| Literature DB >> 31662751 |
Riccardo Rampado1,2, Sara Crotti2, Paolo Caliceti3, Salvatore Pucciarelli1, Marco Agostini1,2.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a diffused disease with limited therapeutic options, none of which are often curative. Based on the molecular markers and targets expressed by the affected tissues, numerous novel approaches have been developed to study and treat this disease. In particular, the field of nanotechnology offers an astonishingly wide array of innovative nanovectors with high versatility and adaptability for both diagnosis and therapy (the so called "theranostic platforms"). However, such complexity can make the selection of a specific nanocarrier model to study a perplexing endeavour for the biomedical scientist or clinician not familiar with this field of inquiry. This review offers a comprehensive overview of this wide body of knowledge, in order to outline the essential requirements for the clinical viability evaluation of a nanovector model in CRC. In particular, the differences among the foremost designs, their specific advantages, and technological caveats will be treated, never forgetting the ultimate endpoint for these systems development: the clinical practice.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31662751 PMCID: PMC6791220 DOI: 10.1155/2019/2740923
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Figure 1Schematic representation of the different features and design options considered during the formulation of nanovectors.
Figure 2(a) Design strategy and mode of use for the endoscopic device and of the theranostic nanoparticles employed. (b) Schematic representation of the different theranostic approaches enabled by the endoscope/nanoparticle platform (from left to right): photodynamic therapy, photothermal therapy, chemotherapy, and synergetic effect of multimodal phototherapies under pulsed laser irradiation (c) Graphical concept of tumor treatment using the endoscope/nanoparticle platform. Figures from reference [47] reprinted with modifications.
Summary discussion of all the advantages and caveats for each of the design features and solution summarily presented in Figure 1.
| Size | |
|
| |
| Very small particles are quickly cleared through renal filtration and in cone cases can penetrate the nuclei causing high toxicity. | |
|
| |
| Shape | |
|
| |
| Spherical particles are the most widely diffused shape because they provide minimal surface-to-volume ratio, minimizing the energy state in self-assembling formulations. | |
|
| |
| Surface features | |
|
| |
| Charge | Highly positive NPs strongly interact with negatively charged cell membranes and enhance uptake. However, they are not suitable for systemic administration because they also interact with proteins and cells in blood, becoming quickly opsonized and cleared by RES, or aggregation and potential embolism. |
| Roughness | NPs with a rough surface have higher surface and interact more with proteins when administered IV. |
| Active targeting moieties | Include: small molecules (e.g., mannose, folic acid, and synthetic oligopeptides), proteins (antibodies and antibody fragments, toxins binding sites, and receptor ligands such as transferrin and albumin), aptamers, and adhesion/housing molecules for biomimetic platforms. |
| Stealth-inducing molecules | Include a wide range of neutrally charged, highly hydrophilic natural and synthetic polymers (e.g., PEG, PEI, polyglycerols, hydrophilic polyacrylates, chitosan, and dextran) and “self' molecules for personalized biomimetic formulations. |
| Label/drug binding scaffolds | Provide binding moieties for both drugs, photosensitizers, and imaging molecules. |
|
| |
| Material | |
|
| |
| Carbon NPs | Have specific optical proprieties. |
| Liposomes | Are widely studied and can load both hydrophilic and lipophilic molecules, including proteins. |
| Solid lipid NPs | Provide high loading for lipophilic drugs and can modulate their release. |
| Dendrimers | Good size control and multiplexing capabilities. |
| Polymeric NPs | Wide range of materials and material blends to accommodate many different molecules and functions (e.g., pH dependence, and biodegradability). |
| Gold NPs | Chemically inert, provide X-ray and radiotherapy enhancement, tunable SPR, Sonodynamic and photodynamic therapies, and SERS. |
| Superparamagnetic iron oxide NPs | Provide high contrast for MRI imaging, magnetic field-guided tissue accumulation, and magnetic hyperthermia. |
| Quantum dots | High fluorescence yield and photostability. |
Summary of the all discussed nanoparticle formulations used for colorectal cancer detection and imaging, for each formulation size, zeta potential, targeting strategy, administration route, payload, in vitro and in vivo models they have been tested on, the relative results, and references.
| Nanovector | Size (AVG) | Charge | Targeting strategy | Payload | Administration route | Model | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-CEA MoAB-PAMAM-NIR664-doped silica NPs | 70 nm | — | EPR | NIR664 | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| FMSNs-UEA1 | 75 nm | –13 mV | EPR | FITC | Topical |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| P(PE-PLLA) | 103 nm | –30 mV | CEA active targeting | Fluorescent dye: | IV (biodistribution) |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| HPMA-EPPT1-IR783 | — | — | uMUC-1 active targeting | NIRF dye: | Intraluminal administration |
|
| [ |
| EGFR/VEGF-F-SERSA/B | 350 nm | — | EGFR/VEGF active targeting | Fluorescent dye: AF610 SERS dyes: RITC and FITC (EGFR and VEGF, respectively) | Topical |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| CNPs | — | — | LN tropism and retention | — | Endoscopic submucosal administration | 152 rectal cancer patients | Enhanced LNs detection, quicker surgical removal of more LNs, leading to better nodal staging | [ |
|
| ||||||||
| FA-3WJ-pRNA NPs | — | — | EPR | Alexa fluor-647 | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| CNPs | 150 nm | — | LN tropism and retention | — | Endoscopic submucosal administration | 74 CRC T1 and T2 patients | Enhanced tracking if sentinel lymph node with near 100% accuracy in metastasis labelling. | [ |
Abbreviations: Avg: average; CRC: colorectal cancer; DOX: doxorubicin; EPR: enhanced permeability and retention effect; IV: intravenous; SC: subcutaneous; LN: lymph node; PDT: Photodynamic treatment; PTT: photothermal treatment.
Summary of all discussed nanoparticle formulations used for colorectal cancer therapy, for each formulation, size, zeta potential, targeting strategy, administration route, payload, in vitro and in vivo models they have been tested on, the relative results, and references.
| Nanovector | Size (AVG) | Charge | Targeting strategy | Payload | Administration route | Model | Results | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 200 nm | –10 mV | EPR | Paclitaxel | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| Doxorubicin-loaded ONT-conjugated AuNPs | 23 nm | — | EPR | Doxorubicin | Intratumoural | In vitro: SW480 cell cultures |
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| AuNPs | 15 nm | –21 mV | EPR | — | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| Cu-Ci | — | — | EPR | Radiotherapy enhancement | — |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| CP-NIC NPs | 74 nm (length) | — | EPR | Nicosamide | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| MSNs-DM1@PDA-PEG-APt | 170 nm | –11 mV | EPR | Maytansine | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| FA-HBcAg-PAA-DOX NPs | 35 nm | — | EPR | Doxorubicin | — |
|
| [ |
| Dex-SA-DOX-CDDP | 40 nm | —16 mV | EPR | Doxorubicin | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| RBC-coated PLGA nanoparticles | 150 nm | — | EPR | Gambogic acid (GA) | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| anti-EGFR-iRGD-RBCms- PLGA NPs | 153 nm | — | EPR | Gambogic acid | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| Anti CD113 MoAB – pPEG-PCL/malPEG-PCL | 167 nm | –28 mV | EPR | SN-38 | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| PPDC nanoparticles | 105 nm | — | EPR | Sorafenib CPT | IV |
|
| [ |
| NKG2D-IL-21 dextran NPs | 200–400 nm | 40 mV | EPR | dsNKG2D-IL-21 plasmids | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| RRHPC/PF33/pDNA | 127 nm | –23 mV | Active targeting against CD44 and integrin | TRAIL pDNA | Intraperitoneal |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| MSNs-anti-miR-155-PDA-AS1411 | 170 nm | –15 mN | EPR | Anti-miR 155 ONT | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| miRNA-139-NPs | 50–200 nm | — | EPR | miRNA-139 | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| SP-OA-CS | 143 nm | –33 mV | EPR | miR-20 | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| pRLN/pPD-L1 trap LCPs | 186 nm | –6.8 mV | Active targeting against Sig-1R | pRLNpPD-L1 trap | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| Gly@Cy7-Si-DOX NPs | 80–120 nm | –30 mV to –80 mV | EPR | Cy7 | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| UCNPs-Ce6-R837 | 80 nm | –13 mV | EPR (tissue retention) | R837 | Intratumoural |
|
| [ |
| HMRu@RBT–SS–Fc | 150 nm | +15 mV | EPR | RBT | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| Ox Pt-bp/chol-DHA | 70–100 nm | –21 to –13 mV | EPR | OxPtDHA | Intraperitoneal |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| EGFR-CPIG | 80–100 nm | 40 mV | EPR | Porphyrin (PDT) | IV |
|
| [ |
|
| ||||||||
| TCL-PDA NPs | 245 nm | –24 mV | LNs tropism | TCL (providing tumor-associated antigens) | SC |
|
| [ |
| aMG1-PEG-HNPs | 50 nm ca. | — | EOR | PTT | IV |
|
| [ |
Abbreviations: Avg: average; CRC: colorectal cancer; DOX: doxorubicin; EPR: enhanced permeability and retention effect; IV: intravenous; SC: subcutaneous; LN: lymph node; PDT: Photodynamic treatment; PTT: photothermal treatment.