Abstract
For the treatment of many forms of cancer, cell- and gene-based therapies are showing promise in both pre-clinical data and clinical trials. In particular, CAR T cell therapies, of which there are now 7 FDA-approved products, have shown ground-breaking results in haematological cancers such as multiple myeloma and B cell malignancies. Recent research is also attempting to develop effective CAR T cell therapies for solid tumours, with varying success. One of the key challenges faced by CAR T cell therapy is balancing strong cytotoxic activity for an effective treatment with preventing severe and potentially lethal toxicities, such as Cytokine Release Syndrome and Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome. This mini review discusses some of the potential solutions that scientists have devised to overcome toxicities and improve existing CAR T cell therapies.
Impact statement
We are delighted to submit this mini review titled “CAR T cell engineering approaches to minimise toxicities,” to be considered in the special issue focused on cell and gene therapy in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. CAR T cell therapy has transformed the treatment landscape of haematological malignancies, and is now being investigated for use in a range of autoimmune conditions and solid cancers. However, toxicity remains a major limitation to widespread use and limits the potential target antigens available. In this mini review we have highlighted some of the engineering strategies which have been developed to try and mitigate toxicity, and which we hope will lead to safer administration. Being able to safely manage more patients in the outpatient setting would increase capacity and ultimately widen access to these life-saving therapies.
Introduction
Cell and gene therapies have made headlines in recent years through their potential demonstrated in pre-clinical data, with some breakthroughs translated into impressive clinical trial findings. A notable success story is CAR T cell therapy, which has become a lifeline for patients suffering from relapsed/refractory haematological malignancies, such as multiple myeloma (MM) and B cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL). CAR T cell therapy involves isolating T cells from the patient’s blood and genetically modifying them by using a viral vector to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR). This CAR enables the T cell to precisely target a specific antigen expressed on cancer cells [1]. In the short history of CAR T cell research, CARs have had several generations of designs [2–4] with various modules included to boost co-stimulation of the T cell and increase its functionality. CAR T cells are designed to contain an antigen-binding domain attached to a transmembrane domain, which is most commonly linked to co-stimulatory domain(s) – such as CD28 or 41BB – and an activation domain (often CD3ζ) which enables downstream signalling and cytotoxic activity towards the target cell [5, 6].
Despite the rapid evolution of CAR T cell research, scientists still face common issues with toxicity and safety, such as Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) and Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS). CRS arises from a sharp increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines released into the bloodstream. Often, patients experience symptoms ranging from headaches and nausea to more severe complications, including hypotension and organ failure [7, 8]. Despite a lower incidence rate, ICANS is another serious toxicity associated with CAR T cell therapy where patients often experience symptoms of encephalopathy, headaches and tremor [9]. Non-ICANS neurotoxicities are a less frequent complication that can arise after CAR T cell infusion. Movement and neurocognitive toxicity (MNT) and cranial nerve palsy are associated with BCMA-targeting CAR T cell therapy, whereas complications such as myelopathy are described after CD19-targeting CAR T cell infusion [10]. In rare cases, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a hyperactive immune response which can be triggered by CAR T cell therapy and as such is defined as immune effector cell-associated HLH-like syndrome (IEC-HS) [11]. IEC-HS often manifests with symptoms such as coagulopathy, multiple classes of cytopenia and hepatic dysfunction [12, 13], but can be difficult to diagnose, with patients potentially displaying similarities to those with sepsis for example [14].
The type and severity of toxicities faced by patients varies with their type of CAR T cell treatment. Typically, clinicians must closely monitor CAR T cell patients for signs of toxicities and treat the symptoms accordingly. In addition to the use of steroids and antipyretics to suppress inflammation, Tocilizumab is a monoclonal antibody which blocks the IL-6 receptor, and is often used to counteract CRS in the clinic [15, 16]. However, these methods fail to address the underlying cause of the toxicities and relies on prompt diagnosis of symptoms, rather than working as a preventative measure. This mini-review explores some of the novel approaches to prevent and minimise toxicities associated with CAR T cell therapy (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1
Binder domains in CAR design
While each element of CAR T cell design may influence its efficacy, there has been much debate about the importance of the binding domain and its corresponding affinity and avidity effects. [17, 18]. Binding kinetics likely influence the secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines and associated toxicities [19]. As the extracellular component, the properties of the binding domain are also hypothesised to impact the immunogenicity of the CAR T cell therapy and therefore possibly the likelihood of associated toxicities [20–22].
A key drawback for many of the approved CAR T cell therapies is that the antigen-binding domains are often based on a murine-derived scFv, FMC63 [23, 24], and as such are immunogenic due to sequence dissimilarities between murine and human VH and VL regions [25]. Indeed, there has been a case report of anaphylaxis caused by repeated CAR T infusions with murine derived sequences [22]. Humanisation strategies have been explored to reduce immunogenicity and improve safety in various studies [26, 27].
Notably, some studies have suggested nanobody-based CAR T cell designs show superior efficacy and safety over scFv-based designs [28], likely due to their increased stability and small size. Some studies have observed lower rates of CRS for nanobody-based CAR T cells [29], though this is disputed in other studies which suggest similar or increased rates of CRS [30]. One approved nanobody-based CAR T cell therapy, Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Cilta-cel), has a binding domain comprising of two nanobody domains functioning similarly to an scFv [31]. This particular CAR T cell has shown breakthrough results rivalling its first-to-market competitor, Idecabtagene vicleucel (Ide-cel) which is based on a murine scFv targeting the tumour antigen, B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) [32]. Despite a recent finding suggesting Cilta-cel may be associated with a higher likelihood of grade 3 or higher CRS, there were no differences observed with the incidence of CRS in general or ICANS between Cilta-cel and Ide-cel [30]. Novel CAR T cell therapies with different binders are now challenging these market leaders for improved safety and efficacy. At the 2025 American Society of Haematology (ASH) meeting, Hart, et al. [33] discussed how the pharmacological profile of the D-Domain binder in Anitocabtagene autoleucel (Anito-cel) compares to a dual nanobody binder based on Cilta-cel, concluding a faster off-rate and “decreased cytokine production while maintaining similar cytotoxicity” as a result of the D-domain binder [33].
Logic-gating
An ideal target for CAR T cell is one that is easily accessible and ideally exclusively, or highly differentially, expressed by the target cell, however this is not a common occurrence in biology. Of the seven FDA-approved CAR T cell therapies at the time of writing, five target CD19 and two target BCMA. Although it is the predominant target for these therapies, CD19 is a protein found on both healthy and malignant B cells and therefore an expected, undesirable side effect is B cell aplasia [34]. BCMA can be considered a favourable target as it is found on mature plasma cells, with its overexpression linked to multiple myeloma. Based on this differential expression, it could be suggested there is a lower risk of off-tumour on-target effects, though it is still found on haematopoietic stem cells to a lower degree. [35]. There have also been reports of BCMA expression within the central nervous system (CNS) and this may be associated with the development of a rare late neurological complication resembling Parkinson’s disease [36]. This is a similar problem with many drug products, in particular CAR T cell therapy, emphasising the need to improve specificity when targeting tumours.
As such, inspired by “Boolean logic” in computing, logic gating was engineered in CAR T cell therapies, incorporating “AND”, “OR” and “NOT” gates to improve targeting of tumour cells and reduce toxicities [37, 38]. Each gate operates under a different principle: “AND” gates require both target antigens to be present for CAR T cell activation and cytotoxicity; “OR” gates target two antigens but only one is required for activation; and “NOT” gates also target two antigens, though if both or only the inhibitory target are present, activation and cytotoxicity is prevented (Figure 2). “AND” and “NOT” gates are most suitable in reducing on-target off-tumour effects as their stringent conditional logic makes these toxicities less likely. This was exemplified in a pioneering study; Kloss, et al. [39] demonstrated that AND-gated CAR T cells, targeting CD19 and PMSA, elevated cytotoxicity towards cells expressing both antigens, through the co-stimulation of CD28 and 41BB on distinct CAR modules. They also showed that without the co-stimulation from both receptors, and therefore recognition of both antigens, tumour cells were relatively unaffected, suggesting this approach could avoid off-tumour on-target effects where antigens are expressed by healthy tissues as well [39]. In principle, the targeting of two tumour antigens may overcome tumour resistance mechanisms such as antigen escape due to the low likelihood of splicing and mutation events for both of these antigens, however it does increase the selection pressure in the event of any tumour clones lacking these target antigens [40]. Additionally, in the case of AND-gated CAR T cells, it could decrease efficacy where some tumour clones may lack one of the antigens required for CAR T cell activation. Overall, this study provides proof-of-concept for the potential of logic-gated CARs, with recent work from other groups publishing similar in vitro findings for AND-gated CARs relevant to multiple myeloma [41] and other haematological or solid tumour targets [42].
FIGURE 2
Selective CAR expression
Like the concept of logic-gating, selective expression of CARs under specific conditions is another avenue being researched to prevent toxicities. Rather than relying on certain combinations of antigens present on tumour cells, specific promoters can induce CAR expression under specific conditions for example as found in the tumour microenvironment (TME) [43, 44], or in response to drugs administered [45, 46].
One of the challenges faced by CAR T cell therapy in treating solid tumours in particular is balancing the need for a highly effective CAR T cell, which can penetrate and clear tumour burden, whilst also preventing severe toxicities such as CRS and ICANS. The TME of solid tumours is known to be immunosuppressive with a dense extracellular matrix (ECM), which can cause reduced oxygen supply to the core of the tumour. Kosti, et al. [44] utilised this tumour property to develop a HypoxiCAR which would stringently express the CAR under hypoxic conditions, as may be found in the TME. ErbB-targeting CAR T cell therapies have previously been deemed unsuitable for intravenous infusion based on severe toxicities, including the death of a patient [47], associated with the broad expression of the target antigen. In this study they demonstrated that a pan-ErbB-targeting CAR could be expressed under hypoxic, but not normoxic, conditions using a hypoxia-responsive promoter. In vitro and in vivo data showed reduced cytokine secretion as well as off-tumour infiltration into healthy organs, suggesting potentially improved safety [44]. Another group has also demonstrated hypoxia-sensing small molecules can be used to permit CAR expression exclusively in response to factors in the TME [43]. Similarly, other groups have developed expression systems combining logic-gating whereby CARs are only expressed upon recognition of a combination of antigens present on the tumour cells through the use of synthetic Notch (SynNotch) mechanisms that induce expression, resulting in reduced toxicity from off-tumour on-target effects [48, 49]. These mechanisms are based on the highly conserved Notch signalling pathway, whereby a SynNotch receptor contains the extracellular binding domain(s), the Notch juxtamembrane and transmembrane domains, and intracellular domains with orthogonal transcription factors (TFs). If the mechanism is designed so that the CAR gene is under the influence of these orthogonal TFs, when the SynNotch receptor binds its target antigen, the mechanism becomes activated, allowing the TF to trigger CAR expression on the surface of the T cell. This combinatorial activation mechanism means that the CAR is only expressed when the antigen recognised by the SynNotch receptor is present, and therefore subsequent cytotoxicity of the CAR T cell can only occur when both this antigen, and the CAR’s target antigen is present [50].
Safety switches
Just as CAR expression can be induced under specific conditions, the importance of being able to “turn off” CAR expression has also been addressed. In response to safety concerns, some scientists have incorporated safety switch mechanisms in their CAR designs. These mechanisms often rely on the addition of a drug or small molecule to trigger apoptosis in the CAR T cells in the event of severe toxicities.
Early examples of these safety switches include the HSV-tk (Herpes Simplex Virus Thymidine kinase) system which conveys sensitivity to Ganciclovir to downregulate graft versus host disease (GvHD) in patients [51, 52], and the inducible caspase-9 (iCas9) system which triggers apoptosis of CAR T cells upon addition of Rimiducid [53]. More recently, the RQR8 safety switch has also been developed, providing an option to cause selective apoptosis of the CAR T cells containing this gene upon addition of Rituximab [54]. In addition, other CAR T cell designs have included tEGFR as a way to both identify transduced T cells during manufacture as well as potentially acting as a safety switch upon administration of Cetuximab, though this method can be ineffective at depleting the CAR T cells [55].
Whilst safety switches have been tested in clinical trials [56, 57] with mixed outcomes in neutralising toxicities, it is a similar approach to using Tocilizumab in that clinicians must administer the relevant drug reactively to symptoms of toxicities. Though this system does benefit from more direct elimination of the CAR T cell population to prevent toxicities, rather than alleviating the symptoms for example by blocking cytokines, it also abrogates the desired anti-tumour effects of the therapy and therefore should be as a last resort to minimising toxicities.
CAR-positive extracellular vesicles
Recent studies have indicated that CAR-positive extracellular vesicles (CAR + EVs) are an important factor in the dynamics of CAR T cell activity. Some have suggested that levels of CAR + EVs can act as a predictor of ICANS, but not CRS, and therefore a potential biomarker for this toxicity [58]. However, other researchers have sought to pose CAR + EVs as a potential “cell-free” CAR T cell therapy, suggesting that CAR + EVs may also convey cytotoxicity towards target cells and may better penetrate the TME, whilst offering a safer, less immunogenic alternative to standard CAR T cell therapy [59, 60]. While this is a relatively new area of research within the CAR T cell field, it is an exciting development that could offer an avenue for off-the-shelf therapy with reduced safety concerns [61].
Conclusion
Since its conception, CAR T cell therapy has rapidly evolved but has faced significant barriers with safety and toxicities requiring scientists to find solutions. As evidenced in this review, multiple avenues have been explored to reduce toxicities associated with CAR T cell therapy, though it is crucial to note that these are based on experimental data from pre-clinical studies, and do not take into account other important factors that would become relevant later in the clinical development. Pre-emptive solutions, such as logic-gating and selective expression systems, show promise in reducing the likelihood of CRS and ICANS in patients, though developments in alternative approaches to CAR-based therapies such as CAR + EVs are a compelling proposal to circumvent safety issues. Complex engineering approaches may introduce higher costs and greater manufacturing complexity, and potential concerns from regulatory boards. Through more clinically advanced studies and with larger scale production, the combination of safety, efficacy and practicality of manufacturing will determine CAR T cell success.
Statements
Author contributions
EH wrote the first draft. CG and AS reviewed, supervised and edited the manuscript.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. EH was supported by King’s College London via the KDC CDT in Translational Research in Advanced Cell and Gene Therapies Studentship. AS was supported by MRC MCMB MR/Z504269/1 and the CRUK City of London Centre Award CTRQQR-2021\100004.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
References
1.
AyalaCMKherichaMHarrisCMPuig-SausCChenYY. CAR-T cell manufacturing: major process parameters and next-generation strategies. J Exp Med (2024) 221(2):e20230903. 10.1084/jem.20230903
2.
KershawMHWestwoodJAParkerLLWangGEshharZMavroukakisSAet alA phase I study on adoptive immunotherapy using gene-modified T cells for ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res (2006) 12(20 Pt 1):6106–15. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1183
3.
KrauseAGuoHFLatoucheJBTanCCheungNKVSadelainM. Antigen-dependent CD28 signaling selectively enhances survival and proliferation in genetically modified activated human primary T lymphocytes. J Exp Med (1998) 188(4):619–26. 10.1084/jem.188.4.619
4.
LamersCHJSleijferSVultoAGKruitWHJKliffenMDebetsRet alTreatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with autologous T-Lymphocytes genetically retargeted against carbonic anhydrase IX: first clinical experience. J Clin Oncol (2006) 24(13):e20–2. 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.9964
5.
LabaniehLMackallCL. CAR immune cells: design principles, resistance and the next generation. Nature (2023) 614(7949):635–48. 10.1038/s41586-023-05707-3
6.
ReisA. From the first to the fifth generation of CAR-T cells. ProteoGenix (2021). Available online at: https://www.proteogenix.science/scientific-corner/car-t/car-t-generations/ (Accessed: January 5, 2026).
7.
WinklerUJensenMManzkeOSchulzHDiehlVEngertA. Cytokine-release syndrome in patients with B-Cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia and high lymphocyte counts after treatment with an Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab, IDEC-C2B8). Blood (1999) 94(7):2217–24. 10.1182/blood.V94.7.2217.419k02_2217_2224
8.
SuntharalingamGPerryMRWardSBrettSJCastello-CortesABrunnerMDet alCytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the Anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. N Engl J Med (2006) 355(10):1018–28. 10.1056/NEJMoa063842
9.
FrigaultMJAmolojaTBurkeLMMorariu-ZamfirRBhattVBibeauKet alRates of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) from center for international blood and marrow transplant research (CIBMTR) data on US subjects (SUBJ) with lymphoma following chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T). J Clin Oncol (2023) 41(16_Suppl. l):7528. 10.1200/JCO.2023.41.16_suppl.7528
10.
GrahamCEVelascoRAlarcon TomasAStewartOPDachyGdel BufaloFet alNon-ICANS neurological complications after CAR T-cell therapies: recommendations from the EBMT practice harmonisation and guidelines committee. Lancet Oncol (2025) 26(4):e203–13. 10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00715-0
11.
NeelapuSSTummalaSKebriaeiPWierdaWGutierrezCLockeFLet alChimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy — assessment and management of toxicities. Nat Rev Clin Oncol (2018) 15(1):47–62. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.148
12.
CannaSWMarshRA. Pediatric hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Blood (2020) 135(16):1332–43. 10.1182/blood.2019000936
13.
HinesMRKnightTEMcNerneyKOLeickMBJainTAhmedSet alImmune effector cell associated hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis-like syndrome (IEC-HS). Transpl Cell Ther (2023) 29(7):438.e1–438.e16. 10.1016/j.jtct.2023.03.006
14.
La RoseePHorneAHinesMvon Bahr GreenwoodTMachowiczRBerlinerNet alRecommendations for the management of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in adults | blood. American Society of Hematology (2025). Available online at: https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/133/23/2465/273833/Recommendations-for-the-management-of (Accessed: January 5, 2026).
15.
KowalskiALykonJDiamondBCoffeyDKaddouraMMauraFet alTocilizumab prophylaxis for patients with multiple myeloma treated with bispecific antibodies. Blood Adv (2025) 9(19):4979–86. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2025016911
16.
JamoisCTurnerDCGibianskyLLiFMenuetJFPereiraLRet alTocilizumab dosing for management of T cell-engaging bispecific antibody-related CRS in patients with R/R B-Cell NHL. Clin Pharmacol Ther (2025) 118(4):917–27. 10.1002/cpt.3751
17.
ChenYYeZChoWCZhangDX. Cell avidity in CAR-T cell therapy. Expert Rev Mol Diagn (2025) 25(11):737–40. 10.1080/14737159.2025.2565274
18.
GreenmanRPizemYHaus-CohenMGoorAHorevGDenkbergGet alShaping functional avidity of CAR T cells: affinity, avidity, and antigen density that regulate response. Mol Cancer Ther (2021) 20(5):872–84. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-1109
19.
Hinckley-BonedABarbero-JiménezCTristán-ManzanoMMaldonado-PerezNHudecekMJusticia-LirioPet alTailoring CAR surface density and dynamics to improve CAR-T cell therapy. J Immunother Cancer (2025) 13(4):e010702. 10.1136/jitc-2024-010702
20.
MyersRMDiNofiaAMLiYDiorioCLiuHWertheimGet alCD22-targeted chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells for children and adults with relapse of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia after CD19-directed immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer (2025) 13(4):e011549. 10.1136/jitc-2025-011549
21.
GhorashianSKramerAMOnuohaSWrightGBartramJRichardsonRet alEnhanced CAR T cell expansion and prolonged persistence in pediatric patients with ALL treated with a low-affinity CD19 CAR. Nat Med (2019) 25(9):1408–14. 10.1038/s41591-019-0549-5
22.
MausMVHaasARBeattyGLAlbeldaSMLevineBLLiuXet alT cells expressing chimeric antigen receptors can cause anaphylaxis in humans. Cancer Immunol Res (2013) 1(1):26–31. 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0006
23.
PorterDLLevineBLKalosMBaggAJuneCH. Chimeric antigen receptor–modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med (2011) 365(8):725–33. 10.1056/NEJMoa1103849
24.
KochenderferJNFeldmanSAZhaoYXuHBlackMAMorganRAet alConstruction and pre-clinical evaluation of an Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor. J Immunother Hagerstown Md (2009) 32(7):689–702. 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181ac6138
25.
AsaadiYJouneghaniFFJananiSRahbarizadehF. A comprehensive comparison between camelid nanobodies and single chain variable fragments. Biomark Res (2021) 9:87. 10.1186/s40364-021-00332-6
26.
SommermeyerDHillTShamahSMSalterAIChenYMohlerKMet alFully human CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptors for T-cell therapy. Leukemia (2017) 31(10):2191–9. 10.1038/leu.2017.57
27.
SternLAVyasVLimLHuynhCUrakREspinosaRet alDevelopment and characterization of a low-affinity humanized CD19 chimeric antigen receptor for B-cell malignancies. Blood Neoplasia (2024) 1(4):100048. 10.1016/j.bneo.2024.100048
28.
XiaBLinKWangXChenFZhouMLiYet alNanobody-derived bispecific CAR-T cell therapy enhances the anti-tumor efficacy of T cell lymphoma treatment. Mol Ther Oncolytics (2023) 30:86–102. 10.1016/j.omto.2023.07.007
29.
FandreiDRadeMKreuzMFischerLBornPSeiffertSet alThe differences between ide-cel and Cilta-Cel in relapsed myeloma at single cell resolution. Blood (2024) 144(Suppl. 1):1877. 10.1182/blood-2024-210746
30.
HansenDPeresLDimaDRichardsAShuneLAfroughAet alComparison of standard-of-care idecabtagene vicleucel and ciltacabtagene autoleucel in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol (2025) 43:1597–609. 10.1200/JCO-24-01730
31.
FanXZhuangQYangLHaoJZhaoDZhaoYet alPreclinical assessment of LCAR-B38M, a novel BCMA-targeting chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk (2019) 19(10):e160. 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.267
32.
RajeNBerdejaJLinYSiegelDJagannathSMadduriDet alAnti-BCMA CAR T-Cell therapy bb2121 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med (2019) 380(18):1726–37. 10.1056/NEJMoa1817226
33.
HartKHydeMPhamCIlinaTGandraNShakyaTet alThe fast off-rate of anito-cel’s D-Domain binder contributes to its distinctive pharmacology profile in preclinical models of multiple myeloma. Blood (2025) 146:7644. 10.1182/blood-2025-7644
34.
DavilaMLBrentjensRJ. CD19-Targeted CAR T cells as novel cancer immunotherapy for relapsed or refractory B-Cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol HO (2016) 14(10):802–8.
35.
ShahNChariAScottEMezziKUsmaniSZ. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in multiple myeloma: rationale for targeting and current therapeutic approaches. Leukemia (2020) 34(4):985–1005. 10.1038/s41375-020-0734-z
36.
Van OekelenOAlemanAUpadhyayaBSchnakenbergSMadduriDGavaneSet alNeurocognitive and hypokinetic movement disorder with features of parkinsonism after BCMA-targeting CAR-T cell therapy. Nat Med (2021) 27(12):2099–103. 10.1038/s41591-021-01564-7
37.
AbbottRCHughes-ParryHEJenkinsMR. To go or not to go? Biological logic gating engineered T cells. J Immunother Cancer (2022) 10(4):e004185. 10.1136/jitc-2021-004185
38.
RoybalKTRuppLJMorsutLWalkerWJMcNallyKAParkJSet alPrecision tumor recognition by T cells with combinatorial antigen-sensing circuits. Cell (2016) 164(4):770–9. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.01.011
39.
KlossCCCondominesMCartellieriMBachmannMSadelainM. Combinatorial antigen recognition with balanced signaling promotes selective tumor eradication by engineered T cells. Nat Biotechnol (2013) 31(1):71–5. 10.1038/nbt.2459
40.
LinHYangXYeSHuangLMuW. Antigen escape in CAR-T cell therapy: mechanisms and overcoming strategies. Biomed Pharmacother (2024) 178:117252. 10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117252
41.
AndersonGSFWalkerIRoyJPChapmanMA. And-gate CAR T-Cells to improve tumour specificity and targeting of low-expression antigens in multiple myeloma. Blood (2023) 142(Suppl. 1):751. 10.1182/blood-2023-187418
42.
TousleyAMRotirotiMCLabaniehLRysavyLWKimWJLareauCet alCo-opting signalling molecules enables logic-gated control of CAR T cells. Nature (2023) 615(7952):507–16. 10.1038/s41586-023-05778-2
43.
NguyenHTXKimBGMyersJTYanHKumarSEidSet alEngineering TME-gated inducible CAR-T cell therapy for solid tumors. Mol Ther (2025) 33(8):3546–58. 10.1016/j.ymthe.2025.04.037
44.
KostiPOpzoomerJWLarios-MartinezKIHenley-SmithRScudamoreCLOkesolaMet alHypoxia-sensing CAR T cells provide safety and efficacy in treating solid tumors. Cell Rep Med (2021) 2(4):100227. 10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100227
45.
SmoleABentonAPoussinMAEivaMAMezzanotteCCamisaBet alExpression of inducible factors reprograms CAR-T cells for enhanced function and safety. Cancer Cell (2022) 40(12):1470–87.e7. 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.11.006
46.
FraessleSPTschulikCEffenbergerMCletiuVGergetMSchoberKet alActivation-inducible CAR expression enables precise control over engineered CAR T cell function. Commun Biol (2023) 6(1):604. 10.1038/s42003-023-04978-w
47.
MorganRAYangJCKitanoMDudleyMELaurencotCMRosenbergSA. Case report of a serious adverse event following the administration of T cells transduced with a chimeric antigen receptor recognizing ERBB2. Mol Ther (2010) 18(4):843–51. 10.1038/mt.2010.24
48.
ChoeJHWatchmakerPBSimicMSGilbertRDLiAWKrasnowNAet alSynNotch-CAR T cells overcome challenges of specificity, heterogeneity, and persistence in treating glioblastoma. Sci Transl Med (2021) 13(591):eabe7378. 10.1126/scitranslmed.abe7378
49.
VogtKCSilbermanPCLinQHanJELaflinAGellineauHAet alMicroenvironment actuated CAR T cells improve solid tumor efficacy without toxicity. Sci Adv (2025) 11(4):eads3403. 10.1126/sciadv.ads3403
50.
ShirzadianMMooriSRabbaniRRahbarizadehF. SynNotch CAR-T cell, when synthetic biology and immunology meet again. Front Immunol (2025) 16:1545270. 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1545270
51.
MarktelSMagnaniZCiceriFCazzanigaSRiddellSRTraversariCet alImmunologic potential of donor lymphocytes expressing a suicide gene for early immune reconstitution after hematopoietic T-cell–depleted stem cell transplantation. Blood (2003) 101(4):1290–8. 10.1182/blood-2002-08-2351
52.
BordignonCBoniniCVerzelettiSNobiliNMaggioniDTraversariCet alTransfer of the HSV-tk gene into donor peripheral blood lymphocytes for in vivo modulation of donor anti-tumor immunity after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Hum Gene Ther (1995) 6:813–9. 10.1089/hum.1995.6.6-813
53.
FosterMCSavoldoBLauWRubinosCGroverNArmisteadPet alUtility of a safety switch to abrogate CD19.CAR T-cell–associated neurotoxicity. Blood (2021) 137(23):3306–9. 10.1182/blood.2021010784
54.
PhilipBKokalakiEMekkaouiLThomasSStraathofKFlutterBet alA highly compact epitope-based marker/suicide gene for easier and safer T-cell therapy. Blood (2014) 124(8):1277–87. 10.1182/blood-2014-01-545020
55.
FrigaultMJGrahamCEBergerTRRitcheyJHorickNKEl-JawahriAet alPhase 1 study of CAR-37 T cells in patients with relapsed or refractory CD37+ lymphoid malignancies. Blood (2024) 144(11):1153–67. 10.1182/blood.2024024104
56.
DiSATeySKDottiGFujitaYKennedy-NasserAMartinezCet alInducible apoptosis as a safety switch for adoptive cell therapy. N Engl J Med (2011) 365(18):1673–83. 10.1056/NEJMoa1106152
57.
CiceriFBoniniCStanghelliniMTLBondanzaATraversariCSalomoniMet alInfusion of suicide-gene-engineered donor lymphocytes after family haploidentical haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for leukaemia (the TK007 trial): a non-randomised phase I–II study. Lancet Oncol (2009) 10(5):489–500. 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70074-9
58.
StorciGFeliceFDRicciFSantiSMesselodiDBertuccioSNet alCAR+ extracellular vesicles predict ICANS in patients with B cell lymphomas treated with CD19-directed CAR T cells. J Clin Invest (2024) 134(14). 10.1172/JCI173096
59.
LanutiPGuardalupiFCorradiGFlorioRBroccoDVeschiSet alCD19.CAR T-cell–derived extracellular vesicles express CAR and kill leukemic cells, contributing to antineoplastic therapy. Blood Adv (2025) 9(12):2907–19. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2024014860
60.
PagottoSSimeonePBroccoDCatittiGDe BellisDVespaSet alCAR-T-Derived extracellular vesicles: a promising development of CAR-T anti-tumor therapy. Cancers (2023) 15(4):1052. 10.3390/cancers15041052
61.
KaleVIngavleG. Clinical potential of CAR T cell-derived extracellular vesicles (CAR-EVs) in cancer therapy: a cell-free approach. Ther Deliv (2025) 16(10):989–1007. 10.1080/20415990.2025.2569298
Summary
Keywords
cytokine release syndrome (CRS), ICANS, non-ICANS neurotoxicity, safety, toxicity, CAR T cell
Citation
Hogben E, Schurich A and Graham C (2026) CAR T cell engineering approaches to minimise toxicities. Exp. Biol. Med. 251:11021. doi: 10.3389/ebm.2026.11021
Received
30 January 2026
Revised
24 March 2026
Accepted
01 April 2026
Published
15 April 2026
Volume
251 - 2026
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Hogben, Schurich and Graham.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Charlotte Graham, charlotte.2.graham@kcl.ac.uk
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.