetic and epigenetic factors

3.1.1 Mutations in key regulators

Tumor protein p53

TP53 is an essential gene that produces the p53 protein, which is responsible for maintaining genomic stability by controlling the cell cycle, DNA repair, and apoptosis. 108 Mutations in TP53 are frequently seen in human cancers and can cause the loss of p53's ability to suppress tumors, resulting in uncontrolled cell growth and resistance to cell death. These mutations prevent p53 from activating genes that promote apoptosis, such as BAX, PUMA, and NOXA, leading to inhibition of cell death. Some TP53 mutations can even give the protein oncogenic characteristics, supporting cell survival, and growth. 109

Bcl‐2 family genes

The intrinsic pathway of apoptosis is regulated by the Bcl‐2 family of proteins, which includes both proapoptotic (such as BAX, BAK) and antiapoptotic members (like Bcl‐2, Bcl‐xL). 110 Changes in the expression or function of these genes can disrupt the balance between cell survival and death. In many cancers, increased levels of antiapoptotic proteins such as Bcl‐2 and Bcl‐xL prevent the activation of proapoptotic proteins, promoting cell survival and resistance to apoptotic signals. On the other hand, mutations or deletions in proapoptotic genes such as BAX or BAK can hinder the apoptotic process, leading to tumorigenesis. 111 , 112

3.1.2 Epigenetic modifications

DNA methylation

DNA methylation involves adding a methyl group to cytosine residues at the 5‐position, mainly in CpG dinucleotides, which affects gene expression by changing DNA accessibility to transcription factors. In terms of cell death, hypermethylation of tumor suppressor gene promoters, such as P16 and DAPK, can silence them and aid in cancer progression by blocking apoptosis. Conversely, global DNA hypomethylation can result in genomic instability and the activation of oncogenes, further promoting cell survival and proliferation. 113 , 114 , 115

Histone modification

Histone proteins, wrapped around DNA, can be modified after translation in various ways, such as methylation, acetylation, phosphorylation, and ubiquitination, which can affect chromatin structure and gene expression. In relation to cell death, histone acetylation usually promotes the activation of proapoptotic genes, while deacetylation by histone deacetylases can suppress these genes, preventing apoptosis. 116 Similarly, histone methylation can either enhance or inhibit gene expression, depending on the specific residues impacted; for example, trimethylation of histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4me3) is connected to gene activation, while trimethylation of histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3) is associated with gene repression. Alterations in these histone modifications can have a significant impact on the regulation of genes involved in cell death processes. 116 , 117

In summary, both genetic and epigenetic factors play crucial roles in regulating cell death. Mutations in key regulators such as TP53 and Bcl‐2 family genes can disrupt normal cell death mechanisms, contributing to diseases like cancer. Epigenetic modifications, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, further modulate the expression of genes involved in cell death, influencing cellular responses to stress and damage (Figure 3A). Having a grasp on these genetic and epigenetic factors gives us valuable information about how cell death works and presents possible targets for treating different diseases.

FIGURE 3 Overview of the regulatory mechanisms and signaling pathways involved in cell death and survival. (A) This panel illustrates the role of mutations in genes such as TP53 and members of the Bcl‐2 family, highlighting how these alterations can disrupt the balance between cell survival and apoptosis. The diagram emphasizes the impact of TP53 mutations on the suppression of proapoptotic genes and the resulting evasion of apoptosis. Additionally, epigenetic influences such as DNA methylation and histone modifications are shown modulating gene expression related to apoptosis, with examples including hypermethylation of P16 and the effects of histone acetylation on chromatin structure and gene activity. (B) This panel maps out three crucial signaling pathways: PI3K/AKT/mTOR, MAPK/ERK, and NF‐κB, each depicted with their main components and interactions. The schematic shows how growth factors activate PI3K leading to AKT and mTOR signaling cascades that promote cell survival and growth. The MAPK/ERK pathway is initiated by activated RTKs leading to downstream activation of transcription factors that drive proliferation and survival. The NF‐κB pathway's activation via IKK complex and subsequent nuclear translocation of NF‐κB, resulting in the transcription of genes that prevent apoptosis and foster cell proliferation, is also delineated. AKT, Protein kinase B; Bcl‐2, B‐cell lymphoma‐2; ERK, extracellular regulated protein kinases; MAPK, mitogen activated protein kinase; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; NF‐κB, nuclear factor kappa‐light‐chain‐enhancer of activated B cells; PI3K, phosphoinositide 3‐kinase.

3.2 Signaling pathways involved

Cell death regulation is governed by a variety of signaling pathways that either promote cell survival or facilitate cell death in response to various stimuli. Key signaling pathways involved in these processes include the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, the MAPK/ERK pathway, and NF‐κB signaling (Figure 3B). Each of these pathways plays a critical role in determining cell fate by integrating signals from the cellular environment and modulating the activity of various downstream effectors.

3.2.1 PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway

The PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway plays a crucial role in regulating cell survival, growth, proliferation, and metabolism, with its disruption being common in cancer and other diseases. 118 Growth factors, cytokines, and other external signals can activate PI3K through receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) or G protein‐coupled receptors. Upon activation, PI3K phosphorylates phosphatidylinositol (4,5)‐bisphosphate (PIP2) to produce phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)‐trisphosphate (PIP3), a lipid second messenger. PIP3 then recruits AKT to the cell membrane, where it is phosphorylated and activated by phosphoinositide‐dependent kinase‐1 and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2). Once activated, AKT supports cell survival and growth by phosphorylating and inhibiting proapoptotic substances like BAD and FOXO, while also enhancing the activity of prosurvival proteins such as Murine double minute 2. mTOR, a serine/threonine kinase, operates in two different complexes known as mTORC1 and mTORC2. AKT directly activates mTORC1 by inhibiting the TSC1/TSC2 complex, which negatively regulates mTORC1. mTORC1 promotes protein synthesis, cell growth, and survival by phosphorylating downstream targets like S6K1 and 4E‐BP1, while mTORC2 phosphorylates AKT, further enhancing its activity. 119 , 120 , 121

3.2.2 MAPK/ERK pathway

The MAPK/ERK pathway plays a crucial role in controlling cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival, with key components including rat sarcoma (RAS), rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma (RAF), mitogen‐activated protein kinase kinase (MEK), and ERK. Activation occurs when external signals stimulate RTKs, leading to RAS activation and subsequent recruitment of RAF kinases. RAF then activates MEK, which in turn activates ERK. ERK travels to the nucleus and activates transcription factors like ELK1 and c‐FOS, resulting in gene expression related to cell growth and survival. ERK also contributes to cell survival by inhibiting proapoptotic proteins like BAD and increasing the levels of antiapoptotic proteins such as Bcl‐2 and MCL‐1. Nevertheless, prolonged activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway under stress conditions can trigger cell death by activating proapoptotic genes. 122 , 123

3.2.3 NF‐κB signaling

The NF‐κB pathway plays a crucial role in regulating immune responses, inflammation, and cell survival. 124 The NF‐κB family consists of transcription factors like p65 (RelA), p50, and c‐Rel, which combine to form different homo‐ and heterodimers. Activation of NF‐κB can occur in response to various stimuli, such as proinflammatory cytokines like TNF‐α and IL‐1, microbial products, and stress signals. These stimuli trigger the IκB kinase (IKK) complex to phosphorylate and break down IκB proteins that inhibit NF‐κB. The breakdown of IκB enables NF‐κB dimers to move into the nucleus. In the nucleus, NF‐κB binds to specific DNA sequences and activates the transcription of genes associated with inflammation, immune response, cell survival, and cell proliferation. 125 , 126 This pathway promotes cell survival by elevating the expression of antiapoptotic genes like Bcl‐2, Bcl‐xL, and x‐linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein, as well as genes involved in cell proliferation such as c‐MYC. Furthermore, NF‐κB activation can lead to the production of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, which can either support cell survival or contribute to cell death during chronic inflammation. 124 , 127 , 128

In essence, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR, MAPK/ERK, and NF‐κB signaling pathways play a vital role in controlling cell fate determinations by incorporating external signals to regulate the functions of different proteins connected to cell survival and apoptosis. Disorders in these pathways are frequently linked to illnesses like cancer, underscoring their significance as possible treatment targets. Comprehending the complexities of these signaling systems offers valuable knowledge about the processes that oversee cell survival and death.

3.3 Role of the TME

The TME is essential for tumor progression, metastasis, and treatment effectiveness, as it consists of a mix of cell types and molecules, such as cancer cells, immune cells, stromal cells, blood vessels, ECM, and signaling molecules (Figure 4). 125 , 129 Understanding the TME is essential for comprehending tumor biology and developing effective cancer therapies. Key aspects of the TME include hypoxia and nutrient deprivation, as well as interactions with immune cells and stromal components.

FIGURE 4 Schematic representation of the tumor microenvironment (TME). The figure illustrates the complex network within the TME, the interaction between cancer cells, immune cells (such as TAM, T cells), and stromal cells, including cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAF) and endothelial cells, is shown. The figure also highlights the immunosuppressive environment facilitated by various cellular interactions that promote tumor progression and evasion from immune surveillance.

3.3.1 Hypoxia and nutrient deprivation

Hypoxia (low oxygen levels) and nutrient deprivation are common features of the TME due to the rapid growth of tumors outpacing their blood supply. 130 As tumors grow, they often outstrip their blood supply, leading to regions with inadequate oxygen levels. This hypoxia stabilizes hypoxia‐inducible factors (HIF‐1α and HIF‐2α), which translocate to the nucleus and induce the expression of genes promoting angiogenesis (e.g., VEGF), glycolysis, and survival. 131 Cancer cells adapt to hypoxia by shifting their metabolism towards anaerobic glycolysis (the Warburg effect), increasing glucose uptake and lactate production. Additionally, hypoxia can lead to resistance to radiotherapy and some chemotherapies, as low oxygen levels reduce the generation of ROS that mediate the cytotoxic effects of these treatments. Tumor cells also face nutrient deprivation, competing for limited resources such as glucose, amino acids, and lipids due to inadequate blood supply and high metabolic demand. In response, cancer cells often upregulate autophagy to recycle cellular components and maintain homeostasis. They also exhibit metabolic flexibility, using alternative substrates like fatty acids and glutamine to sustain growth and survival. Nutrient deprivation activates stress response pathways, such as the unfolded protein response and AMPK signaling, helping cells adapt to metabolic stress. 132 , 133 , 134

3.3.2 Interaction with immune cells and stromal components

The interaction between cancer cells and various components of the TME, including immune cells and stromal cells, significantly influences tumor progression and therapeutic response. 135 Tumor‐associated macrophages in the TME often adopt an M2‐like phenotype, promoting tumor growth, angiogenesis, and immunosuppression through cytokines like IL‐10 and TGF‐β. Effective antitumor immune responses depend on cytotoxic T cells (CTLs), but tumors create an immunosuppressive environment that inhibits CTL function, while regulatory T cells accumulate and suppress effector T cells, aiding immune evasion. 136 Myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) also contribute to immunosuppression by inhibiting T cell activation and promoting tumor immune evasion via arginase, nitric oxide, and ROS. 137 Cancer‐associated fibroblasts (CAFs) secrete ECM components and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) to remodel the ECM, facilitating tumor invasion and metastasis, and produce growth factors and cytokines that promote tumor proliferation, survival, and angiogenesis. Endothelial cells respond to proangiogenic signals like VEGF from hypoxic tumor cells, forming new blood vessels that provide nutrients and oxygen to the tumor, though these vessels are often abnormal, leading to inefficient blood flow, increased permeability, and further hypoxia and nutrient deprivation. The ECM itself provides structural support and influences cell behavior through biochemical and biomechanical signals, while sequestering growth factors and cytokines, modulating their availability and activity within the TME. 138 , 139

In summary, the TME is a dynamic and complex network that profoundly influences tumor progression and response to therapy. Hypoxia and nutrient deprivation drive metabolic adaptations in cancer cells, while interactions with immune cells and stromal components create a supportive environment for tumor growth and immune evasion. Understanding these interactions is crucial for developing strategies to target the TME and improve cancer treatment outcomes.

4 THERAPEUTIC TARGETING OF CELL DEATH PATHWAYS IN CANCER

The induction of cell death in cancer cells is a fundamental strategy in cancer therapy. 140 By understanding and manipulating various cell death pathways, we can develop targeted treatments that selectively kill cancer cells while minimizing damage to normal tissues. Here, we explore different therapeutic approaches targeting apoptosis, necroptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis (Table 1).

TABLE 1 The therapeutic agents targeting cancer cell death pathways: representative drugs, targets, and mechanisms.

Types	Representative drugs	Main targets	Main mechanisms	References	
Apoptosis inducers	Venetoclax (ABT‐199)	Bcl‐2 family proteins	Inhibits Bcl‐2 to induce apoptosis in Bcl‐2‐dependent cells	141	
TRAIL, Agonistic antibodies targeting DR4 or DR5, Recombinant FasL	TRAIL receptors (DR4, DR5), Fas (CD95)	Activates death receptors leading to DISC formation, caspase‐8 activation, and initiation of apoptosis	142, 143, 144	
Necroptosis modulators	Necrostatin‐1 (Nec‐1), GSK2982772	RIPK1	Blocks RIPK1 kinase activity, preventing necroptotic cascade initiation	145, 146, 147	
GSK‐872	RIPK	Inhibits RIPK3 kinase activity, preventing activation of MLKL	148, 149	
Necrosulfonamide	MLKL	Prevents oligomerization and membrane translocation of MLKL, blocking necroptosis execution phase	150	
Autophagy modulators	Chloroquine (CQ), hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)	Autophagosomes and lysosomes	Inhibits lysosomal acidification, blocking fusion of autophagosomes with lysosomes	151, 152	
Ferroptosis inducers	RSL3, ML210	GPX4	Inhibits GPX4, leading to accumulation of lipid hydroperoxides and triggering ferroptosis	153, 154	
Ferroptosis modulators	Deferoxamine (DFO), deferiprone (DFP), liproxstatin‐1	Iron metabolism and lipid peroxidation	Modulates iron levels and lipid peroxidation to control ferroptosis	155	
Pyroptosis inducers	Activators of caspase‐1, caspase‐4/5/11	Inflammatory caspases	Induces pyroptosis through activation of caspases leading to cell death and immune activation	156, 157	
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4.1 Apoptosis inducers

4.1.1 BH3 mimetics targeting Bcl‐2 family proteins

Venetoclax (ABT‐199) is a potent and selective inhibitor of Bcl‐2, approved for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients with specific genetic profiles indicating Bcl‐2 dependence. 141 , 158 Venetoclax has demonstrated significant efficacy in inducing apoptosis in Bcl‐2‐dependent cancer cells, with a favorable safety profile compared with earlier, less specific Bcl‐2 inhibitors. However, cancer cells may develop resistance to BH3 mimetics by upregulating other antiapoptotic proteins like Mcl‐1. To overcome resistance, BH3 mimetics are often used in combination with other therapies, such as chemotherapy, targeted therapies, or other apoptosis‐inducing agents. 158 , 159

4.1.2 Death receptor agonists

The extrinsic pathway of apoptosis is initiated by the binding of specific ligands to death receptors on the cell surface, which are part of the TNF receptor superfamily, including TRAIL receptors (DR4 and DR5) and Fas (CD95). 142 Death receptor agonists are designed to activate these receptors and trigger apoptosis in cancer cells. TRAIL binds to death receptors DR4 and DR5, forming a DISC that recruits and activates caspase‐8, while Fas Ligand (FasL) binds to the Fas receptor (CD95), similarly leading to DISC formation and caspase‐8 activation. The activation of caspase‐8 initiates a proteolytic cascade, ultimately activating effector caspases such as caspase‐3, leading to apoptosis. Examples include recombinant TRAIL and agonistic antibodies targeting DR4 or DR5, which selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells, and agonistic antibodies and recombinant FasL, which induce apoptosis in Fas‐expressing cancer cells. 143 , 160 Despite promising preclinical data, clinical trials with TRAIL and FasL agonists have encountered limited efficacy in some cancers due to intrinsic or acquired resistance mechanisms. Additionally, death receptor agonists can potentially cause toxicity in normal tissues expressing death receptors, leading to adverse effects. Advances in targeted delivery systems and combination therapies are being explored to enhance the specificity and efficacy of death receptor agonists. 144 , 161

In conclusion, apoptosis inducers such as BH3 mimetics and death receptor agonists represent promising therapeutic strategies in cancer treatment (Figure 5A). By specifically targeting the dysregulated apoptotic pathways in cancer cells, these agents aim to selectively induce cell death and improve clinical outcomes. Ongoing research and clinical trials continue to refine these approaches, addressing challenges related to resistance, specificity, and safety.

FIGURE 5 Therapeutic strategies targeting cell death pathways in cancer treatment. (A) Apoptosis pathways with two primary targets: the intrinsic pathway targeted by BH3 mimetics like Venetoclax which inhibit Bcl‐2 proteins, and the extrinsic pathway activated by death receptor agonists such as TRAIL and FasL that bind to death receptors DR4, DR5, and CD95, respectively, inducing apoptosis. (B) Necroptosis modulation, where the activation or inhibition of key proteins (RIPK1, RIPK3, MLKL) can trigger necroptosis, offering an alternative route to cellular demise distinct from apoptosis. (C) Autophagy and its dual role as both a tumor suppressor and a survival mechanism in cancer cells, illustrated using lysosomotropic agents such as chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) which block the fusion of autophagosomes with lysosomes. (D) Ferroptosis inducers that manipulate iron metabolism and lipid peroxidation, highlighting small molecule inhibitors like RSL3 targeting GPX4. (E) Pyroptosis inducers and their role in stimulating an inflammatory response and enhancing antitumor immunity, featuring agents activating caspase‐1 and caspase‐4/5/11. Bcl‐2, B‐cell lymphoma‐2; DR4, death receptor 4; DR5, death receptor 5; CD95, death receptor 95; GPX4, glutathione peroxidase 4; MLKL, mixed lineage kinase domain‐like protein; RIPK1, receptor‐interacting serine/threonine‐protein kinase 1; RIPK3, receptor‐interacting serine/threonine‐protein kinase 3.

4.2 Necroptosis modulators

Necroptosis is a form of programmed cell death distinct from apoptosis, characterized by cellular swelling, membrane rupture, and inflammation. It is regulated by key proteins including RIPK1, RIPK3, and MLKL. 162 Unlike apoptosis, necroptosis is often associated with inflammatory responses, making it a double‐edged sword in disease contexts.

4.2.1 Inhibitors of RIPK1, RIPK3, and MLKL

To modulate necroptosis for therapeutic benefit, researchers have developed inhibitors targeting the key proteins involved in the necroptosis pathway, specifically RIPK1, RIPK3, and MLKL. 145 RIPK1 inhibitors block the kinase activity of RIPK1, preventing it from interacting with RIPK3 and initiating the necroptotic cascade. Examples include necrostatin‐1 (Nec‐1), one of the first RIPK1 inhibitors identified, which binds to the kinase domain of RIPK1, and GSK2982772, a more recent RIPK1 inhibitor currently under clinical investigation for inflammatory diseases. 146 , 163 RIPK3 inhibitors, such as GSK‐872, block the kinase activity of RIPK3, preventing it from phosphorylating and activating MLKL. Targeting RIPK3 may be beneficial in diseases where RIPK3‐mediated necroptosis plays a critical role, such as certain types of cancer and inflammatory conditions. 148 , 149 MLKL inhibitors, like Necrosulfonamide, prevent the oligomerization and membrane translocation of MLKL, thereby blocking the execution phase of necroptosis. Inhibition of MLKL might be useful in conditions where necroptosis contributes to pathology, such as inflammatory diseases. 150

4.2.2 Potential therapeutic applications and challenges

Overcoming apoptosis resistance in cancer therapy is a critical goal, and necroptosis presents a promising alternative by bypassing the resistance mechanisms that many cancers develop against apoptosis‐inducing therapies. 164 , 165 Inducing necroptosis can provide an alternative route to induce cancer cell death and may enhance overall efficacy when combined with traditional therapies such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Additionally, necroptosis is more immunogenic than apoptosis, leading to the release of DAMPs that can stimulate an antitumor immune response. This immunogenic cell death can potentially be combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors to amplify the immune system's ability to target and destroy cancer cells. Modulating necroptosis in the TME can also alter the inflammatory milieu, potentially making it less conducive to cancer growth, and targeting necroptosis in stromal cells can disrupt supportive niches for cancer cells. However, there are significant challenges in cancer therapy, including achieving selective targeting of necroptosis in cancer cells without affecting normal cells to avoid unintended tissue damage and inflammation. Additionally, cancer cells may develop resistance mechanisms to necroptosis modulators, and inhibiting necroptosis might activate alternative cell death pathways or survival mechanisms, reducing treatment efficacy (Figure 5B). The proinflammatory nature of necroptosis, while beneficial for stimulating an immune response, could also promote tumor growth and metastasis if not carefully managed. The context‐dependent effects of necroptosis in cancer, varying with tumor type, stage, and the specific TME, complicate the design of universal therapeutic strategies. 10 , 166 , 167 Translating promising preclinical findings into clinical success requires rigorous clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of necroptosis modulators in cancer patients, and identifying patients most likely to benefit from necroptosis modulation necessitates the development and validation of biomarkers for necroptosis susceptibility.

4.3 Autophagy modulators

Autophagy is a cellular mechanism where damaged organelles and proteins are broken down and reused. It has a dual role in cancer, behaving as both a suppressor of tumor growth and a supporter of tumor survival depending on the circumstances. Modulating autophagy through inhibitors like chloroquine (CQ) and HCQ provides an intriguing approach to cancer therapy with both potential benefits and challenges.

4.3.1 Autophagy inhibitors

CQ and HCQ are lysosomotropic agents that accumulate in lysosomes, increasing the pH and inhibiting lysosomal acidification, which disrupts the fusion of autophagosomes with lysosomes and blocks the final degradation step of autophagy. Both CQ and HCQ are United States Food and Drug Administration approved for malaria and certain autoimmune diseases, and their repurposing in cancer therapy is being actively explored. 151 In cancer therapy, these autophagy inhibitors have potential applications in enhancing chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as cancer cells often upregulate autophagy in response to these treatments as a survival mechanism. Inhibiting autophagy can sensitize cancer cells to treatment‐induced death and potentially overcome resistance to targeted therapies and hormonal treatments in cancers such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, and melanoma. 168 , 169 , 170 However, there are challenges and considerations, including the toxicity and side effects of long‐term use, such as retinal toxicity, which require careful monitoring and management in clinical settings. 171 Additionally, the role of autophagy in cancer is highly context dependent; in some cancers, autophagy can act as a tumor suppressor, and its inhibition might inadvertently promote tumor progression. 70

4.3.2 Dual role of autophagy in cancer therapy

Autophagy plays a dual role in cancer therapy as both a tumor suppressor and a tumor promoter. As a tumor suppressor, autophagy prevents tumorigenesis in the early stages by reducing oxidative stress and genomic instability through the removal of damaged organelles and proteins. The loss of autophagy‐related genes, such as Beclin 1, has been linked to increased tumorigenesis. Additionally, autophagy can induce type II programmed cell death, or autophagic cell death, under certain conditions, aiding in the elimination of cancer cells. Conversely, as a tumor promoter, established tumors exploit autophagy to survive under stress conditions like hypoxia, nutrient deprivation, and treatment‐induced stress, by providing metabolic substrates that support tumor growth and survival. This mechanism also contributes to therapeutic resistance, allowing cancer cells to adapt to and survive chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted therapies. 172 , 173 , 174 Therapeutic strategies to target autophagy must consider its context‐specific roles. Combination therapies, such as pairing HCQ with chemotherapy, can enhance treatment efficacy by preventing cancer cells from utilizing autophagy as a survival mechanism, which has shown promise in clinical trials for cancers like glioblastoma and pancreatic cancer. 175 , 176 Personalized medicine approaches, using biomarkers and genetic profiling, are essential for identifying patients who may benefit from autophagy inhibition. 177 Optimizing timing and dosage through adaptive therapy can maximize benefits while minimizing adverse effects, with intermittent dosing schedules potentially reducing toxicity (Figure 5C). To address resistance mechanisms, combining autophagy inhibitors with inhibitors of other survival pathways, such as the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, might enhance therapeutic efficacy and prevent resistance. Continuous monitoring of autophagy activity and adaptive treatment strategies are crucial for managing resistance and improving long‐term outcomes. 178 , 179

4.4 Ferroptosis inducers

Ferroptosis induction represents a promising strategy in cancer therapy, particularly for targeting drug‐resistant and aggressive cancers. 153 Small molecules targeting GPX4, such as RSL3 and ML210, along with iron chelators and lipid peroxidation modulators, provide versatile tools to modulate ferroptosis. Careful selection of therapeutic combinations, targeting specific cancer types, and minimizing off‐target effects are essential for harnessing the full potential of ferroptosis in cancer treatment. Continued research and clinical development will be key to translating these strategies into effective therapies for patients.

4.4.1 Small molecules targeting GPX4

Small molecules targeting GPX4 are emerging as effective inducers of ferroptosis in cancer therapy. GPX4 plays a critical role in protecting cells from lipid peroxidation, thereby inhibiting ferroptosis. 180 RSL3, for instance, covalently binds to GPX4, inhibiting its activity and leading to the accumulation of LOOH, which ultimately triggers ferroptosis. RSL3 has shown efficacy in various cancer models, particularly those with high levels of ROS and lipid peroxidation, such as cancers with mutations in the Ras/Raf/MEK pathway that often exhibit elevated oxidative stress. 154 , 181 Similarly, ML210 is a potent and selective GPX4 inhibitor that disrupts the detoxification of lipid peroxides, leading to ferroptosis. Preclinical studies have demonstrated the promise of ML210, including its efficacy in models of drug‐resistant cancer cells, making it a valuable tool for studying ferroptosis and its therapeutic potential. 182 Additionally, iron chelators and lipid peroxidation modulators play a crucial role in ferroptosis by influencing iron levels and lipid peroxidation. Iron, through the Fenton reaction, catalyzes the formation of lipid peroxides, and modulating these processes can impact ferroptosis and its application in cancer therapy. 183 , 184

4.4.2 Iron chelators and lipid peroxidation modulators

Iron chelators and lipid peroxidation modulators play crucial roles in ferroptosis and its therapeutic application in cancer therapy. Iron chelators like deferoxamine and deferiprone bind free iron, reducing its availability and thereby inhibiting ferroptosis. In cancer therapy, iron chelators can prevent ferroptosis in normal cells, reducing off‐target effects and toxicity, and in some contexts, they can be combined with ferroptosis inducers to selectively target cancer cells with high iron content or to modulate the timing of ferroptosis induction. 155 Lipid peroxidation modulators can either enhance or inhibit lipid peroxide formation. For example, liproxstatin‐1 is a ferroptosis inhibitor that prevents lipid peroxidation, while agents that promote lipid peroxidation can induce ferroptosis. Modulating lipid peroxidation provides a strategic approach to control ferroptosis; enhancing lipid peroxidation can synergize with GPX4 inhibitors to potentiate ferroptosis in cancer cells, whereas lipid peroxidation inhibitors can protect normal tissues, improving the safety profile of ferroptosis‐based therapies. 154 Therapeutic strategies for ferroptosis induction include combination therapies that integrate ferroptosis inducers with other cancer treatments (e.g., chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy) to enhance anticancer efficacy by overcoming resistance mechanisms and promoting synergistic cell death. 185 For instance, combining GPX4 inhibitors with agents that increase ROS levels or inhibit other antioxidant pathways can potentiate ferroptosis and enhance cancer cell killing. Targeting susceptible cancers, particularly those with high oxidative stress or specific genetic mutations (e.g., Ras‐driven cancers), can maximize therapeutic benefits, with biomarker‐driven approaches helping to identify patients most likely to benefit from ferroptosis‐based therapies. Minimizing off‐target effects involves selecting appropriate iron chelators and lipid peroxidation modulators to protect normal cells, and developing targeted delivery systems, like nanoparticles or conjugates, to improve the specificity and efficacy of ferroptosis inducers. 186 , 187 Overcoming resistance to ferroptosis, which can arise through various mechanisms such as upregulation of antioxidant pathways or alterations in iron metabolism, is crucial for the success of ferroptosis‐based therapies. Combination strategies targeting multiple pathways involved in ferroptosis can help overcome resistance and improve treatment outcomes (Figure 5D). 164 , 188

4.5 Pyroptosis inducers

Pyroptosis induction represents a promising strategy for cancer therapy due to its ability to induce potent inflammatory cell death and enhance antitumor immunity. 156 Activators of inflammatory caspases, such as caspase‐1 and caspase‐4/5/11, can induce pyroptosis, leading to tumor cell death and immune activation. The combination of pyroptosis inducers with immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell therapies, holds significant potential for improving cancer treatment outcomes. Targeted delivery systems and prodrug approaches can further enhance the specificity and safety of pyroptosis‐based therapies, making them a viable option for overcoming resistance and enhancing the efficacy of existing cancer treatments. 157

4.5.1 Activators of inflammatory caspases

Activators of inflammatory caspases, particularly caspase‐1, caspase‐4, caspase‐5, and caspase‐11, hold significant therapeutic potential in cancer therapy by inducing pyroptosis and enhancing antitumor immunity. Activators of caspase‐1 can induce pyroptosis in cancer cells, leading to tumor cell death and the release of inflammatory cytokines that recruit and activate immune cells, thereby creating an immunogenic TME and potentially enhancing antitumor immunity. Activators of caspase‐4/5/11 can induce pyroptosis, particularly in cancer cells resistant to apoptosis or other forms of cell death, and enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor, promoting antitumor immune responses. 189 , 190 , 191

4.5.2 Potential for immune activation and cancer therapy

The potential for immune activation and cancer therapy through pyroptosis induction is significant, offering promising avenues for enhancing antitumor responses. Pyroptosis leads to the release of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL‐1β and IL‐18, which activate and recruit immune cells, including dendritic cells, macrophages, and T cells. This cytokine milieu enhances tumor antigen presentation and promotes a robust antitumor immune response. Additionally, the release of tumor antigens and danger signals during pyroptosis can enhance the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, improving antigen presentation to T cells and boosting adaptive immunity. 192 , 193 Combining pyroptosis inducers with immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., anti‐PD‐1, anti‐CTLA‐4) can increase tumor immunogenicity and overcome immune suppression in the TME, enhancing the efficacy of these therapies. Likewise, pyroptosis induction can be combined with adoptive cell therapies, such as CAR‐T cells or TCR‐engineered T cells, to create a more favorable immune microenvironment and enhance their effectiveness. 194 , 195 Pyroptosis provides an alternative cell death pathway that can be targeted in cancers resistant to apoptosis and can turn immunologically “cold” tumors into “hot” tumors, making them more responsive to immunotherapies. To minimize off‐target effects, targeted delivery systems like nanoparticle delivery or tumor‐specific promoters can specifically deliver pyroptosis inducers to tumor cells, reducing systemic inflammation. Prodrug approaches can also be used to activate pyroptosis inducers specifically within the TME, mitigating the risk of systemic toxicity (Figure 5E). 196 , 197

5 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES

The exploration of cell death pathways, including apoptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis, has paved the way for innovative cancer therapies. This section focuses on the clinical applications and challenges associated with these therapeutic strategies, with a particular emphasis on ongoing and completed clinical trials.

5.1 Current clinical trials

5.1.1 Overview of ongoing and completed trials

The clinical translation of therapies targeting cell death pathways is an active area of research, with numerous ongoing and completed clinical trials showcasing promising outcomes. Apoptosis inducers, such as BCL‐2 inhibitors, have shown significant results. 198 Venetoclax (ABT‐199), particularly in hematological malignancies like CLL and AML, has demonstrated high response rates and improved progression‐free survival in CLL and encouraging responses in AML, especially in older patients. 199 , 200 Navitoclax (ABT‐263), targeting BCL‐2/BCL‐XL, has shown efficacy in combination with standard therapies in lymphoma and small cell lung cancer but has thrombocytopenia as a dose‐limiting toxicity due to BCL‐XL inhibition. 201 , 202 Necroptosis inducers, including RIPK1/RIPK3 inhibitors, are also under investigation. 146 GSK2982772, a RIPK1 inhibitor, has been well tolerated in a Phase 1 trial with healthy volunteers, though further studies are needed to assess its efficacy in cancer. 203 Nec‐1, another RIPK1 inhibitor, has shown tumor growth reduction in preclinical animal models and potential for combination therapy. 204 Pyroptosis inducers, such as caspase‐1 activators, are being explored for their role in cancer therapy. VX‐765, a caspase‐1 inhibitor, demonstrated safety and tolerability in nononcology settings, and preclinical studies suggest its potential in cancer. 205 Additionally, caspase‐4/5/11 activators like TAK‐242, a TLR4 inhibitor studied for sepsis, have shown effectiveness in reducing inflammatory responses and are being considered for repurposing in cancer therapy. 206 , 207 The key therapeutic agents targeting the cell death pathway in cancer clinical trials are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2 The key therapeutic agents targeting cell death pathways in cancer clinical trials.

Representative drugs	Targets	Mechanisms	Cancer types	References	
Venetoclax (ABT‐199)	BCL‐2	Inhibits BCL‐2 to induce apoptosis	Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML)	199, 200	
Navitoclax (ABT‐263)	BCL‐2/BCL‐XL	Inhibits BCL‐2 and BCL‐XL, inducing apoptosis	Lymphoma, small cell lung cancer (SCLC)	201	
GSK2982772	RIPK1	RIPK1 inhibitor, potential to inhibit necroptosis	Under investigation in cancer (previously studied in inflammatory diseases)	203	
Necrostatin‐1	RIPK1	Inhibits RIPK1, potentially blocking necroptosis	Under study in preclinical animal models for cancer	204	
VX‐765	Caspase‐1	Inhibits caspase‐1, potentially affecting pyroptosis	Potential application in cancer therapy	205	
TAK‐242	TLR4 (impacting Caspase‐4/5/11 indirectly)	Inhibits TLR4, reducing inflammatory responses, studied for potential repurposing in cancer	Considered for repurposing in cancer therapy	206	
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

5.1.2 Key findings and clinical outcomes

Key findings and clinical outcomes of therapies targeting cell death pathways underscore their efficacy and safety. Apoptosis‐inducing agents, particularly BCL‐2 inhibitors like venetoclax, have shown high response rates in hematological malignancies. Combining cell death pathway modulators with existing therapies, such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy, often enhances efficacy and overcomes resistance. 208 , 209 However, managing toxicity, such as thrombocytopenia with navitoclax, is crucial, necessitating dose adjustments and supportive care. 210 Despite these advancements, challenges remain, including the development of resistance mechanisms by tumor cells, the need for selective targeting to minimize off‐target effects, and the identification of predictive biomarkers for patient selection and response monitoring. Future directions focus on identifying and validating novel targets within cell death pathways, combining cell death inducers with immunotherapies, targeted therapies, and conventional treatments to enhance therapeutic outcomes, and leveraging advances in genomics and biomarker discovery to refine patient selection and treatment customization, ultimately improving clinical outcomes. 211 , 212

5.2 Drug resistance mechanisms

Despite the promising therapeutic potential of targeting cell death pathways in cancer treatment, resistance to these therapies remains a significant hurdle. 213 This section delves into the mechanisms by which cancer cells develop resistance to cell death‐targeting therapies and explores strategies to overcome this resistance. Resistance to cell death‐targeting therapies poses a significant challenge in the treatment of cancer. 213 Understanding the mechanisms underlying this resistance is crucial for developing effective strategies to overcome it. Combination therapies, targeting antiapoptotic proteins, epigenetic modulation, autophagy inhibition, enhancing immune response, and precision medicine approaches represent promising strategies to counteract resistance and improve therapeutic outcomes. 214 , 215 Ongoing research and clinical trials will continue to refine these strategies and expand the arsenal of effective cancer treatments.

5.2.1 Mechanisms of resistance to cell death‐targeting therapies

Genetic mutations and varied cellular mechanisms contribute significantly to resistance against therapies targeting cell death pathways. Mutations in BCL‐2 family proteins, such as BAX or BAK, can block the permeabilization of the mitochondrial outer membrane, an important step in apoptosis. Mutations in TP53, the gene responsible for p53, reduce the ability to trigger apoptosis in response to DNA damage and other cellular stress signals. Increased levels of antiapoptotic proteins such as BCL‐2 and MCL‐1 can bind to proapoptotic proteins, preventing apoptosis and making cells resistant to BCL‐2 inhibitors like venetoclax. Likewise, a decrease in proapoptotic proteins like BAX and BAK, or the absence of BH3‐only proteins like BIM, PUMA, and NOXA, disrupts the apoptotic process, leading to resistance. 216 , 217 , 218 Cancer cells often upregulate autophagy in response to stress, including treatment with cell death inducers, providing a survival advantage through cytoprotective autophagy. 219 Epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation and histone modification, can silence genes involved in apoptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis, further contributing to resistance. 220 , 221 Additionally, cancer cells can activate compensatory survival pathways like the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway or the NF‐κB pathway to counteract the effects of cell death‐targeting therapies. 222

5.2.2 Strategies to overcome resistance

Combination therapies offer promising strategies to enhance therapeutic efficacy and overcome resistance in cancer treatment. 223 , 224 Targeting multiple pathways by combining cell death inducers with agents that inhibit compensatory survival pathways, such as combining BCL‐2 inhibitors with PI3K inhibitors, can prevent the activation of alternative survival mechanisms. Synergistic drug combinations, like using BCL‐2 inhibitors with MCL‐1 inhibitors, target different components of the apoptotic pathway, effectively inducing apoptosis. Developing specific MCL‐1 inhibitors and dual inhibitors that target multiple antiapoptotic proteins simultaneously can further overcome resistance by preventing cancer cells from compensating through alternative pathways. 225 , 226 , 227 Epigenetic modulation, using agents like DNA methylation inhibitors or histone deacetylase inhibitors, can restore the expression of proapoptotic genes and enhance cell death. 228 , 229 Inhibiting autophagy with agents such as CQ or HCQ, in combination with cell death inducers, can prevent the protective effect of autophagy and enhance cancer cell death. 230 , 231 Enhancing the immune response through immunotherapy, such as combining cell death‐targeting therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors, can help eliminate resistant cancer cells via immune‐mediated mechanisms. 232 Additionally, cancer vaccines or adoptive T cell therapies targeting tumor‐specific antigens released during cell death can bolster the immune response against resistant cells. 233 Precision medicine approaches, including biomarker‐guided therapy and comprehensive genomic profiling, enable the identification of resistance biomarkers and genetic alterations, guiding the selection of appropriate combination therapies and personalized treatment regimens for individual patients. 234

5.3 Combination therapies

The combination of cell death‐targeting therapies with other treatment methods like chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy has demonstrated potential in improving treatment effectiveness and overcoming resistance. 235 , 236 This section will explore the synergistic effects of combination therapies, their potential benefits, and the challenges involved. Table 3 lists the drug combinations and their synergistic effects in combination therapy in some cancers.

TABLE 3 The synergistic effects of combination therapies in cancer.

Drug 1	Drug 2	Mechanisms	Cancer types	References	
Quercetin	Doxorubicin	Induction of apoptosis	Retinoblastoma	237	
Berberine	Cinnamaldehyde	Induction of apoptosis and inhibition of proliferation, autophagy	Non‐small cell lung cancer	238	
Berberine	Doxorubicin	Induction of apoptosis and decertation of cell viability	Non‐small cell lung cancer	238	
Berberine	Osimertinib	Induction of apoptosis	Non‐small cell lung cancer	238	
Berberine	TPD7	Induction of apoptosis	Leukemia	238	
Berberine	Galangin	Induction of apoptosis	Esophageal cancer	238	
Berberine	Cisplatin	Induction of apoptosis	Ovarian cancer	238	
Berberine	Niraparib	Induction of apoptosis	Ovarian cancer	238	
Berberine	Cisplatin	Induction of apoptosis and necroptosis	Ovarian cancer	238	
Berberine	Doxorubicin	Induction of G2/M phase arrest and apoptosis	Melanoma	238	
Berberine	Cisplatin and PDT	Induction of apoptosis	Melanoma	238	
Neratinib	Ado‐Trastuzumab‐Emtansine	Inhibition of metastasis	Breast Cancer	239	
HRS‐4642	Carfilzomib	Inhibition of KRAS G12D‐mutant cancer model	–	240	
Temozolomide	Dasatinib/Rapamycin/Temozolomide	–	Neuroblastoma	241	
Ramucirumab	pembrolizumab	Inhibition of metastasis	Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma	242	
Celecoxib	Paclitaxel	Improved drug accumulation and triggered robust antitumor immunity	Triple‐negative breast cancer	243	
Cetuximab	FOLFOXIRI/ FOLFOX	Inhibition of liver metastasis	Colorectal cancer 	244	
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

5.3.1 Synergistic effects with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy

Chemotherapy often induces cell death through DNA damage, disruption of replication, or inhibition of cellular division. When combined with cell death‐targeting agents, this dual assault can enhance apoptosis. For example, BCL‐2 inhibitors like Venetoclax, when combined with standard chemotherapy agents such as cytarabine, have demonstrated enhanced efficacy in AML. 245 Similarly, PARP inhibitors, which target DNA repair mechanisms, can be combined with DNA‐damaging chemotherapies to enhance cancer cell death in BRCA‐mutated cancers. 246 , 247 Radiotherapy induces DNA damage and generates ROS, leading to cancer cell death. Cell death‐targeting agents can sensitize cancer cells to the effects of radiation. For instance, combining radiotherapy with apoptosis‐inducing agents like TRAIL receptor agonists can enhance the proapoptotic effects of radiation. 248 Additionally, radiation can induce cytoprotective autophagy, and combining it with autophagy inhibitors can enhance the effectiveness of radiotherapy. 249 Immunotherapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1, anti‐CTLA‐4), enhance the immune system's ability to recognize and destroy cancer cells. Cell death‐targeting therapies can increase the release of tumor antigens, enhancing the immune response. For example, combining checkpoint inhibitors with apoptosis‐inducing agents can amplify the immune‐mediated killing of cancer cells, and cell death‐targeting therapies combined with adoptive T cell therapies can enhance the presentation of tumor antigens, improving T cell recognition and killing of cancer cells. 250 , 251 , 252

5.3.2 Potential benefits and challenges

Enhanced efficacy in cancer treatment can be achieved through combination therapies, which often produce synergistic effects, making the combined treatment more effective than the sum of individual therapies and overcoming resistance by targeting multiple pathways. This approach can lead to better treatment outcomes and potentially allow for lower doses of each agent, thereby reducing overall toxicity and side effects associated with high‐dose monotherapy. 253 Additionally, combination therapies can target heterogeneous tumors more comprehensively by addressing different subpopulations of cancer cells within the tumor. 254 Moreover, cell death‐targeting therapies can enhance the release of tumor antigens, improving the efficacy of immunotherapies and stimulating a more robust immune response. 51 However, the complexity of treatment regimens poses significant challenges, including optimizing the timing, dosing, and sequencing of therapies to maximize synergy and minimize toxicity, as well as ensuring patient compliance, particularly for those with multiple comorbidities. Increased toxicity is another concern, as combining therapies can elevate the risk of adverse effects and off‐target interactions, necessitating close monitoring. 255 Developing predictive biomarkers to identify which patients will benefit from specific combinations is crucial but challenging, requiring extensive research and validation. Tumors may also develop adaptive resistance mechanisms to combination therapies, necessitating ongoing research to counter evolving resistance patterns. Furthermore, the financial burden of combination therapies can be substantial, posing challenges to healthcare systems and patients, and ensuring equitable access to these treatments, particularly in resource‐limited settings, remains a significant issue.

6 FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

The field of cancer therapy is rapidly evolving, driven by advances in our understanding of cell death mechanisms, personalized medicine, and drug delivery systems. This section outlines key future directions and research opportunities that hold promise for improving cancer treatment outcomes.

6.1 Identification of new cell death regulators

6.1.1 High‐throughput screening and omics approaches

High‐throughput screening (HTS) and omics approaches are pivotal in advancing cancer therapy. 256 , 257 HTS technology enables the rapid testing of thousands to millions of compounds or genetic perturbations, facilitating the identification of new regulators of cell death. Applications of HTS include screening small molecules, CRISPR/Cas9 libraries, or RNA interference libraries to uncover novel drug targets and signaling pathways involved in cell death. For example, screening for compounds that selectively induce cell death in cancer cells but not in normal cells can lead to the discovery of new therapeutic agents with minimal side effects. 258 , 259 , 260 Omics approaches, such as genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, also play a crucial role. Genomics through whole‐genome sequencing and transcriptomics can identify mutations and gene expression changes associated with cell death regulation. Proteomics, using mass spectrometry, can reveal alterations in protein expression, posttranslational modifications, and protein‐protein interactions involved in cell death pathways. Metabolomics can identify changes in metabolic pathways that influence cell death, providing insights into the metabolic vulnerabilities of cancer cells. Integrating data from genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics can offer a comprehensive understanding of cell death mechanisms and identify potential therapeutic targets. 261 , 262 , 263

6.1.2 Novel biomarkers for therapy response

Predictive biomarkers play a crucial role in cancer therapy by guiding treatment selection and improving patient outcomes, with examples including BRCA mutations for PARP inhibitors and PD‐L1 expression for immune checkpoint inhibitors, which help identify patients likely to benefit from these therapies. Prognostic biomarkers provide information about the likely course of the disease, aiding in stratifying patients based on risk and tailoring treatment intensity. For instance, biomarkers indicating high levels of apoptosis or autophagy can inform prognosis and therapeutic strategies. Dynamic biomarkers, which change in response to treatment, offer real‐time feedback on therapeutic efficacy and guide adjustments in therapy. Examples include circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or specific protein markers in blood samples, which can be monitored to assess treatment response and detect early signs of resistance. 264 , 265 , 266 , 267

6.2 Personalized medicine

6.2.1 Patient‐specific targeting of cell death pathways

Genetic profiling of tumors allows for the identification of mutations and alterations in cell death pathways unique to each patient, such as mutations in the TP53 gene, which plays a crucial role in apoptosis and can guide the use of therapies that exploit p53‐dependent cell death mechanisms. 268 , 269 Functional genomics approaches, including CRISPR screens, can identify essential genes and pathways in individual tumors, thereby guiding the selection of targeted therapies. For example, CRISPR screens can uncover synthetic lethal interactions, revealing vulnerabilities unique to specific genetic contexts and enabling personalized therapeutic strategies. 270 , 271 , 272

6.2.2 Tailoring treatments based on genetic and molecular profiles

Customized drug combinations, tailored to the specific genetic and molecular profile of a patient's tumor, can enhance efficacy and reduce toxicity. For instance, combining BCL‐2 inhibitors with other targeted therapies in patients with specific genetic alterations in apoptotic pathways can be particularly effective. Adaptive therapy involves adjusting treatment based on real‐time monitoring of tumor response and resistance patterns, thereby tailoring therapy to the evolving tumor landscape. An example of this approach is using ctDNA to monitor tumor evolution and adjust therapy accordingly, preventing the outgrowth of resistant clones. 273 , 274

6.3 Advances in drug delivery systems

6.3.1 Nanotechnology and targeted delivery

Nanoparticle‐based delivery systems offer significant advantages by enhancing the delivery of therapeutic agents to tumor cells while minimizing off‐target effects. For example, liposomal formulations of chemotherapeutic agents, such as liposomal doxorubicin, improve drug accumulation in tumors and reduce systemic toxicity. 275 Additionally, targeted delivery systems use ligands, antibodies, or peptides to direct therapeutic agents specifically to tumor cells. An example of this is antibody–drug conjugates, which combine a monoclonal antibody specific to a tumor antigen with a cytotoxic drug, thereby enhancing selective delivery to cancer cells. 276 , 277 , 278

6.3.2 Overcoming barriers to effective drug delivery

The TME, characterized by hypoxia, a dense ECM, and abnormal vasculature, poses significant challenges to drug delivery. Strategies to modify the TME, such as using agents that normalize tumor blood vessels or degrade the ECM, can enhance drug penetration. For example, combining VEGF inhibitors with chemotherapeutic agents can improve vascular normalization and drug delivery. Drug resistance, due to mechanisms like efflux pumps and drug metabolism, also reduces drug efficacy. Strategies to overcome resistance include co‐delivering efflux pump inhibitors or using prodrugs that are specifically activated within the tumor environment. An example is prodrugs activated by enzymes overexpressed in tumors, such as MMPs, ensuring selective activation within the tumor. 279 , 280 , 281

All in all, the future of cancer therapy lies in the integration of HTS, omics approaches, personalized medicine, and advanced drug delivery systems. Identifying new cell death regulators and developing novel biomarkers will enable more precise targeting of therapies. Personalized medicine approaches, tailored to the genetic and molecular profiles of individual patients, promise to enhance treatment efficacy and minimize toxicity. Advances in drug delivery systems, including nanotechnology and targeted delivery, will overcome current barriers and improve therapeutic outcomes. Continued research and innovation in these areas are essential to realize the full potential of these strategies in cancer treatment.

Despite the remarkable advancements in cancer therapy technologies, such as HTS, omics approaches, personalized medicine, and advanced drug delivery systems, significant challenges and limitations persist in their practical applications. A primary concern is the high cost and complexity associated with these technologies, which can restrict accessibility and scalability in clinical settings, particularly in low‐resource environments. Additionally, the variability in individual patient responses presents a substantial challenge in effectively tailoring and predicting treatment outcomes through personalized medicine. Moreover, technological limitations in accurately modeling and predicting complex biological systems may result in unforeseen consequences and reduced efficacy of targeted therapies. Finally, regulatory and ethical issues surrounding the use of genetically tailored treatments, along with the potential for unintended off‐target effects, pose critical concerns that must be addressed to ensure the safe and equitable implementation of these emerging technologies in cancer treatment. These challenges highlight the necessity for ongoing research, technological improvements, and the development of frameworks to effectively manage these issues.

7 CONCLUSION

Over the course of this review, we have undertaken a comprehensive elucidation of the principal cell death pathways‐apoptosis, necroptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis and their intricate interplay in cancer development and therapy. Each pathway exhibits unique characteristics and molecular mechanisms that not only determine cell fate but also significantly influence the TME and the efficacy of cancer therapies.

Apoptosis remains a focal point due to its well‐established roles and therapeutic targets, involving critical regulators such as the Bcl‐2 protein family, caspases, and death receptors like Fas and TRAIL. 25 The shift from viewing necrosis solely as an uncontrollable form of cell death to understanding necroptosis as a regulated, programmable phenomenon has opened new avenues for therapy, particularly against tumors resistant to traditional apoptotic triggers. 50 Similarly, autophagy's dual role as both a survival mechanism and a modality of cell death underscores its complex relationship with cancer, necessitating a nuanced therapeutic approach. 282 Emerging research into ferroptosis and pyroptosis has revealed these forms of cell death as crucial players in the cancer landscape, driven respectively by iron‐dependent lipid peroxidation and inflammation‐associated mechanisms. 94 The interactions of these pathways with oxidative stress and inflammatory responses provide fertile ground for novel therapeutic strategies that might exploit these vulnerabilities in cancer cells.

The therapeutic implications of targeting cell death pathways are vast. Encouragingly, clinical trials exploring agents like BH3 mimetics and death receptor agonists have shown promise. 283 , 284 However, challenges persist, especially regarding resistance mechanisms and the selective induction of specific types of cell death in cancer cells without harming normal tissues. The therapeutic modulation of autophagy, which plays ambivalent roles in cancer, represents a particularly complex but potentially rewarding strategy. Additionally, the inducement of necroptosis and ferroptosis in situations where apoptosis is circumvented offers a strategic bypass to resistance, a recurrent issue in many therapeutic regimes. 285 Future studies are essential to further delineate the cross‐talk between different cell death pathways and their interactions with the TME. HTS and omics technologies promise to unearth new regulators of cell death and provide insights that could lead to more robust, targeted therapies. Moreover, the integration of these findings with data from genomics and proteomics will enhance the development of personalized medicine approaches, aiming to tailor treatments to the specific molecular profiles of patients’ tumors. 286 , 287

In conclusion, the complexity of cell death processes and their modulation by various internal and external factors in cancer offers a rich panorama of research and therapeutic opportunities. Innovative therapeutics that can specifically initiate or block particular pathways, according to the oncogenic context, stand to revolutionize the management of cancer. Continuing to unravel the molecular tapestry of cell death will undoubtedly refine our strategies to fight cancer, transforming the prospects of clinical outcomes. As we move forward, the fusion of traditional research with cutting‐edge technologies will catalyze the next wave of advancements in cancer therapy, potentially turning the tide against this formidable disease.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Shaohui Wang, Yeke Wu, and Yi Zhang conceptualized the manuscript. Shaohui Wang, Jing Guo, and Sa Gua wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Qinyun Du and Cen Wu contributed to the revision of the manuscript. All authors agreed and approved the final manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Not applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82474191, 82104534) and the National Key R&D Program of China (2023YFC3504400). We would like to thank BioRender (http://biorender.com/) for providing the tools used to create our Figures 1, 2, and 4.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Not applicable.
==== Refs
REFERENCES

1 Bray F , Laversanne M , Sung H , et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74 (3 ):229‐263.38572751
2 Pich O , Bailey C , Watkins TBK , Zaccaria S , Jamal‐Hanjani M , Swanton C . The translational challenges of precision oncology. Cancer Cell. 2022;40 (5 ):458‐478.35487215
3 Strasser A , Vaux DL . Cell death in the origin and treatment of cancer. Mol Cell. 2020;78 (6 ):1045‐1054.32516599
4 Ke B , Tian M , Li J , Liu B , He G . Targeting programmed cell death using small‐molecule compounds to improve potential cancer therapy. Med Res Rev. 2016;36 (6 ):983‐1035.27357603
5 Bedoui S , Herold MJ , Strasser A . Emerging connectivity of programmed cell death pathways and its physiological implications. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21 (11 ):678‐695.32873928
6 Loftus LV , Amend SR , Pienta KJ . Interplay between cell death and cell proliferation reveals new strategies for cancer therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23 (9 ):4723.35563113
7 Morana O , Wood W , Gregory CD . The apoptosis paradox in cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23 (3 ):1328.35163253
8 Gong L , Huang D , Shi Y , Liang Z , Bu H . Regulated cell death in cancer: from pathogenesis to treatment. Chin Med J (Engl). 2023;136 (6 ):653‐665.35950752
9 Pistritto G , Trisciuoglio D , Ceci C , Garufi A , D'Orazi G . Apoptosis as anticancer mechanism: function and dysfunction of its modulators and targeted therapeutic strategies. Aging. 2016;8 (4 ):603‐619.27019364
10 Meier P , Legrand AJ , Adam D , Silke J . Immunogenic cell death in cancer: targeting necroptosis to induce antitumour immunity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2024;24 (5 ):299‐315.38454135
11 Yu Q , Ding J , Li S , Li Y . Autophagy in cancer immunotherapy: perspective on immune evasion and cell death interactions. Cancer Lett. 2024;590 :216856.38583651
12 Jiang X , Stockwell BR , Conrad M . Ferroptosis: mechanisms, biology and role in disease. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021;22 (4 ):266‐282.33495651
13 Xing N , Du Q , Guo S , et al. Ferroptosis in lung cancer: a novel pathway regulating cell death and a promising target for drug therapy. Cell Death Discov. 2023;9 (1 ):110.37005430
14 Kesavardhana S , Malireddi RKS , Kanneganti TD . Caspases in cell death, inflammation, and pyroptosis. Annu Rev Immunol. 2020;38 :567‐595.32017655
15 Hänggi K , Ruffell B . Cell death, therapeutics, and the immune response in cancer. Trends Cancer. 2023;9 (5 ):381‐396.36841748
16 Zheng S , Guan XY . Ferroptosis: promising approach for cancer and cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Lett. 2023;561 :216152.37023938
17 Nicolò E , Giugliano F , Ascione L , et al. Combining antibody‐drug conjugates with immunotherapy in solid tumors: current landscape and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev. 2022;106 :102395.35468539
18 Zhang Z , Ji Y , Hu N , et al. Ferroptosis‐induced anticancer effect of resveratrol with a biomimetic nano‐delivery system in colorectal cancer treatment. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2022;17 (5 ):751‐766.36382309
19 Kroemer G , Galassi C , Zitvogel L , Galluzzi L . Immunogenic cell stress and death. Nat Immunol. 2022;23 (4 ):487‐500.35145297
20 Murao A , Aziz M , Wang H , Brenner M , Wang P . Release mechanisms of major DAMPs. Apoptosis. 2021;26 (3‐4 ):152‐162.33713214
21 Krysko O , Aaes TL , Kagan VE , et al. Necroptotic cell death in anti‐cancer therapy. Immunol Rev. 2017;280 (1 ):207‐219.29027225
22 Obeng E . Apoptosis (programmed cell death) and its signals—a review. Braz J Biol. 2021;81 (4 ):1133‐1143.33111928
23 Kashyap D , Garg VK , Goel N . Intrinsic and extrinsic pathways of apoptosis: role in cancer development and prognosis. ADV PROTEIN CHEM STR. 2021;125 :73‐120.
24 Bertheloot D , Latz E , Franklin BS . Necroptosis, pyroptosis and apoptosis: an intricate game of cell death. Cell Mol Immunol. 2021;18 (5 ):1106‐1121.33785842
25 Ketelut‐Carneiro N , Fitzgerald KA . Apoptosis, pyroptosis, and necroptosis‐oh my! the many ways a cell can die. J Mol Biol. 2022;434 (4 ):167378.34838807
26 Kaloni D , Diepstraten ST , Strasser A , Kelly GL . BCL‐2 protein family: attractive targets for cancer therapy. Apoptosis. 2023;28 (1‐2 ):20‐38.36342579
27 Qian S , Wei Z , Yang W , Huang J , Yang Y , Wang J . The role of BCL‐2 family proteins in regulating apoptosis and cancer therapy. Front Oncol. 2022;12 :985363.36313628
28 Sobol B , Azzam Nieto O , Eberlein EL , et al. Specific targeting of antiapoptotic Bcl‐2 proteins as a radiosensitizing approach in solid tumors. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23 (14 ):7850.35887198
29 Wolf P , Schoeniger A , Edlich F . Pro‐apoptotic complexes of BAX and BAK on the outer mitochondrial membrane. Biochim Biophys Acta, Mol Cell Res. 2022;1869 (10 ):119317.35752202
30 Lalier L , Vallette F , Manon S >. Bcl‐2 family members and the mitochondrial import machineries: the roads to death. Biomol. 2022;12 (2 ).
31 Ke FS , Holloway S , Uren RT , et al. The BCL‐2 family member BID plays a role during embryonic development in addition to its BH3‐only protein function by acting in parallel to BAX, BAK and BOK. EMBO J. 2022;41 (15 ):e110300.35758142
32 Zaib S , Hayyat A , Ali N , Gul A , Naveed M , Khan I . Role of mitochondrial membrane potential and lactate dehydrogenase A in apoptosis. Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2022;22 (11 ):2048‐2062.34825878
33 Zhou Z , Arroum T , Luo X , et al. Diverse functions of cytochrome c in cell death and disease. Cell Death Differ. 2024;31 (4 ):387‐404.38521844
34 Sahoo G , Samal D , Khandayataray P , Murthy MK . A review on caspases: key regulators of biological activities and apoptosis. Mol Neurobiol. 2023;60 (10 ):5805‐5837.37349620
35 Bhadra K . A mini review on molecules inducing caspase‐independent cell death: a new route to cancer therapy. Molecules. 2022;27 (19 ):6401.36234938
36 Lossi L . The concept of intrinsic versus extrinsic apoptosis. Biochem J. 2022;479 (3 ):357‐384.35147165
37 Nozaki K , Li L , Miao EA . Innate sensors trigger regulated cell death to combat intracellular infection. Annu Rev Immunol. 2022;40 :469‐498.35138947
38 Liu J , Hong M , Li Y , Chen D , Wu Y , Hu Y . Programmed cell death tunes tumor immunity. Front Immunol. 2022;13 :847345.35432318
39 Green DR . The death receptor pathway of apoptosis. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2022;14 (2 ):a041053.35105716
40 Shoshan‐Barmatz V , Arif T , Shteinfer‐Kuzmine A . Apoptotic proteins with non‐apoptotic activity: expression and function in cancer. Apoptosis. 2023;28 (5‐6 ):730‐753.37014578
41 Bai ZQ , Ma X , Liu B , Huang T , Hu K . Solution structure of c‐FLIP death effector domains. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2022;617 (2 ):1‐6. Pt.
42 Fox JL , Hughes MA , Meng X , et al. Cryo‐EM structural analysis of FADD:caspase‐8 complexes defines the catalytic dimer architecture for co‐ordinated control of cell fate. Nat Commun. 2021;12 (1 ):819.33547302
43 Palanirajan SK , Gummadi SN . Phospholipid scramblase 3: a latent mediator connecting mitochondria and heavy metal apoptosis. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2023;81 (3 ):443‐458.37341933
44 Li M , Wang ZW , Fang LJ , Cheng SQ , Wang X , Liu NF . Programmed cell death in atherosclerosis and vascular calcification. Cell Death Dis. 2022;13 (5 ):467.35585052
45 Yuan J , Ofengeim D . A guide to cell death pathways. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2024;25 (5 ):379‐395.38110635
46 Yang M , Chen W , He L , Liu D , Zhao L , Wang X . A glimpse of necroptosis and diseases. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;156 :113925.36411617
47 Kolbrink B , von Samson‐Himmelstjerna FA , Murphy JM , Krautwald S . Role of necroptosis in kidney health and disease. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2023;19 (5 ):300‐314.36596919
48 Zhang L , Cui T , Wang X . The interplay between autophagy and regulated necrosis. Antioxid Redox Signaling. 2023;38 (7‐9 ):550‐580.
49 Shi Z , Yuan S , Shi L , et al. Programmed cell death in spinal cord injury pathogenesis and therapy. Cell Prolif. 2021;54 (3 ):e12992.33506613
50 Yan J , Wan P , Choksi S , Liu ZG . Necroptosis and tumor progression. Trends Cancer. 2022;8 (1 ):21‐27.34627742
51 Hadian K , Stockwell BR . The therapeutic potential of targeting regulated non‐apoptotic cell death. Nat Rev Drug Discovery. 2023;22 (9 ):723‐742.37550363
52 Ye K , Chen Z , Xu Y . The double‐edged functions of necroptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14 (2 ):163.36849530
53 Yang T , Wang G , Zhang M , et al. Triggering endogenous Z‐RNA sensing for anti‐tumor therapy through ZBP1‐dependent necroptosis. Cell Rep. 2023;42 (11 ):113377.37922310
54 Alvarez‐Diaz S , Preaudet A , Samson AL , et al. Necroptosis is dispensable for the development of inflammation‐associated or sporadic colon cancer in mice. Cell Death Differ. 2021;28 (5 ):1466‐1476.33230260
55 Wu X , Nagy LE , Gautheron J . Mediators of necroptosis: from cell death to metabolic regulation. EMBO Mol Med. 2024;16 (2 ):219‐237.38195700
56 Hu X , Xu Y , Zhang H , et al. Role of necroptosis in traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. J Adv Res. 2022;40 :125‐134.36100321
57 Xu D , Zou C , Yuan J . Genetic regulation of RIPK1 and necroptosis. Annu Rev Genet. 2021;55 :235‐263.34813352
58 Cuny GD , Degterev A . RIPK protein kinase family: atypical lives of typical kinases. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2021;109 :96‐105.32732131
59 Morgan MJ , Kim YS . Roles of RIPK3 in necroptosis, cell signaling, and disease. Exp Mol Med. 2022;54 (10 ):1695‐1704.36224345
60 Martens S , Bridelance J , Roelandt R , Vandenabeele P , Takahashi N . MLKL in cancer: more than a necroptosis regulator. Cell Death Differ. 2021;28 (6 ):1757‐1772.33953348
61 Baik JY , Liu Z , Jiao D , et al. ZBP1 not RIPK1 mediates tumor necroptosis in breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2021;12 (1 ):2666.33976222
62 Pérez‐Figueroa E , Álvarez‐Carrasco P , Ortega E , Maldonado‐Bernal C . Neutrophils: many ways to die. Front Immunol. 2021;12 :631821.33746968
63 Guo Y , Cui Y , Li Y , et al. Cytoplasmic YAP1‐mediated ESCRT‐III assembly promotes autophagic cell death and is ubiquitinated by NEDD4L in breast cancer. Cancer Commun. 2023;43 (5 ):582‐612.
64 Guo Y , Zhang X , Li J , et al. TRAF6 regulates autophagy and apoptosis of melanoma cells through c‐Jun/ATG16L2 signaling pathway. MedComm. 2023;4 (4 ):e309.37484971
65 Buzun K , Gornowicz A , Lesyk R , Bielawski K , Bielawska A . Autophagy modulators in cancer therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22 (11 ):5804.34071600
66 Lei Y , Zhang E , Bai L , Li Y . Autophagy in cancer immunotherapy. Cells. 2022;11 (19 ):2996.36230955
67 Zhang J , Xiang Q , Wu M , et al. Autophagy regulators in cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24 (13 ):10944.37446120
68 Ariosa AR , Lahiri V , Lei Y , et al. A perspective on the role of autophagy in cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2021;1867 (12 ):166262.
69 Debnath J , Gammoh N , Ryan KM . Autophagy and autophagy‐related pathways in cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2023;24 (8 ):560‐575.36864290
70 Russell RC , Guan KL . The multifaceted role of autophagy in cancer. EMBO J. 2022;41 (13 ):e110031.35535466
71 Rakesh R , PriyaDharshini LC , Sakthivel KM , Rasmi RR . Role and regulation of autophagy in cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2022;1868 (7 ):166400.
72 Miller DR , Thorburn A . Autophagy and organelle homeostasis in cancer. Dev Cell. 2021;56 (7 ):906‐918.33689692
73 Hernandez GA , Perera RM . Autophagy in cancer cell remodeling and quality control. Mol Cell. 2022;82 (8 ):1514‐1527.35452618
74 Ferreira PMP , Sousa RWR , Ferreira JRO , Militão GCG , Bezerra DP . Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in antitumor therapies based on autophagy‐related mechanisms. Pharmacol Res. 2021;168 :105582.33775862
75 Jain V , Singh MP , Amaravadi RK . Recent advances in targeting autophagy in cancer. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2023;44 (5 ):290‐302.36931971
76 Ascenzi F , De Vitis C , Maugeri‐Saccà M , Napoli C , Ciliberto G , Mancini R . SCD1, autophagy and cancer: implications for therapy. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021;40 (1 ):265.34429143
77 Chen X , Kang R , Kroemer G , Tang D . Broadening horizons: the role of ferroptosis in cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18 (5 ):280‐296.33514910
78 Lee S , Hwang N , Seok BG , Lee S , Lee SJ , Chung SW . Autophagy mediates an amplification loop during ferroptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14 (7 ):464.37491375
79 Tang D , Chen X , Kang R , Kroemer G . Ferroptosis: molecular mechanisms and health implications. Cell Res. 2021;31 (2 ):107‐125.33268902
80 Chen X , Kang R , Kroemer G , Tang D . Ferroptosis in infection, inflammation, and immunity. J Exp Med. 2021;218 (6 ).
81 Stockwell BR . Ferroptosis turns 10: emerging mechanisms, physiological functions, and therapeutic applications. Cell. 2022;185 (14 ):2401‐2421.35803244
82 Yan HF , Zou T , Tuo QZ , et al. Ferroptosis: mechanisms and links with diseases. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6 (1 ):49.33536413
83 von Krusenstiern AN , Robson RN , Qian N , et al. Identification of essential sites of lipid peroxidation in ferroptosis. Nat Chem Biol. 2023;19 (6 ):719‐730.36747055
84 Rochette L , Dogon G , Rigal E , Zeller M , Cottin Y , Vergely C . Lipid peroxidation and iron metabolism: two corner stones in the homeostasis control of ferroptosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;24 (1 ):449.36613888
85 Pope LE , Dixon SJ . Regulation of ferroptosis by lipid metabolism. Trends Cell Biol. 2023;33 (12 ):1077‐1087.37407304
86 Dixon SJ , Olzmann JA . The cell biology of ferroptosis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2024;25 (6 ):424‐442.38366038
87 Chen X , Li J , Kang R , Klionsky DJ , Tang D . Ferroptosis: machinery and regulation. Autophagy. 2021;17 (9 ):2054‐2081.32804006
88 Liang D , Feng Y , Zandkarimi F , et al. Ferroptosis surveillance independent of GPX4 and differentially regulated by sex hormones. Cell. 2023;186 (13 ):2748‐2764.e22. e22.37267948
89 Liu Y , Wan Y , Jiang Y , Zhang L , Cheng W . GPX4: the hub of lipid oxidation, ferroptosis, disease and treatment. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2023;1878 (3 ):188890.
90 Chen X , Yu C , Kang R , Kroemer G , Tang D . Cellular degradation systems in ferroptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2021;28 (4 ):1135‐1148.33462411
91 Liu J , Kang R , Tang D . Signaling pathways and defense mechanisms of ferroptosis. FEBS J. 2022;289 (22 ):7038‐7050.34092035
92 Li FJ , Long HZ , Zhou ZW , Luo HY , Xu SG , Gao LC . System X(c) (‐)/GSH/GPX4 axis: an important antioxidant system for the ferroptosis in drug‐resistant solid tumor therapy. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13 :910292.36105219
93 Rao Z , Zhu Y , Yang P , et al. Pyroptosis in inflammatory diseases and cancer. Theranostics. 2022;12 (9 ):4310‐4329.35673561
94 Gao W , Wang X , Zhou Y , Wang X , Yu Y . Autophagy, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, and necroptosis in tumor immunotherapy. Signal transduct target ther. 2022;7 (1 ):196.35725836
95 Wang JL , Hua SN , Bao HJ , Yuan J , Zhao Y , Chen S . Pyroptosis and inflammasomes in cancer and inflammation. MedComm. 2023;4 (5 ):e374.37752941
96 Yang F , Bettadapura SN , Smeltzer MS , Zhu H , Wang S . Pyroptosis and pyroptosis‐inducing cancer drugs. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2022;43 (10 ):2462‐2473.35288674
97 Lu X , Guo T , Zhang X . Pyroptosis in cancer: friend or foe? Cancers. 2021;13 (14 ):3620.34298833
98 Huang Y , Xu W , Zhou R . NLRP3 inflammasome activation and cell death. Cell Mol Immunol. 2021;18 (9 ):2114‐2127.34321623
99 Sharma BR , Kanneganti TD . NLRP3 inflammasome in cancer and metabolic diseases. Nat Immunol. 2021;22 (5 ):550‐559.33707781
100 Christgen S , Tweedell RE , Kanneganti TD . Programming inflammatory cell death for therapy. Pharmacol Ther. 2022;232 :108010.34619283
101 Wei X , Xie F , Zhou X , et al. Role of pyroptosis in inflammation and cancer. Cell Mol Immunol. 2022;19 (9 ):971‐992.35970871
102 Miao R , Jiang C , Chang WY , et al. Gasdermin D permeabilization of mitochondrial inner and outer membranes accelerates and enhances pyroptosis. Immunity. 2023;56 (11 ):2523‐2541.e8. e8.37924812
103 Zhong X , Zeng H , Zhou Z , et al. Structural mechanisms for regulation of GSDMB pore‐forming activity. Nature. 2023;616 (7957 ):598‐605.36991125
104 Burdette BE , Esparza AN , Zhu H , Wang S . Gasdermin D in pyroptosis. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2021;11 (9 ):2768‐2782.34589396
105 Liu SW , Song WJ , Ma GK , Wang H , Yang L . Pyroptosis and its role in cancer. World J Clin Cases. 2023;11 (11 ):2386‐2395.37123307
106 Varghese B , Del Gaudio N , Cobellis G , Altucci L , Nebbioso A . KDM4 involvement in breast cancer and possible therapeutic approaches. Front Oncol. 2021;11 :750315.34778065
107 Zhou S , Liu J , Wan A , Zhang Y , Qi X . Epigenetic regulation of diverse cell death modalities in cancer: a focus on pyroptosis, ferroptosis, cuproptosis, and disulfidptosis. J Hematol Oncol. 2024;17 (1 ):22.38654314
108 Su Y , Sai Y , Zhou L , et al. Current insights into the regulation of programmed cell death by TP53 mutation in cancer. Front Oncol. 2022;12 :1023427.36313700
109 Boutelle AM , Attardi LD . p53 and tumor suppression: it takes a network. Trends Cell Biol. 2021;31 (4 ):298‐310.33518400
110 Krishna S , Kumar SB , Murthy TPK , Murahari M . Structure‐based design approach of potential BCL‐2 inhibitors for cancer chemotherapy. Comput Biol Med. 2021;134 :104455.33962088
111 Suraweera CD , Banjara S , Hinds MG , Kvansakul M . Metazoans and intrinsic apoptosis: an evolutionary analysis of the Bcl‐2 family. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23 (7 ):3691.35409052
112 Spitz AZ , Gavathiotis E . Physiological and pharmacological modulation of BAX. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2022;43 (3 ):206‐220.34848097
113 Nishiyama A , Nakanishi M . Navigating the DNA methylation landscape of cancer. Trends Genet. 2021;37 (11 ):1012‐1027.34120771
114 Martisova A , Holcakova J , Izadi N , Sebuyoya R , Hrstka R , Bartosik M . DNA methylation in solid tumors: functions and methods of detection. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22 (8 ):4247.33921911
115 Yang M , Luo H , Yi X , Wei X , Jiang DS . The epigenetic regulatory mechanisms of ferroptosis and its implications for biological processes and diseases. MedComm. 2023;4 (3 ):e267.37229485
116 Ozyerli‐Goknar E , Bagci‐Onder T . Epigenetic deregulation of apoptosis in cancers. Cancers. 2021;13 (13 ):3210.34199020
117 Qu J , Li P , Sun Z . Histone lactylation regulates cancer progression by reshaping the tumor microenvironment. Front Immunol. 2023;14 :1284344.37965331
118 Yu L , Wei J , Liu P . Attacking the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway for targeted therapeutic treatment in human cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;85 :69‐94.34175443
119 Glaviano A , Foo ASC , Lam HY , et al. PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling transduction pathway and targeted therapies in cancer. Mol Cancer. 2023;22 (1 ):138.37596643
120 Popova NV , Jücker M . The role of mTOR signaling as a therapeutic target in cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22 (4 ):1743.33572326
121 Tewari D , Patni P , Bishayee A , Sah AN , Bishayee A . Natural products targeting the PI3K‐Akt‐mTOR signaling pathway in cancer: a novel therapeutic strategy. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;80 :1‐17.31866476
122 Asl ER , Amini M , Najafi S , et al. Interplay between MAPK/ERK signaling pathway and microRNAs: a crucial mechanism regulating cancer cell metabolism and tumor progression. Life Sci. 2021;278 :119499.33865878
123 Moon H , Ro SW . MAPK/ERK signaling pathway in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancers. 2021;13 (12 ):3026.34204242
124 Wu D , Tian S , Zhu W . Modulating multidrug resistance to drug‐based antitumor therapies through NF‐κB signaling pathway: mechanisms and perspectives. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2023;27 (6 ):503‐515.37314372
125 He R , He Y , Du R , et al. Revisiting of TAMs in tumor immune microenvironment: insight from NF‐κB signaling pathway. Biomed Pharmacother. 2023;165 :115090.37390708
126 Guo Q , Jin Y , Chen X , et al. NF‐κB in biology and targeted therapy: new insights and translational implications. Signal Transduct Tar. 2024;9 (1 ):53.
127 Wibisana JN , Okada M . Encoding and decoding NF‐κB nuclear dynamics. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2022;77 :102103.35636375
128 Barnabei L , Laplantine E , Mbongo W , Rieux‐Laucat F , Weil R . NF‐κB: at the borders of autoimmunity and inflammation. Front Immunol. 2021;12 :716469.34434197
129 de Visser KE , Joyce JA . The evolving tumor microenvironment: from cancer initiation to metastatic outgrowth. Cancer Cell. 2023;41 (3 ):374‐403.36917948
130 Li Y , Zhao L , Li XF . Hypoxia and the tumor microenvironment. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2021;20 :153303382110363.
131 Wu Q , You L , Nepovimova E , et al. Hypoxia‐inducible factors: master regulators of hypoxic tumor immune escape. J Hematol Oncol. 2022;15 (1 ):77.35659268
132 Mukhopadhyay S , Mahapatra KK , Praharaj PP , Patil S , Bhutia SK . Recent progress of autophagy signaling in tumor microenvironment and its targeting for possible cancer therapeutics. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;85 :196‐208.34500075
133 Ren Y , Wang R , Weng S , et al. Multifaceted role of redox pattern in the tumor immune microenvironment regarding autophagy and apoptosis. Mol Cancer. 2023;22 (1 ):130.37563639
134 Gámez‐García A , Bolinaga‐Ayala I , Yoldi G , et al. ERK5 inhibition induces autophagy‐mediated cancer cell death by activating ER stress. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9 :742049.34805151
135 Arner EN , Rathmell JC . Metabolic programming and immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Cell. 2023;41 (3 ):421‐433.36801000
136 Di Pilato M , Kfuri‐Rubens R , Pruessmann JN , et al. CXCR6 positions cytotoxic T cells to receive critical survival signals in the tumor microenvironment. Cell. 2021;184 (17 ):4512‐4530.e22. e22.34343496
137 Wu Y , Yi M , Niu M , Mei Q , Wu K . Myeloid‐derived suppressor cells: an emerging target for anticancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer. 2022;21 (1 ):184.36163047
138 Li C , Teixeira AF , Zhu HJ . Ten Dijke P. Cancer associated‐fibroblast‐derived exosomes in cancer progression. Mol Cancer. 2021;20 (1 ):154.34852849
139 Xu R , Zhou X , Wang S , Trinkle C . Tumor organoid models in precision medicine and investigating cancer‐stromal interactions. Pharmacol Ther. 2021;218 :107668.32853629
140 Kalkavan H , Rühl S , Shaw JJP , Green DR . Non‐lethal outcomes of engaging regulated cell death pathways in cancer. Nat Cancer. 2023;4 (6 ):795‐806.37277528
141 Valentini E , Di Martile M , Brignone M , et al. Bcl‐2 family inhibitors sensitize human cancer models to therapy. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14 (7 ):441.37460459
142 Gampa SC , Garimella SV , Pandrangi S . Nano‐TRAIL: a promising path to cancer therapy. Cancer Drug Resist. 2023;6 (1 ):78‐102.37065863
143 Pimentel JM , Zhou JY , Wu GS . The role of TRAIL in apoptosis and immunosurveillance in cancer. Cancers. 2023;15 (10 ):2752.37345089
144 Diaz Arguello OA , Haisma HJ . Apoptosis‐inducing TNF superfamily ligands for cancer therapy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13 (7 ):1543.33801589
145 Liu X , Xie X , Ren Y , et al. The role of necroptosis in disease and treatment. MedComm. 2021;2 (4 ):730‐755.34977874
146 Zhou Y , Cai Z , Zhai Y , et al. Necroptosis inhibitors: mechanisms of action and therapeutic potential. Apoptosis. 2024;29 (1‐2 ):22‐44.38001341
147 Liu Y , Yang X , Zhou C , et al. Unveiling dynamic changes of chemical constituents in raw and processed fuzi with different steaming time points using desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry imaging combined with metabolomics. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13 :842890.35359875
148 Wen C , Yu Y , Gao C , Qi X , Cardona CJ , Xing Z . RIPK3‐dependent necroptosis is induced and restricts viral replication in human astrocytes infected with zika virus. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11 :637710.33796483
149 Kim N , Park CJ , Kim Y , et al. Identification of Pyrido[3,4‐d]pyrimidine derivatives as RIPK3‐Mediated necroptosis inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2023;259 :115635.37494773
150 Yang W , Tao K , Wang Y , et al. Necrosulfonamide ameliorates intestinal inflammation via inhibiting GSDMD‐medicated pyroptosis and MLKL‐mediated necroptosis. Biochem Pharmacol. 2022;206 :115338.36347275
151 Chen JL , Wu X , Yin D , et al. Autophagy inhibitors for cancer therapy: small molecules and nanomedicines. Pharmacol Ther. 2023;249 :108485.37406740
152 Pangilinan C , Klionsky DJ , Liang C . Emerging dimensions of autophagy in melanoma. Autophagy. 2024;20 (8 ):1700‐1711.38497492
153 Ma W , Hu N , Xu W , Zhao L , Tian C , Kamei KI . Ferroptosis inducers: a new frontier in cancer therapy. Bioorg Chem. 2024;146 :107331.38579614
154 Costa I , Barbosa DJ , Benfeito S , et al. Molecular mechanisms of ferroptosis and their involvement in brain diseases. Pharmacol Ther. 2023;244 :108373.36894028
155 Marupudi N , Xiong MP . Genetic targets and applications of iron chelators for neurodegeneration with brain iron accumulation. ACS Bio Med Chem Au. 2024;4 (3 ):119‐130.
156 Liu J , Chen T , Liu X , Li Z , Zhang Y . Engineering materials for pyroptosis induction in cancer treatment. Bioact Mater. 2024;33 :30‐45.38024228
157 Wang L , Qin X , Liang J , Ge P . Induction of pyroptosis: a promising strategy for cancer treatment. Front Oncol. 2021;11 :635774.33718226
158 Glytsou C , Chen X , Zacharioudakis E , et al. Mitophagy promotes resistance to BH3 mimetics in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Discov. 2023;13 (7 ):1656‐1677.37088914
159 Montero J , Haq R . Adapted to survive: targeting cancer cells with BH3 mimetics. Cancer Discov. 2022;12 (5 ):1217‐1232.35491624
160 Di Cristofano F , George A , Tajiknia V , et al. Therapeutic targeting of TRAIL death receptors. Biochem Soc Trans. 2023;51 (1 ):57‐70.36629496
161 Singh D , Tewari M , Singh S , Narayan G . Revisiting the role of TRAIL/TRAIL‐R in cancer biology and therapy. Future Oncol. 2021;17 (5 ):581‐596.33401962
162 Zhang T , Wang Y , Inuzuka H , Wei W . Necroptosis pathways in tumorigenesis. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;86 (3 ):32‐40. Pt.35908574
163 Yang X , Lu H , Xie H , et al. Potent and selective RIPK1 inhibitors targeting dual‐pockets for the treatment of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2022;61 (5 ):e202114922.34851543
164 Wu Y , Song Y , Wang R , Wang T . Molecular mechanisms of tumor resistance to radiotherapy. Mol Cancer. 2023;22 (1 ):96.37322433
165 Lopez A , Reyna DE , Gitego N , et al. Co‐targeting of BAX and BCL‐XL proteins broadly overcomes resistance to apoptosis in cancer. Nat Commun. 2022;13 (1 ):1199.35256598
166 Wang Y , Wang Y , Pan J , Gan L , Xue J . Ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis in cancer: crucial cell death types in radiotherapy and post‐radiotherapy immune activation. Radiother Oncol. 2023;184 :109689.37150447
167 Xu W , Huang Y . Regulation of inflammatory cell death by phosphorylation. Front Immunol. 2022;13 :851169.35300338
168 Mudaliar P , Nalawade A , Devarajan S , Aich J . Therapeutic potential of autophagy activators and inhibitors in lung and breast cancer‐ a review. Mol Biol Rep. 2022;49 (11 ):10783‐10795.35829809
169 Ashrafizadeh M , Paskeh MDA , Mirzaei S , et al. Targeting autophagy in prostate cancer: preclinical and clinical evidence for therapeutic response. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022;41 (1 ):105.35317831
170 Pangilinan C , Klionsky DJ , Liang C . Emerging dimensions of autophagy in melanoma. Autophagy. 2024:1‐12.
171 Mondal K , Porter H . Hydroxychloroquine causes early inner retinal toxicity and affects autophagosome‐lysosomal pathway and sphingolipid metabolism in the retina. Mol Neurobiol. 2022;59 (6 ):3873‐3887.35426574
172 Kwantwi LB . The dual role of autophagy in the regulation of cancer treatment. Amino Acids. 2024;56 (1 ):7.38310598
173 Yun CW , Jeon J , Go G , Lee JH , Lee SH . The dual role of autophagy in cancer development and a therapeutic strategy for cancer by targeting autophagy. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;22 (1 ):179.33375363
174 Verma AK , Bharti PS , Rafat S , et al. Autophagy paradox of cancer: role, regulation, and duality. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2021;2021 :8832541.33628386
175 Stalnecker CA , Grover KR , Edwards AC , et al. Concurrent inhibition of IGF1R and ERK increases pancreatic cancer sensitivity to autophagy inhibitors. Cancer Res. 2022;82 (4 ):586‐598.34921013
176 Witte HM , Riecke A , Steinestel K , et al. The addition of chloroquine and bevacizumab to standard radiochemotherapy for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Br J Neurosurg. 2024;38 (2 ):404‐410.33590799
177 Wang Z , Chen C , Ai J , et al. Identifying mitophagy‐related genes as prognostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets of gastric carcinoma by integrated analysis of single‐cell and bulk‐RNA sequencing data. Comput Biol Med. 2023;163 :107227.37413850
178 Zamame Ramirez JA , Romagnoli GG , Kaneno R . Inhibiting autophagy to prevent drug resistance and improve anti‐tumor therapy. Life Sci. 2021;265 :118745.33186569
179 Gan T , Qu S , Zhang H , Zhou XJ . Modulation of the immunity and inflammation by autophagy. MedComm. 2023;4 (4 ):e311.37405276
180 Luo Y , Bai XY , Zhang L , et al. Ferroptosis in cancer therapy: mechanisms, small molecule inducers, and novel approaches. Drug Des Dev Ther. 2024;18 :2485‐2529.
181 Kim JW , Min DW , Kim D , et al. GPX4 overexpressed non‐small cell lung cancer cells are sensitive to RSL3‐induced ferroptosis. Sci Rep. 2023;13 (1 ):8872.37258589
182 Cheff DM , Huang C , Scholzen KC , et al. The ferroptosis inducing compounds RSL3 and ML162 are not direct inhibitors of GPX4 but of TXNRD1. Redox Biol. 2023;62 :102703.37087975
183 Lee J , Roh JL . Targeting iron‐sulfur clusters in cancer: opportunities and challenges for ferroptosis‐based therapy. Cancers. 2023;15 (10 ):2694.37345031
184 Chen H , Wang C , Liu Z , et al. Ferroptosis and its multifaceted role in cancer: mechanisms and therapeutic approach. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;11 (8 ).
185 Wang Y , Wu X , Ren Z , et al. Overcoming cancer chemotherapy resistance by the induction of ferroptosis. Drug Resist Updat. 2023;66 :100916.36610291
186 Li B , Chen X , Qiu W , et al. Synchronous disintegration of ferroptosis defense axis via engineered exosome‐conjugated magnetic nanoparticles for glioblastoma therapy. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2022;9 (17 ):e2105451.35508804
187 Gupta J , Safdari HA , Hoque M . Nanoparticle mediated cancer immunotherapy. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021;69 :307‐324.32259643
188 Zhang C , Liu X , Jin S , Chen Y , Guo R . Ferroptosis in cancer therapy: a novel approach to reversing drug resistance. Mol Cancer. 2022;21 (1 ):47.35151318
189 Hou J , Hsu JM , Hung MC . Molecular mechanisms and functions of pyroptosis in inflammation and antitumor immunity. Mol Cell. 2021;81 (22 ):4579‐4590.34562371
190 Ross C , Chan AH , von Pein JB , Maddugoda MP , Boucher D , Schroder K . Inflammatory caspases: toward a unified model for caspase activation by inflammasomes. Annu Rev Immunol. 2022;40 :249‐269.35080918
191 Wu H , Qian D , Bai X , Sun S . Targeted pyroptosis is a potential therapeutic strategy for cancer. J Oncol. 2022;2022 :1.
192 Hsu SK , Li CY , Lin IL , et al. Inflammation‐related pyroptosis, a novel programmed cell death pathway, and its crosstalk with immune therapy in cancer treatment. Theranostics. 2021;11 (18 ):8813‐8835.34522213
193 Yin Q , Song SY , Bian Y , et al. Unlocking the potential of pyroptosis in tumor immunotherapy: a new horizon in cancer treatment. Front Immunol. 2024;15 :1381778.38947336
194 Zheng N , Fang J , Xue G , et al. Induction of tumor cell autosis by myxoma virus‐infected CAR‐T and TCR‐T cells to overcome primary and acquired resistance. Cancer Cell. 2022;40 (9 ):973‐985.e7. e7.36027915
195 Hu Y , Liu Y , Zong L , et al. The multifaceted roles of GSDME‐mediated pyroptosis in cancer: therapeutic strategies and persisting obstacles. Cell Death Dis. 2023;14 (12 ):836.38104141
196 Ding B , Chen H , Tan J , et al. ZIF‐8 nanoparticles evoke pyroptosis for high‐efficiency cancer immunotherapy. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2023;62 (10 ):e202215307.36629270
197 Luo QW , Yao L , Li L , et al. Inherent capability of self‐assembling nanostructures in specific proteasome activation for cancer cell pyroptosis. Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany). 2023;19 (9 ):e2205531.36549896
198 Zhang L , Lu Z , Zhao X . Targeting Bcl‐2 for cancer therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2021;1876 (1 ):188569.
199 Li X , Dou J , You Q , Jiang Z . Inhibitors of BCL2A1/Bfl‐1 protein: potential stock in cancer therapy. Eur J Med Chem. 2021;220 :113539.34034128
200 Thus YJ , Eldering E , Kater AP , Spaargaren M . Tipping the balance: toward rational combination therapies to overcome venetoclax resistance in mantle cell lymphoma. Leukemia. 2022;36 (9 ):2165‐2176.35725771
201 Pullarkat VA , Lacayo NJ , Jabbour E , et al. Venetoclax and navitoclax in combination with chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma. Cancer Discov. 2021;11 (6 ):1440‐1453.33593877
202 Khan S , Cao L , Wiegand J , et al. PROTAC‐mediated dual degradation of BCL‐xL and BCL‐2 is a highly effective therapeutic strategy in small‐cell lung cancer. Cells. 2024;13 (6 ):528.38534371
203 Tompson DJ , Davies C , Scott NE , et al. Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of RIPK1 inhibitor GSK2982772 in healthy western and Japanese subjects. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2021;46 (1 ):71‐83.33165774
204 Cao L , Mu W . Necrostatin‐1 and necroptosis inhibition: pathophysiology and therapeutic implications. Pharmacol Res. 2021;163 :105297.33181319
205 Tao H , Zhao H , Mo A , et al. VX‐765 attenuates silica‐induced lung inflammatory injury and fibrosis by modulating alveolar macrophages pyroptosis in mice. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2023;249 :114359.36508797
206 Xia YM , Guan YQ , Liang JF , Wu WD . TAK‐242 improves sepsis‐associated acute kidney injury in rats by inhibiting the TLR4/NF‐κB signaling pathway. Ren Fail. 2024;46 (1 ):2313176.38482886
207 Feng W , Chen J , Huang W , et al. HMGB1‐mediated elevation of KLF7 facilitates hepatocellular carcinoma progression and metastasis through upregulating TLR4 and PTK2. Theranostics. 2023;13 (12 ):4042‐4058.37554278
208 Wang E , Pineda JMB , Kim WJ , et al. Modulation of RNA splicing enhances response to BCL2 inhibition in leukemia. Cancer Cell. 2023;41 (1 ):164‐180.e8. e8.36563682
209 Daver N , Perl AE , Maly J , et al. Venetoclax plus gilteritinib for FLT3‐mutated relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40 (35 ):4048‐4059.35849791
210 Joly F , Fabbro M , Follana P , et al. A phase II study of Navitoclax (ABT‐263) as single agent in women heavily pretreated for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: the MONAVI—GINECO study. Gynecol Oncol. 2022;165 (1 ):30‐39.35123771
211 Setton J , Zinda M , Riaz N , et al. Synthetic lethality in cancer therapeutics: the next generation. Cancer Discov. 2021;11 (7 ):1626‐1635.33795234
212 Sadee W , Wang D , Hartmann K , Toland AE . Pharmacogenomics: driving personalized medicine. Pharmacol Rev. 2023;75 (4 ):789‐814.36927888
213 Sazonova EV , Yapryntseva MA , Pervushin NV , Tsvetcov RI , Zhivotovsky B , Kopeina GS . Cancer drug resistance: targeting proliferation or programmed cell death. Cells. 2024;13 (5 ):388.38474352
214 Drago JZ , Modi S , Chandarlapaty S . Unlocking the potential of antibody‐drug conjugates for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18 (6 ):327‐344.33558752
215 Aldea M , Andre F , Marabelle A , Dogan S , Barlesi F , Soria JC . Overcoming resistance to tumor‐targeted and immune‐targeted therapies. Cancer Discov. 2021;11 (4 ):874‐899.33811122
216 Ong F , Kim K , Konopleva MY . Venetoclax resistance: mechanistic insights and future strategies. Cancer Drug Resist. 2022;5 (2 ):380‐400.35800373
217 Nishida Y , Ishizawa J , Ayoub E , et al. Enhanced TP53 reactivation disrupts MYC transcriptional program and overcomes venetoclax resistance in acute myeloid leukemias. Sci Adv. 2023;9 (48 ):eadh1436.38019903
218 Roberts AW , Wei AH , Huang DCS . BCL2 and MCL1 inhibitors for hematologic malignancies. Blood. 2021;138 (13 ):1120‐1136.34320168
219 Zhang L , Zhu Y , Zhang J , Zhang L , Chen L . Inhibiting cytoprotective autophagy in cancer therapy: an update on pharmacological small‐molecule compounds. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13 :966012.36034776
220 Ketkar M , Dutt S . Epigenetic regulation towards acquired drug resistance in cancer. Subcell Biochem. 2022;100 :473‐502.36301503
221 Zhuang H , Yu B , Tao D , et al. The role of m6A methylation in therapy resistance in cancer. Mol Cancer. 2023;22 (1 ):91.37264402
222 Pi M , Kuang H , Yue C , et al. Targeting metabolism to overcome cancer drug resistance: a promising therapeutic strategy for diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Drug Resist Updat. 2022;61 :100822.35257981
223 Zhu S , Zhang T , Zheng L , et al. Combination strategies to maximize the benefits of cancer immunotherapy. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14 (1 ):156.34579759
224 Yi M , Zheng X , Niu M , Zhu S , Ge H , Wu K . Combination strategies with PD‐1/PD‐L1 blockade: current advances and future directions. Mol Cancer. 2022;21 (1 ):28.35062949
225 Hege Hurrish K , Qiao X , Li X , et al. Co‐targeting of HDAC, PI3K, and Bcl‐2 results in metabolic and transcriptional reprogramming and decreased mitochondrial function in acute myeloid leukemia. Biochem Pharmacol. 2022;205 :115283.36208684
226 Zhao T , He Q , Xie S , et al. A novel Mcl‐1 inhibitor synergizes with venetoclax to induce apoptosis in cancer cells. Mol med. 2023;29 (1 ):10.36658493
227 Lasater EA , Amin DN , Bannerji R , et al. Targeting MCL‐1 and BCL‐2 with polatuzumab vedotin and venetoclax overcomes treatment resistance in R/R non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: results from preclinical models and a Phase Ib study. Am J Hematol. 2023;98 (3 ):449‐463.36594167
228 Uddin MS , Mamun AA , Alghamdi BS , et al. Epigenetics of glioblastoma multiforme: from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic approaches. Semin Cancer Biol. 2022;83 :100‐120.33370605
229 Zhou M , Yuan M , Zhang M , et al. Combining histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) with other therapies for cancer therapy. Eur J Med Chem. 2021;226 :113825.34562854
230 Cocco S , Leone A , Roca MS , et al. Inhibition of autophagy by chloroquine prevents resistance to PI3K/AKT inhibitors and potentiates their antitumor effect in combination with paclitaxel in triple negative breast cancer models. J Transl Med. 2022;20 (1 ):290.35761360
231 Jain V , Harper SL , Versace AM , et al. Targeting UGCG overcomes resistance to lysosomal autophagy inhibition. Cancer Discov. 2023;13 (2 ):454‐473.36331284
232 Shi F , Huang X , Hong Z , et al. Improvement strategy for immune checkpoint blockade: a focus on the combination with immunogenic cell death inducers. Cancer Lett. 2023;562 :216167.37031916
233 Vennin C , Cattaneo CM , Bosch L , et al. Taxanes trigger cancer cell killing in vivo by inducing non‐canonical T cell cytotoxicity. Cancer Cell. 2023;41 (6 ):1170‐1185.e12. e12.37311414
234 Galluzzi L , Kepp O , Hett E , Kroemer G , Marincola FM . Immunogenic cell death in cancer: concept and therapeutic implications. J Transl Med. 2023;21 (1 ):162.36864446
235 Shang S , Liu J , Verma V , et al. Combined treatment of non‐small cell lung cancer using radiotherapy and immunotherapy: challenges and updates. Cancer Commun. 2021;41 (11 ):1086‐1099.
236 Zou Y , Yaguchi T . Programmed cell death‐1 blockade therapy in melanoma: resistance mechanisms and combination strategies. Exp Dermatol. 2023;32 (3 ):264‐275.36645031
237 Lin M , Liu XM , Feng NP , Lyu YQ . Liposome co‐delivery of quercetin and doxorubicin in inhibiting retinoblastoma by regulating epithelial‐mesenchymal transition process. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2024;49 (13 ):3515‐3525.39041123
238 Sajeev A , Sailo B , Unnikrishnan J , et al. Unlocking the potential of Berberine: advancing cancer therapy through chemosensitization and combination treatments. Cancer Lett. 2024;597 :217019.38849013
239 Freedman RA , Heiling HM , Li T , et al. Neratinib and ado‐trastuzumab‐emtansine for pre‐treated and untreated HER2‐positive Breast cancer brain metastases: translational breast cancer research consortium trial 022. Ann Oncol. 2024.
240 Zhou C , Li C , Luo L , et al. Anti‐tumor efficacy of HRS‐4642 and its potential combination with proteasome inhibition in KRAS G12D‐mutant cancer. Cancer Cell. 2024;42 (7 ):1286‐1300.e8. e8.38942026
241 Corbacioglu S , Lode H , Ellinger S , et al. Irinotecan and temozolomide in combination with dasatinib and rapamycin versus irinotecan and temozolomide for patients with relapsed or refractory neuroblastoma (RIST‐rNB‐2011): a multicentre, open‐label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25 (7 ):922‐932.38936379
242 Adkins D , Ley JC , Liu J , Oppelt P . Ramucirumab in combination with pembrolizumab for recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a single‐centre, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25 (7 ):888‐900.38851207
243 Qian X , Yang H , Ye Z , et al. Celecoxib augments paclitaxel‐induced immunogenic cell death in triple‐negative breast cancer. ACS Nano. 2024;18 (24 ):15864‐15877.38829727
244 Wang DS , Ren C , Li SS , et al. Cetuximab plus FOLFOXIRI versus cetuximab plus FOLFOX as conversion regimen in RAS/BRAF wild‐type patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (TRICE trial): a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2024;21 (5 ):e1004389.38728364
245 DiNardo CD , Lachowiez CA , Takahashi K , et al. Venetoclax combined with FLAG‐IDA induction and consolidation in newly diagnosed and relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39 (25 ):2768‐2778.34043428
246 Abbotts R , Dellomo AJ , Rassool FV . Pharmacologic induction of BRCAness in BRCA‐proficient cancers: expanding PARP inhibitor use. Cancers. 2022;14 (11 ):2640.35681619
247 Sun W , Wu Y , Ma F , Fan J , Qiao Y . Efficacy of PARP inhibitor, platinum, and immunotherapy in BRCA‐mutated HER2‐negative breast cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. J Clin Med. 2023;12 (4 ):1588.36836123
248 Jiang W , Huang G , Pan S , et al. TRAIL‐driven targeting and reversing cervical cancer radioresistance by seleno‐nanotherapeutics through regulating cell metabolism. Drug Resist Updat. 2024;72 :101033.38157648
249 Lin Y , Yu B , Fang P , Wang J . Inhibiting autophagy before it starts. Autophagy. 2024;20 (4 ):923‐924.37036151
250 Busche S , John K , Wandrer F , et al. BH3‐only protein expression determines hepatocellular carcinoma response to sorafenib‐based treatment. Cell Death Dis. 2021;12 (8 ):736.34312366
251 Lentz RW , Colton MD , Mitra SS , Messersmith WA . Innate immune checkpoint inhibitors: the next breakthrough in medical oncology? Mol Cancer Ther. 2021;20 (6 ):961‐974.33850005
252 Xiao M , Xie L , Cao G , et al. CD4(+) T‐cell epitope‐based heterologous prime‐boost vaccination potentiates anti‐tumor immunity and PD‐1/PD‐L1 immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer. 2022;10 (5 ):e004022.35580929
253 Obenauf AC . Mechanism‐based combination therapies for metastatic cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2022;14 (655 ):eadd0887.35895833
254 Aissa AF , Islam A , Ariss MM , et al. Single‐cell transcriptional changes associated with drug tolerance and response to combination therapies in cancer. Nat Commun. 2021;12 (1 ):1628.33712615
255 Kim Y , Seidman JG , Seidman CE . Genetics of cancer therapy‐associated cardiotoxicity. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2022;167 :85‐91.35358500
256 Reel PS , Reel S , Pearson E , Trucco E , Jefferson E . Using machine learning approaches for multi‐omics data analysis: a review. Biotechnol Adv. 2021;49 :107739.33794304
257 Zielinski JM , Luke JJ , Guglietta S , Krieg C . High throughput multi‐omics approaches for clinical trial evaluation and drug discovery. Front Immunol. 2021;12 :590742.33868223
258 Hosseini SA , Salehifard Jouneghani A , Ghatrehsamani M , Yaghoobi H , Elahian F , Mirzaei SA . CRISPR/Cas9 as precision and high‐throughput genetic engineering tools in gastrointestinal cancer research and therapy. Int J Biol Macromol. 2022;223 (A ):732‐754. Pt.36372102
259 Tanaka K , Yu HA , Yang S , et al. Targeting Aurora B kinase prevents and overcomes resistance to EGFR inhibitors in lung cancer by enhancing BIM‐ and PUMA‐mediated apoptosis. Cancer Cell. 2021;39 (9 ):1245‐1261.e6. e6.34388376
260 Kallal LA , Waszkiewicz A , Jaworski JP , et al. High‐throughput screening and triage assays identify small molecules targeting c‐MYC in cancer cells. SLAS Discov. 2021;26 (2 ):216‐229.33482073
261 Jendoubi T . Approaches to integrating metabolomics and multi‐omics data: a primer. Metabolites. 2021;11 (3 ):184.33801081
262 Menyhárt O , Győrffy B . Multi‐omics approaches in cancer research with applications in tumor subtyping, prognosis, and diagnosis. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2021;19 :949‐960.33613862
263 Chakraborty S , Sharma G , Karmakar S , Banerjee S . Multi‐OMICS approaches in cancer biology: new era in cancer therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta, Mol Basis Dis. 2024;1870 (5 ):167120.38484941
264 Jafarzadeh L , Khakpoor‐Koosheh M , Mirzaei H , Mirzaei HR . Biomarkers for predicting the outcome of various cancer immunotherapies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021;157 :103161.33264716
265 Sarhadi VK , Armengol G . Molecular biomarkers in cancer. Biomolecules. 2022;12 (8 ):1021.35892331
266 Wang L , Yang Z , Guo F , et al. Research progress of biomarkers in the prediction of anti‐PD‐1/PD‐L1 immunotherapeutic efficiency in lung cancer. Front Immunol. 2023;14 :1227797.37465684
267 Dang DK , Park BH . Circulating tumor DNA: current challenges for clinical utility. J Clin Invest. 2022;132 (12 ).
268 Hu J , Cao J , Topatana W , et al. Targeting mutant p53 for cancer therapy: direct and indirect strategies. J Hematol Oncol. 2021;14 (1 ):157.34583722
269 Boon NJ , Oliveira RA , Körner PR , et al. DNA damage induces p53‐independent apoptosis through ribosome stalling. Science. 2024;384 (6697 ):785‐792.38753784
270 Dhainaut M , Rose SA , Akturk G , et al. Spatial CRISPR genomics identifies regulators of the tumor microenvironment. Cell. 2022;185 (7 ):1223‐1239.e20. e20.35290801
271 Przybyla L , Gilbert LA . A new era in functional genomics screens. Nat Rev Genet. 2022;23 (2 ):89‐103.34545248
272 Tyumentseva M , Tyumentsev A , Akimkin V . CRISPR/Cas9 landscape: current state and future perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24 (22 ):16077.38003266
273 Lee SG . Molecular target and action mechanism of anti‐cancer agents. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24 (9 ):8259.37175963
274 Labrie M , Brugge JS , Mills GB , Zervantonakis IK . Therapy resistance: opportunities created by adaptive responses to targeted therapies in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2022;22 (6 ):323‐339.35264777
275 Newhouse R , Nelissen E , El‐Shakankery KH , et al. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;7 (7 ):Cd006910.37407274
276 Xu X , Liu C , Wang Y , et al. Nanotechnology‐based delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 for cancer treatment. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2021;176 :113891.34324887
277 Passaro A , Jänne PA , Peters S . Antibody‐drug conjugates in lung cancer: recent advances and implementing strategies. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41 (21 ):3747‐3761.37224424
278 Desai A , Abdayem P , Adjei AA , Planchard D . Antibody‐drug conjugates: a promising novel therapeutic approach in lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2022;163 :96‐106.34942494
279 Zhen W , Weichselbaum RR , Lin W . Nanoparticle‐mediated radiotherapy remodels the tumor microenvironment to enhance antitumor efficacy. Adv Mater. 2023;35 (21 ):e2206370.36524978
280 Nishida N , Sakai D , Satoh T . Treatment strategy for HER2‐negative advanced gastric cancer: salvage‐line strategy for advanced gastric cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2024.
281 Rani V , Yadav D , Atale N . Matrixmetalloproteinase inhibitors: promising therapeutic targets against cancer. Curr Pharm Des. 2021;27 (45 ):4557‐4567.34459380
282 Kang K , Park C , Chan FK . Necroptosis at a glance. J Cell Sci. 2022;135 (17 ).
283 Townsend PA , Kozhevnikova MV , Cexus ONF , Zamyatnin AA Jr , Soond SM . BH3‐mimetics: recent developments in cancer therapy. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2021;40 (1 ):355.34753495
284 Subbiah V , Chawla SP , Conley AP , et al. Preclinical characterization and phase i trial results of INBRX‐109, a third‐generation, recombinant, humanized, death receptor 5 agonist antibody, in chondrosarcoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2023;29 (16 ):2988‐3003.37265425
285 Zhu X , Li S . Ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis in gastrointestinal cancers: the chief culprits of tumor progression and drug resistance. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2023;10 (26 ):e2300824.37436087
286 Liu Z , Ma A , Mathé E , Merling M , Ma Q , Liu B . Network analyses in microbiome based on high‐throughput multi‐omics data. Briefings Bioinf. 2021;22 (2 ):1639‐1655.
287 Xie J , Luo X , Deng X , et al. Advances in artificial intelligence to predict cancer immunotherapy efficacy. Front Immunol. 2022;13 :1076883.36685496
