Calibration-quality cancer nanotherapeutics

Cancer Treatment and Research

Volumn 166, Issue , 2015, Pages 275-291

  Perry, Jillian L ^a   Kai, Marc P ^b   Reuter, Kevin G ^c   Bowerman, Charles ^a   Christopher Luft, J ^a,d   DeSimone, Joseph M ^a,b,c,d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b North Carolina State University   (United States)

^c The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^d UNC Hamner Institute for Drug Safety Sciences   (United States)

^e MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Engineered cancer therapeutics; Industrialized process; Personalized medicine; Pro drug; Tunable nanoparticle parameters

Indexed keywords

DOCETAXEL; DOXORUBICIN; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; GEMCITABINE; MACROGOL; NANOPARTICLE; POLY(METHYL METHACRYLATE); POLYGLACTIN; VASCULOTROPIN; WORTMANNIN; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; NANOCONJUGATE;

ARTICLE; CANCER THERAPY; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG RELEASE; ENHANCED PERMEABILITY AND RETENTION EFFECT; HUMAN; KAPOSI SARCOMA; MEDICAL PARAMETERS; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; MONONUCLEAR PHAGOCYTE; NANOENCAPSULATION; NANOENGINEERING; NANOFABRICATION; NANOMEDICINE; NEOPLASM; NONHUMAN; PARTICLE SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN TARGETING; SURFACE PROPERTY; TISSUE PRESSURE; TUMOR VOLUME; TUMOR XENOGRAFT; ANIMAL; CALIBRATION; CHEMISTRY; NEOPLASMS; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; CALIBRATION; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; HUMANS; NANOCONJUGATES; NANOMEDICINE; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84928539964     PISSN: 09273042     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-16555-4_12     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Jain RK, Stylianopoulos T (2010) Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7(11):653-664
2. Moghimi SM, Hunter AC, Murray JC (2001) Long-circulating and target-specific nanoparticles: theory to practice. Pharmacol Rev 53(2):283-318
3. Matsumura Y, Maeda H (1986) A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancerchemotherapy- mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res 46(12):6387-6392
4. Peer D et al (2007) Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nano 2 (12):751-760
5. Marusyk A, Almendro V, Polyak K (2012) Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for cancer? Nat Rev Cancer 12(5):323-334
6. Van Furth R (1982) Current view on the mononuclear phagocyte system. Immunobiology 161 (3-4):178-185
7. Nel AE et al (2009) Understanding biophysicochemical interactions at the nano-bio interface. Nat Mater 8(7):543-557
8. Champion JA, Katare YK, Mitragotri S (2007) Particle shape: a new design parameter for micro- and nanoscale drug delivery carriers. J Controlled Release 121(1-2):3-9
9. Euliss LE et al (2006) Imparting size, shape, and composition control of materials for nanomedicine. Chem Soc Rev 35(11):1095-1104
10. Kersey FR et al (2012) Effect of aspect ratio and deformability on nanoparticle extravasation through nanopores. Langmuir 28(23):8773-8781
11. Byrne JD, Betancourt T, Brannon-Peppas L (2008) Active targeting schemes for nanoparticle systems in cancer therapeutics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60(15):1615-1626
12. Benhabbour SR et al (2012) In vitro and in vivo assessment of targeting lipid-based nanoparticles to the epidermal growth factor-receptor (EGFR) using a novel Heptameric Z (EGFR) domain. J Controlled Release 158(1):63-71
13. Mahon E et al (2012) Designing the nanoparticle-biomolecule interface for targeting and therapeutic delivery. J Controlled Release 161(2):164-174
14. Liu Y et al (2012) The shape of things to come: importance of design in nanotechnology for drug delivery. Ther deliv 3(2):181-194
15. Rolland JP et al (2005) Direct fabrication and harvesting of monodisperse, shape-specific nanobiomaterials. J Am Chem Soc 127(28):10096-10100
16. Alexis F et al (2008) Factors affecting the clearance and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Mol Pharm 5(4):505-515
17. Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WCW (2012) The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 14(14):1-16
18. Champion JA, Katare YK, Mitragotri S (2007) Making polymeric micro- and nanoparticles of complex shapes. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 104(29):11901-11904
19. Champion JA, Mitragotri S (2009) Shape induced inhibition of phagocytosis of polymer particles. Pharm Res 26(1):244-249
20. Carboni E et al (2014) Particle margination and its implications on intravenous anticancer drug delivery. Aaps Pharmscitech 15(3):762-771
21. Decuzzi P et al (2010) Size and shape effects in the biodistribution of intravascularly injected particles. J Controlled Release 141(3):320-327
22. Gentile F et al (2008) The effect of shape on the margination dynamics of non-neutrally buoyant particles in two-dimensional shear flows. J Biomech 41(10):2312-2318
23. Geng Y et al (2007) Shape effects of filaments versus spherical particles in flow and drug delivery. Nat Nanotechnol 2(4):249-255
24. Gratton SEA et al (2008) The effect of particle design on cellular internalization pathways. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 105(33):11613-11618
25. Toy R et al (2014) Shaping cancer nanomedicine: the effect of particle shape on the in vivo journey of nanoparticles. Nanomedicine 9(1):121-134
26. Decuzzi P et al (2005) A theoretical model for the margination of particles within blood vessels. Ann Biomed Eng 33(2):179-190
27. Decuzzi P et al (2009) Intravascular delivery of particulate systems: does geometry really matter? Pharm Res 26(1):235-243
28. Champion JA, Mitragotri S (2006) Role of target geometry in phagocytosis. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 103(13):4930-4934
29. Sharma G et al (2010) Polymer particle shape independently influences binding and internalization by macrophages. J Controlled Release 147(3):408-412
30. Arnida et al (2011) Geometry and surface characteristics of gold nanoparticles influence their biodistribution and uptake by macrophages. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 77(3):417-423
31. Perrault SD et al (2009) Mediating tumor targeting efficiency of nanoparticles through design. Nano Lett 9(5):1909-1915
32. Dreher MR et al (2006) Tumor vascular permeability, accumulation, and penetration of macromolecular drug carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(5):335-344
33. Cabral H et al (2011) Accumulation of sub-100 nm polymeric micelles in poorly permeable tumours depends on size. Nat Nanotechnol 6(12):815-823
34. Chauhan VP et al (2011) Fluorescent nanorods and nanospheres for real-time in vivo probing of nanoparticle shape-dependent tumor penetration. Angew Chem Int Ed 50(48):11417-11420
35. Chu KS et al (2013) Plasma, tumor and tissue pharmacokinetics of Docetaxel delivered via nanoparticles of different sizes and shapes in mice bearing SKOV-3 human ovarian carcinoma xenograft. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 9(5):686-693
36. Chu KS et al (2013) Nanoparticle drug loading as a design parameter to improve docetaxel pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Biomaterials 34(33):8424-8429
37. Christian DA et al (2009) Flexible filaments for in vivo imaging and delivery: persistent circulation of filomicelles opens the dosage window for sustained tumor shrinkage. Mol Pharm 6(5):1343-1352
38. Park J-H et al (2008) Magnetic iron oxide nanoworms for tumor targeting and imaging. Adv Mater 20(9):1630-1635
39. Sarin H (2010) Physiologic upper limits of pore size of different blood capillary types and another perspective on the dual pore theory of microvascular permeability. J Angiogenesis Res 2:14
40. Merkel TJ et al (2011) Using mechanobiological mimicry of red blood cells to extend circulation times of hydrogel microparticles. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 108(2):586-591
41. Zhang L et al (2012) Softer zwitterionic nanogels for longer circulation and lower splenic accumulation. ACS Nano 6(8):6681-6686
42. Bae Y et al (2003) Design of environment-sensitive supramolecular assemblies for intracellular drug delivery: polymeric micelles that are responsive to intracellular pH change. Angew Chem Int Ed 42(38):4640-4643
43. Bohmer MR et al (2009) Ultrasound triggered image-guided drug delivery. Eur J Radiol 70 (2):242-253
44. Caldorera-Moore M et al (2010) Designer nanoparticles: incorporating size, shape and triggered release into nanoscale drug carriers. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 7(4):479-495
45. Doshi N, Mitragotri S (2009) Designer biomaterials for nanomedicine. Adv Funct Mater 19 (24):3843-3854
46. Ganta S et al (2008) A review of stimuli-responsive nanocarriers for drug and gene delivery. J Controlled Release 126(3):187-204
47. Makadia HK, Siegel SJ (2011) Poly Lactic-co-Glycolic Acid (PLGA) as biodegradable controlled drug delivery carrier. Polymers 3(3):1377-1397
48. Sethi M et al (2014) Effect of drug release kinetics on nanoparticle therapeutic efficacy and toxicity. Nanoscale 6(4):2321-2327
49. Kratz F et al (2008) Prodrug strategies in anticancer chemotherapy. ChemMedChem 3(1):20- 53
50. Chu KS et al (2014) Particle replication in nonwetting templates nanoparticles with tumor selective alkyl silyl ether docetaxel prodrug reduces toxicity. Nano Lett 14:1472-1476
51. Tannock IF, Rotin D (1989) Acid PH in tumors and its potential for therapeutic exploitation. Cancer Res 49(16):4373-4384
52. Parrott MC et al (2012) Incorporation and controlled release of silyl ether prodrugs from PRINT nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 134(18):7978-7982
53. Wang W et al (2014) Tailor-made gemcitabine prodrug nanoparticles from well-defined drugpolymer amphiphiles prepared by controlled living radical polymerization for cancer chemotherapy. J Mater Chem B 2(13):1891-1901
54. Gref R et al (2000) Stealth corona-core nanoparticles surface modified by polyethylene glycol (PEG): influences of the corona (PEG chain length and surface density) and of the core composition on phagocytic uptake and plasma protein adsorption. Colloids Surf, B 18(3- 4):301-313
55. Perry JL et al. (2012) PEGylated PRINT nanoparticles: the impact of PEG density on protein binding, macrophage association, biodistribution, and pharmacokinetics. Nano Lett 12 (10):5304-5310
56. García I, Marradi M, Penadés S (2010) Glyconanoparticles: multifunctional nanomaterials for biomedical applications. Nanomedicine 5(5):777-792
57. García KP et al (2014) Zwitterionic-coated stealth nanoparticles for biomedical applications: recent advances in countering biomolecular corona formation and uptake by the mononuclear phagocyte system. Small 10(13):2516-2529
58. Pirollo KF, Chang EH (2008) Does a targeting ligand influence nanoparticle tumor localization or uptake? Trends Biotechnol 26(10):552-558
59. Lammers T et al (2012) Drug targeting to tumors: Principles, pitfalls and (pre-) clinical progress. J Controlled Release 161(2):175-187
60. Kamaly N et al (2012) Targeted polymeric therapeutic nanoparticles: design, development and clinical translation. Chem Soc Rev 41(7):2971-3010
61. Hrkach J et al (2012) Preclinical development and clinical translation of a PSMA-targeted docetaxel nanoparticle with a differentiated pharmacological profile. Science Translational Medicine 4(128)
62. Wang J et al (2010) The complex role of multivalency in nanoparticles targeting the transferrin receptor for cancer therapies. J Am Chem Soc 132(32):11306-11313
63. Decuzzi P, Ferrari M (2006) The adhesive strength of non-spherical particles mediated by specific interactions. Biomaterials 27(30):5307-5314
64. Shah S et al (2011) Modeling particle shape-dependent dynamics in nanomedicine. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 11(2):919-928
65. Liu Y, Shah S, Tan J (2012) Computational modeling of nanoparticle targeted drug delivery. Rev Nanosci Nanotechnol 1(1):66-83
66. Kolhar P et al (2013) Using shape effects to target antibody-coated nanoparticles to lung and brain endothelium. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 110(26):10753-10758
67. Morigi V (2012) Nanotechnology in medicine: from inception to market domination. J drug delivery 2012:389485
68. Combest AJ et al (2012) Genetically engineered cancer models, but not xenografts, faithfully predict anticancer drug exposure in melanoma tumors. Oncologist 17(10):1303-1316
69. Usary J et al (2013) Predicting drug responsiveness in human cancers using genetically engineered mice. Clin Cancer Res 19(17):4889-4899
70. Herschkowitz JI et al (2007) Identification of conserved gene expression features between murine mammary carcinoma models and human breast tumors. Genome Biol 8(5):R76