Introduction: The escalating burden of cancer demands innovative solutions beyond conventional therapies. Nanorobotics, integrating nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, has emerged as a transformative approach to cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. This review highlights the recent advancements in cancer-targeting nanorobots, focusing on their design, functional mechanisms, and clinical potential. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from 2015 to 2024 was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The analysis included experimental studies, clinical trials, and review articles discussing nanorobot fabrication, targeting mechanisms, and therapeutic payload delivery in oncology. Results: Nanorobots have demonstrated precise tumor detection, targeted drug delivery, and realtime biosensing through the integration of biomolecular recognition, magnetic or chemical propulsion systems, and stimuli-responsive release mechanisms. Notable innovations include DNA origami-based nanorobots, magnetically guided micromachines, and enzyme-powered nanodevices, which exhibit enhanced biocompatibility and tumor specificity. Preclinical models showed improved therapeutic index, reduced systemic toxicity, and synergistic effects with existing therapies. Discussion: While nanorobots exhibit immense promise in overcoming limitations of conventional cancer treatments, challenges remain in terms of immune evasion, long-term biocompatibility, large-scale manufacturing, and regulatory approval. Integrating AI-driven control systems and responsive materials may further refine targeting precision and clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Nanorobotics holds the potential to revolutionize cancer care by offering highly specific, minimally invasive, and programmable therapeutic solutions. Future research should focus on translational studies, safety assessments, and the development of standardized protocols for clinical application.
Chauhan et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: