Literature DB >> 26282377

Design considerations for nanotherapeutics in oncology.

Triantafyllos Stylianopoulos1, Rakesh K Jain2.   

Abstract

Nanotherapeutics have improved the quality of life of cancer patients, primarily by reducing the adverse effects of chemotherapeutic agents, but improvements in overall survival are modest. This is in large part due to the fact that the enhanced permeability and retention effect, which is the basis for the use of nanoparticles in cancer, can be also a barrier to the delivery of nanomedicines. A careful design of nanoparticle formulations can overcome barriers posed by the tumor microenvironment and result in better treatments. In this review, we first discuss strengths and limitations of clinically-approved nanoparticles. Then, we evaluate design parameters that can be modulated to optimize delivery. The benefits of active tumor targeting and drug release rate on intratumoral delivery and treatment efficacy are also discussed. Finally, we suggest specific design strategies that should optimize delivery to most solid tumors and discuss under what conditions active targeting would be beneficial. FROM THE CLINICAL EDITOR: Advances in nanotechnology have seen the introduction of new treatment modalities for cancer. The principle of action using nanocarriers for drug delivery is based mostly on the Enhanced Permeability and Retention effect. This phenomenon however, can also be a hindrance. In this article, the authors performed an in-depth review on various nanoparticle platforms in cancer therapeutics. They also suggested options to improve drug delivery, in terms of carrier design.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer therapy; Controlled drug release; EPR effect; Nanomedicine; Nanoparticle targeting

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26282377      PMCID: PMC4628869          DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2015.07.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nanomedicine        ISSN: 1549-9634            Impact factor:   5.307


  145 in total

Review 1.  Polymeric micelles drug delivery system in oncology.

Authors:  Jian Gong; Meiwan Chen; Ying Zheng; Shengpeng Wang; Yitao Wang
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2012-01-21       Impact factor: 9.776

2.  Shape effects of filaments versus spherical particles in flow and drug delivery.

Authors:  Yan Geng; Paul Dalhaimer; Shenshen Cai; Richard Tsai; Manorama Tewari; Tamara Minko; Dennis E Discher
Journal:  Nat Nanotechnol       Date:  2007-03-25       Impact factor: 39.213

3.  Multistage nanoparticles for improved delivery into tumor tissue.

Authors:  Triantafyllos Stylianopoulos; Cliff Wong; Moungi G Bawendi; Rakesh K Jain; Dai Fukumura
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.600

4.  EPR-effect: utilizing size-dependent nanoparticle delivery to solid tumors.

Authors:  Triantafyllos Stylianopoulos
Journal:  Ther Deliv       Date:  2013-04

5.  Diffusion of particles in the extracellular matrix: the effect of repulsive electrostatic interactions.

Authors:  Triantafyllos Stylianopoulos; Ming-Zher Poh; Numpon Insin; Moungi G Bawendi; Dai Fukumura; Lance L Munn; Rakesh K Jain
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 4.033

6.  Recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a randomized phase III study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan.

Authors:  A N Gordon; J T Fleagle; D Guthrie; D E Parkin; M E Gore; A J Lacave
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-07-15       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  A simple method to achieve high doxorubicin loading in biodegradable polymersomes.

Authors:  Charles Sanson; Christophe Schatz; Jean-François Le Meins; Alain Soum; Julie Thévenot; Elisabeth Garanger; Sébastien Lecommandoux
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 9.776

8.  Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX/Doxil) versus conventional doxorubicin for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  M E R O'Brien; N Wigler; M Inbar; R Rosso; E Grischke; A Santoro; R Catane; D G Kieback; P Tomczak; S P Ackland; F Orlandi; L Mellars; L Alland; C Tendler
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 32.976

9.  Does a targeting ligand influence nanoparticle tumor localization or uptake?

Authors:  Kathleen F Pirollo; Esther H Chang
Journal:  Trends Biotechnol       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 19.536

10.  Pegylated-liposomal doxorubicin versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, and vincristine in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma: results of a randomized phase III clinical trial.

Authors:  D W Northfelt; B J Dezube; J A Thommes; B J Miller; M A Fischl; A Friedman-Kien; L D Kaplan; C Du Mond; R D Mamelok; D H Henry
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  63 in total

1.  UV scintillating particles as radiosensitizer enhance cell killing after X-ray excitation.

Authors:  Matthias Müller; Yimin Wang; Michael R Squillante; Kathryn D Held; R Rox Anderson; Martin Purschke
Journal:  Radiother Oncol       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 6.280

2.  Comparison of Dialysis- and Solvatofluorochromism-Based Methods to Determine Drug Release Rates from Polymer Nanoassemblies.

Authors:  Derek Reichel; Younsoo Bae
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 4.200

3.  Identification of peptide coatings that enhance diffusive transport of nanoparticles through the tumor microenvironment.

Authors:  Rashmi P Mohanty; Xinquan Liu; Jae Y Kim; Xiujuan Peng; Sahil Bhandari; Jasmim Leal; Dhivya Arasappan; Dennis C Wylie; Tony Dong; Debadyuti Ghosh
Journal:  Nanoscale       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 7.790

Review 4.  Nanoparticle-Based Medicines: A Review of FDA-Approved Materials and Clinical Trials to Date.

Authors:  Daniel Bobo; Kye J Robinson; Jiaul Islam; Kristofer J Thurecht; Simon R Corrie
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Nanoparticles size-dependently initiate self-limiting NETosis-driven inflammation.

Authors:  Luis E Muñoz; Rostyslav Bilyy; Mona H C Biermann; Deborah Kienhöfer; Christian Maueröder; Jonas Hahn; Jan M Brauner; Daniela Weidner; Jin Chen; Marina Scharin-Mehlmann; Christina Janko; Ralf P Friedrich; Dirk Mielenz; Tetiana Dumych; Maxim D Lootsik; Christine Schauer; Georg Schett; Markus Hoffmann; Yi Zhao; Martin Herrmann
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Development and Application of a Novel Model System to Study "Active" and "Passive" Tumor Targeting.

Authors:  Amarnath Mukherjee; Binod Kumar; Koji Hatano; Luisa M Russell; Bruce J Trock; Peter C Searson; Alan K Meeker; Martin G Pomper; Shawn E Lupold
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 6.261

Review 7.  Transport of drugs from blood vessels to tumour tissue.

Authors:  Mark W Dewhirst; Timothy W Secomb
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 60.716

8.  Challenges in realizing selectivity for nanoparticle biodistribution and clearance: lessons from gold nanoparticles.

Authors:  Desiree Van Haute; Jacob M Berlin
Journal:  Ther Deliv       Date:  2017-08

9.  Non-specific binding and steric hindrance thresholds for penetration of particulate drug carriers within tumor tissue.

Authors:  Jimena G Dancy; Aniket S Wadajkar; Craig S Schneider; Joseph R H Mauban; Olga G Goloubeva; Graeme F Woodworth; Jeffrey A Winkles; Anthony J Kim
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 9.776

Review 10.  Paradigm shift in bacteriophage-mediated delivery of anticancer drugs: from targeted 'magic bullets' to self-navigated 'magic missiles'.

Authors:  Valery A Petrenko; James W Gillespie
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Deliv       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 6.648

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.