| Literature DB >> 31888198 |
Sue Anne Chew1, Stefania Moscato2,3, Sachin George1, Bahareh Azimi4,5, Serena Danti5.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common type of cancer diagnosed and the second leading cause of death worldwide. Despite advancement in current treatments for HCC, the prognosis for this cancer is still unfavorable. This comprehensive review article focuses on all the current technology that applies biomaterials to treat and study liver cancer, thus showing the versatility of biomaterials to be used as smart tools in this complex pathologic scenario. Specifically, after introducing the liver anatomy and pathology by focusing on the available treatments for HCC, this review summarizes the current biomaterial-based approaches for systemic delivery and implantable tools for locally administrating bioactive factors and provides a comprehensive discussion of the specific therapies and targeting agents to efficiently deliver those factors. This review also highlights the novel application of biomaterials to study HCC, which includes hydrogels and scaffolds to tissue engineer 3D in vitro models representative of the tumor environment. Such models will serve to better understand the tumor biology and investigate new therapies for HCC. Special focus is given to innovative approaches, e.g., combined delivery therapies, and to alternative approaches-e.g., cell capture-as promising future trends in the application of biomaterials to treat HCC.Entities:
Keywords: 3D models; biomaterials; hepatocellular carcinoma; immunotherapy; microparticles; nanoparticles; scaffolds
Year: 2019 PMID: 31888198 PMCID: PMC6966667 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11122026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Schematic of the structure of liver lobule.
Figure 2Three-dimensional structure of a liver lobule. Reprinted with permission from Springer Nature Publishing AG, Adams et al., Nat. Rev. Immunol., 2006 [15].
Figure 3Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) criteria.
Biomaterials that have been investigated for drug delivery for liver cancer.
| Form | Biomaterial | Bioactive Factor | Targeting Agent | Type of Therapy | Source, Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Nanodiamond | Carbon | Epirubicin | Chemotherapy | Wang et al., 2014 [ | |
|
| |||||
| Nanoparticles (NPs) | Charge reversible pullulan-based (CAPL) shell and poly(β-amino ester) (PBAE)/poly(lactic- | Paclitaxel (PTX) and combretastatin A4 (CA4) | Polysaccharide pullulan backbone | Anti-angiogenesis and chemotherapy | Zhang et al., 2016 [ |
| NPs | Poly | 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) | Anti-SM5-1 | Chemotherapy | Ma et al., 2014 [ |
| Microspheres | Poly( | Doxorubicin (DOX) and/or chitosan-DNA NPs (chi-p53) | Chemotherapy and gene therapy | Xu et al., 2013 [ | |
| NPs | Poly(gamma-glutamic acid)-poly(lactide) | PTX | Galactosamine | Chemotherapy | Liang et al., 2006 [ |
| NPs | biotin-/lactobionic acid modified poly(ethylene glycol)-PLGA-poly(ethylene glycol) (BLPP) | Curcumin (CUR) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) | Biotin/lactiobionic acid | Chemotherapy/Natural therapy | Ni et al., 2018 [ |
|
| |||||
| NPs | Gelatin | DOX-lactose | Lactose | Chemotherapy | Liu et al., 2018 [ |
| Microspheres | Gelatin and chondroitin-6-sulfate | Interleukin-2 | Immunotherapy | Hanes et al., 2001 [ | |
| NPs | Chitosan | None | Anticancer | Qi et al., 2007 [ | |
| NPs | Chitosan | None | Anticancer and anti-angiogenesis | Xu et al., 2010 [ | |
| NPs | Chitosan | Trans-resveratrol | Biotin and avidin | Phytochemicals | Bu et al., 2013 [ |
| NPs | Chitosan | Plasmid DNA with granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor, interleukin 21, internal ribosome entry site, and retinoic acid early transcription factor-1 | Biotin | Gene therapy | Cheng et al., 2017 [ |
|
| |||||
| NPs | Galactosylated-carboxymethyl chitosan-magnetic iron oxide (Gal-CMCS-Fe3O4) | Ras Association Domain Family 1A (RASSF1A) gene | Galactose | Gene Delivery and Chemotherapy (Mitomycin injected as a free drug) | Xue et al., 2016 [ |
| NPs | Ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide | SM5-1 | Anti-SM51 | Immunotherapy | Kou et al., 2008 [ |
| NPs | Gold | miR-375 | Gold | Gene therapy | Xue et al., 2016 [ |
| NPs | Gold conjugated with sodium citrate or polyamidoamine dendrimers (PAMAM) | None | Gold | Chemotherapy | Paino et al., 2012 [ |
| NPs | Gold | SM5-1 | Gold and selective binding of SM5-1 | Immunotherapy | Ma et al., 2016 [ |
| NPs | Gold with a monolayer of L-aspartate | DOX, cisplatin, capecitabine | Gold | Chemotherapy | Tomuleasa et al., 2012 [ |
|
| |||||
| Liposomes | Soybean phosphatidylcholine/cholesterol, (PEG)ylated | DOX | Lactoferrin | Chemotherapy | Wei et al., 2015 [ |
| Liposome | PEGylated liposome (liposome material unclear) | DOX | Targeting peptide SP94 | Chemotherapy | Lo et al., 2008 [ |
| Immuno-liposomes | 1,2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane (chloride salt) (DOTAP), cholesterol, 1,2-distearoyl- | Adriamycin (ADR) and ribonucleotide reductase M2 (RRM2) siRNA | Anti-EGFR Fab | Chemotherapy and Gene Therapy | Gao et al., 2013 [ |
| Immuno-liposomes | 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine- | DOX | Anti-CD147 antibody (Metuximab) | Chemotherapy | Wang et al., 2018 [ |
| Nanomicelles | Casein | Berberine (BRB) and Diosmin (DSN) | lactobionic acid (LA) and folic acid (FA) | Phytochemicals | Abdelmoneem, 2018 [ |
| Liposomal NPs | Distearoylphosphatidylcholine (DSPC), cholesterol, dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE), distearoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DSPE)-mPEG2000, and DSPE-cyclic RGDfK | DOX or triple fusion gene for molecular imaging | Anti-CD44 antibody | Chemotherapy | Wang et al., 2012 [ |
| Lipid NPs | Cationic lipid RL01, 1,2-Distearoyl- | Anti-miR-17 | Gene therapy | Huang et al., 2017 [ | |
| Lipid NPs | Trimyristin (TM), egg yolk phosphatidylcholine (ePC), galactosylated dioleoylphosphatidyl ethanolamine (Gal-DOPE) | Docetaxel | Galactose and lactobionic acid | Chemotherapy | Xu et al., 2009 [ |
| Lipidoid | Ionizable lipid or cationic lipid, disteroylphosphatidyl choline, cholesterol, and 1,2-dimyristoyl- | siRNA for all integrin subunits in hepatocytes | Gene delivery | Bogorad et al., 2014 [ | |
|
| |||||
| NPs | Hydroxyapatite | Selenium | Anticancer | Wang et al., 2016 [ | |
| NPs | Albumin | DOX | Galactosamine | Chemotherapy | Shen et al., 2011 [ |
| NPs | Methotrexate and Combretastatin A4 | Pullulan | Anti-angiogenic and chemotherapy | Wang et al., 2013 [ | |
| NPs | Polyisohexylcyanoacrylate (PIHCA) | DOX | Chemotherapy | Barraud et al., 2005 [ | |
| Dendrimer NPs | Lipids cholesterol, 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DSPC), and lipid PEG2000 with amine core and thiol peripeheries | Let-7g microRNA | Gene delivery | Zhou et al., 2016 [ | |
| NPs | Calcium carbonate with lipid coating | Sorafenib (Sor) and miR-375 | Chemotherapy and gene therapy | Zhao et al., 2018 [ | |
| NPs | Insulin multi-methacrylate | DOX | Targeting peptide, Cyclic RGD | Chemotherapy | Bibby et al., 2005 [ |
| NPs | Block copolymer PEG5k-PLA8k | SN38 prodrug | Chemotherapy | Wang et al., 2018 [ | |
|
| |||||
| Nanofibers NPs (immobilized on the nanofibers) | Poly(ε-caprolactone) disulfide cross linked branched PEI (ssPEI) | PTX and miRNA-145 | Chemotherapy and gene delivery | Che et al., 2015 [ | |
| Microspheres | Glass | Phosphorus-32 | Radiotherapy | Wang et al., 2008 [ | |
| Polymer millirods | Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) PLGA | DOX | Chemotherapy | Qian et al., 2002 & 2004 [ | |
| Drug eluting beads | Sulfonate-modified poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel | DOX | TACE, chemotherapy | Pawlik et al., 2011 [ | |
| Drug-eluting microspheres/beads (DEB) | Sulfonate-modified poly(vinyl alcohol) hydrogel | DOX | TACE, chemotherapy | Hong et al., 2006 [ | |
| Drug eluting beads | Polyvinyl alcohol polymer modified with sulfonate groups to form a hyodrogel | DOX | TACE, chemotherapy | Poon et al., 2007 [ | |
| Microspheres | Poly-lactide-co-glycolide PLGA | Mitomycin | TACE, chemotherapy | Qian et al., 2003 [ | |
|
| |||||
| Nanofibers | Lactobionic acid-functionalized electrospun polyvinyl alcohol/polyethyleneimine via PEG spacer | Diagnostic purposes | Cancer diagnosis | Zhao et al., 2015 [ | |
Figure 4Schematic model showing surface and chemical structure of nanodiamond (ND) and Epirubicin (Epi) and the synthesis and aggregation of nanodiamond–Epirubicin drug complex (EPND). Reprinted with permission from ACS Publications, Wang et al., ACS Nano, 2014 [53].
Figure 5Schematic of hepatoma-targeting and stepwise pH-responsive mechanisms of CAPL/PBAE/PLGA NPs. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier, Zhang et al., Journal of Controlled Release, 2016 [57].
Figure 6(a) Transmitted light and laser scanning confocal (overlay) micrographs of blank and drug loaded double-walled PLLA (PLGA) microspheres. The distribution of DOX in Formulations B and D microspheres is indicated in green. The distribution of chi-p53 NPs in formulations C and D microspheres is indicated in red and yellow (colocalization of red and green), respectively. Scale bar = 50 μm. (b) In vitro DOX and chi-p53 release from double-walled PLLA(PLGA) microspheres. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier, Xu et al., Biomaterials, 2013 [58].
Figure 7Preparation of GNPs-DOX-Lac particles. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier, Liu et al., Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, 2018, [65].
Figure 8DOX-containing millirods. Photographs a untreated control (A) and a treated (B) tumor cross section on day 8. The boundary between the tumor and normal liver tissue is indicated with a white dotted outline. The mean cross sectional area of the untreated control and tumors after 4 and 8 days (C). The error bars indicate the standard deviation of each measurement (n = 4). Reprinted and adapted with permission from Wiley, Weinberg et al., Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2007 [99].
Figure 9Schematic of targeted liposomes for imaging and therapy of HCC. The HCC model was developed by in situ injection of DF (Fluc, GFP) HepG2 cells with the progression or regression of HCC bearing tracked by Fluc imaging in vivo. The targeting of CD44 conjugated liposomes can be tracked by Rluc imaging. HCC regression resulted from administration of GCV and DOX. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier, Wang et al., Biomaterials, 2012 [84].
Figure 10The growth profile and metastasis-related gene expression profile of HCC cells cultured in alginate beads. (A) The morphological appearance of MHCC97L and HCCLM3 cells, at day 0 and day 15. Scale bar: 200 μm. (B) Proliferation curves by MTT assay. Quantitative real-time PCR analysis graphs in the bottom side of the figure show gene expression of metalloproteinases (MMPs). β-Actin was used as an internal control. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier, Xu et al., Exp. Cell Res, 2013 [143].
Figure 11(A) Fabrication of a redox-degradable hydrogel by using horseradish peroxidase (HRP) catalysis: self-oxidation of a thiolated polymer generating hydrogen peroxide, hydrogelation (dashed arrows), HRP-mediated phenoxyradical formation promoting disulfide bond between the thiolated polymers (solid arrows). (B) Schematic of the fabrication and the recovery of cellular spheroids using redox-responsive hydrogels: encapsulation of target cells, spheroid formation by cell proliferation, recovery of the spheroids by degrading the scaffolds under reductive conditions. Reprinted with permission from Wiley, Moriyama et al., Biotechnol. J., 2016 [159].
Figure 12Schematic showing the preparation of decellularized liver matrix (DLM) and DLM-alginate hybrid gel beads (DLM–ALG beads). Reprinted with permission from Elsevier, Sun et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromol., 2018 [170].
Figure 13Immunohistochemical analysis of HepG2 cells cultured in monolayers (a,b); samples of HCC tumor (c,d) and HepG2 cells cultured inside PVA/G hydrogels (e,f). For each sample type, negative controls (a,c,e) and β-actin expression (b,d,f) are shown. S1, S2 and S3 in (e,f) define the areas of different morphotype localization within the cell/scaffold constructs. The insert in (f) shows a few cells with a lamellipodial-like expression of β-actin, indicated with an arrow.MDPI Creative Common Attribution license, Moscato et al., J. Funct. Biomater., 2015 [180].
Biomaterials that have been investigated for 3D models for studying liver cancer.
| Biomaterial | Type | Model | Cells | Application | Results | Source, Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Synthetic | ||||||
| PEG (8-arm PEG-SH) | Spheroid | HepG2 | Spheroid formation and recovery due to polymer biodegradation with cysteine | Increased cell function (albumin and urea) | Moriyama et al., 2016 [ | |
| Polystyrene (PHP) | Tissue Engineered (TE) | HepG2 | Structure, function and cytotoxicity study (methotrexate) | TME bio-mimicry: bile duct formation and higher drug resistance | Bokhari et al., 2007 [ | |
| TEOS–PDMS | TE | HepG2 | Function under dynamic flow | TME bio-mimicry: increased proliferation and aggregation capacity, higher albumin synthesis than in 2D cultures | Kataoka et al., 2005 [ | |
| PVA | TE | HepG2 | Function under dynamic flow | TME bio-mimicry: higher albumin synthesis than in 2D cultures | Kataoka et al., 2005 [ | |
| Biologic | ||||||
| Collagen | Hetero-spheroid | HepG2 and stromal fibroblasts | Cytotoxicity study (DOX) | TME bio-mimicry: cell function (P450 activity) and increased drug resistance | Yip et al., 2013 [ | |
| Alginate | Spheroid | MHCC97L HCCLM3 | Metastatic mechanism study | TME bio-mimicry: increased cell maturity, in particular in metastatic cells MHCC97L | Xu et al., 2013 [ | |
| Alginate/chitosan blend | Spheroid | PLC/PRF/5 HepG2 | Cytotoxicity study (DOX) | TME bio-mimicry: increased malignancy and drug resistance | Leung et al., 2010 [ | |
| Silk fibroin | TE | HepR21 HepG2 | TME study | HepR21 showed irregular aggregation and higher proliferation capacity than HepG2 | Kundu et al., 2013 [ | |
| Silk fibroin/chitosan | TE | HepG2 | Liver regeneration | Mechanical properties controllable, good cell proliferation | She et al., 2008 [ | |
| Silk fibroin-lactose (Lac-CY-SF) | TE | FALC-4 | Liver regeneration | Functional gene expression not found using collagen | Gotoh et al., 2011 [ | |
| Composite | ||||||
| Decellularized human liver tissue | TE | LX2 | Liver regeneration | Bio-compatibility and ECM remodeling | Mazza et al., 2015 [ | |
| Alginate/decellularized liver ECM | Bead | HCCLM3 | Metastatic mechanism study | TME bio-mimicry: Increased cell viability and metastatic potential due to liver ECM | Sun et al., 2018 [ | |
| Alginate/gelatin microspheres | Spheroid | HepG2 | Formation of spheroids with defined size by microsphere dissolution with MMP-9 | Spheroids of 200 µm with no necrotic core | Lau et al., 2012 [ | |
| Bioartificial | ||||||
| pNIPAAm-co-gelatin | Spheroid | Hepa/8F5 | Cytotoxicity study | Increased cell function (albumin CYP3A4 activity, ammonia removal) and drug resistance | Sarkar et al., 2017 [ | |
| Collagen-PEG/succinic acid | TE | HepG2 | Effect of material stiffness | Higher cell cluster size and infiltration capacity in softer hydrogels | Liang et al., 2011 [ | |
| PVA/gelatin | TE | HepG2 | Cell migration | TME bio-mimicry: tissue-like cell organization, possibility to visualize migratory phenomena | Moscato et al., 2015 [ |
Figure 14SEM images of HepG2 cells captured onto (a) mPEG-PVA/PEI-Ac and (c) LA-PEG-PVA/PEI-Ac nanofibers, respectively, after 240 min culture; (b,d) are high magnification image of (a,c), respectively. Reprinted with permission from Royal Society of Chemistry, Zhao et al., RSC Advances, 2015 [191].