Challenges and strategies in anti-cancer nanomedicine development: An industry perspective

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Volumn 108, Issue , 2017, Pages 25-38

  Hare, Jennifer I ^a   Lammers, Twan ^b,c,d   Ashford, Marianne B ^e   Puri, Sanyogitta ^e   Storm, Gert ^c,d   Barry, Simon T ^a  

^a CANCER RESEARCH UK CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^e ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical translation; Companion diagnostics; EPR effect; Industry; Nanomedicine; Patient pre selection; Pre clinical models

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSIS; DISEASE CONTROL; DISEASES; INDUSTRY; ONCOLOGY; PLANNING;

APPROPRIATE INVESTMENT; CLINICAL TRANSLATION; DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORKS; DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES; DRUG DELIVERY TECHNOLOGIES; EPR EFFECT; PRE-CLINICAL; PRE-SELECTION;

MEDICAL NANOTECHNOLOGY;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; ASPARAGINASE; AZD 2811; CAMPTOTHECIN; CISPLATIN; CREMOPHOR; CYTARABINE; DAUNORUBICIN; DOCETAXEL; DOXORUBICIN; FIRTECAN; FLOXURIDINE; IRINOTECAN; NANOPARTICLE; OXALIPLATIN; PACLITAXEL; PLATINUM 1,2 DIAMINOCYCLOHEXANE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VINCRISTINE;

CONTROLLED DRUG RELEASE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYTOTOXICITY ASSAY; DECISION MAKING; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG TOLERABILITY; HUMAN; HYDROLYSIS; IN VIVO STUDY; LIMIT OF QUANTITATION; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; NANOMEDICINE; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; REVIEW; SLOW DRUG RELEASE; SUSTAINED DRUG RELEASE; TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT; ANIMAL; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NEOPLASM;

ANIMALS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; HUMANS; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NANOMEDICINE; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84967185402     PISSN: 0169409X     EISSN: 18728294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.04.025     Document Type: Review

References (112)

1. [1] Etheridge, M.L. et al., The big picture on nanomedicine: the state of investigational and approved nanomedicine products. Nanomedicine 9:1 (2013), 1–14.
2. [2] Matsumura, Y., Maeda, H., A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res. 46:12 Pt 1 (1986), 6387–6392.
3. [3] Gerlowski, L.E., Jain, R.K., Microvascular permeability of normal and neoplastic tissues. Microvasc. Res. 31:3 (1986), 288–305.
4. [4] Gabizon, A., Shmeeda, H., Barenholz, Y., Pharmacokinetics of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: review of animal and human studies. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 42:5 (2003), 419–436.
5. [5] Barenholz, Y., Doxil(R)—the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J. Control. Release 160:2 (2012), 117–134.
6. [6] Goebel, F.D. et al., Efficacy and safety of stealth liposomal doxorubicin in AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma. The International SL-DOX Study Group. Br. J. Cancer 73:8 (1996), 989–994.
7. [7] Robert, N.J. et al., The role of the liposomal anthracyclines and other systemic therapies in the management of advanced breast cancer. Semin. Oncol. 31:6 Suppl. 13 (2004), 106–146.
8. [8] Soloman, R., Gabizon, A.A., Clinical pharmacology of liposomal anthracyclines: focus on pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma 8:1 (2008), 21–32.
9. [9] O'Brien, M.E. et al., 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. Ann. Oncol. 15:3 (2004), 440–449.
10. [10] Venditto, V.J., Szoka, F.C. Jr., Cancer nanomedicines: so many papers and so few drugs!. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65:1 (2013), 80–88.
11. [11] Duncan, R., Gaspar, R., Nanomedicine(s) under the microscope. Mol. Pharm. 8:6 (2011), 2101–2141.
12. [12] Sanhai, W.R. et al., Seven challenges for nanomedicine. Nat. Nanotechnol. 3:5 (2008), 242–244.
13. [13] Nichols, J.W., Bae, Y.H., Odyssey of a cancer nanoparticle: from injection site to site of action. Nano Today 7:6 (2012), 606–618.
14. [14] Blanco, E., Shen, H., Ferrari, M., Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery. Nat. Biotechnol. 33:9 (2015), 941–951.
15. [15] Lammers, T. et al., Drug targeting to tumors: principles, pitfalls and (pre-) clinical progress. J. Control. Release 161:2 (2012), 175–187.
16. [16] Prabhakar, U. et al., Challenges and key considerations of the enhanced permeability and retention effect for nanomedicine drug delivery in oncology. Cancer Res. 73:8 (2013), 2412–2417.
17. [17] Cook, D. et al., Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13:6 (2014), 419–431.
18. [18] Sun, T. et al., Engineered nanoparticles for drug delivery in cancer therapy. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Eng. 53:46 (2014), 12320–12364.
19. [19] Hrkach, J. et al., Preclinical development and clinical translation of a PSMA-targeted docetaxel nanoparticle with a differentiated pharmacological profile. Sci. Transl. Med., 4(128), 2012, 128ra39.
20. [20] Geretti, E. et al., Cyclophosphamide-mediated tumor priming for enhanced delivery and antitumor activity of HER2-targeted liposomal doxorubicin (MM-302). Mol. Cancer Ther. 14:9 (2015), 2060–2071.
21. [21] van der Meel, R. et al., Ligand-targeted particulate nanomedicines undergoing clinical evaluation: current status. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65:10 (2013), 1284–1298.
22. [22] Weiss, G.J. et al., First-in-human phase 1/2a trial of CRLX101, a cyclodextrin-containing polymer-camptothecin nanopharmaceutical in patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies. Investig. New Drugs 31:4 (2013), 986–1000.
23. [23] Ashton, S. et al., Aurora kinase inhibitor nanoparticles target tumors with favorable therapeutic index in vivo. Sci. Transl. Med., 8(325), 2016, 325ra17.
24. [24] Gabizon, A., Martin, F., Polyethylene glycol-coated (pegylated) liposomal doxorubicin. Rationale for use in solid tumours. Drugs(54 Suppl. 4), 1997, 15–21.
25. [25] Zamboni, W.C. et al., Best practices in cancer nanotechnology: perspective from NCI nanotechnology alliance. Clin. Cancer Res. 18:12 (2012), 3229–3241.
26. [26] Moghimi, S.M., Hunter, A.C., Andresen, T.L., Factors controlling nanoparticle pharmacokinetics: an integrated analysis and perspective. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 52 (2012), 481–503.
27. [27] Gabizon, A. et al., Prolonged circulation time and enhanced accumulation in malignant exudates of doxorubicin encapsulated in polyethylene-glycol coated liposomes. Cancer Res. 54:4 (1994), 987–992.
28. [28] Bakker-Woudenberg, I.A. et al., Enhanced localization of liposomes with prolonged blood circulation time in infected lung tissue. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1138:4 (1992), 318–326.
29. [29] Gabizon, A., Papahadjopoulos, D., Liposome formulations with prolonged circulation time in blood and enhanced uptake by tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 85:18 (1988), 6949–6953.
30. [30] Maeda, H., SMANCS and polymer-conjugated macromolecular drugs: advantages in cancer chemotherapy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 6 (1991), 181–202.
31. [31] Yuan, F. et al., Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size. Cancer Res. 55:17 (1995), 3752–3756.
32. [32] Wu, N.Z. et al., Increased microvascular permeability contributes to preferential accumulation of stealth liposomes in tumor tissue. Cancer Res. 53:16 (1993), 3765–3770.
33. [33] Popovic, Z. et al., A nanoparticle size series for in vivo fluorescence imaging. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Eng. 49:46 (2010), 8649–8652.
34. [34] Cabral, H. et al., Accumulation of sub-100 nm polymeric micelles in poorly permeable tumours depends on size. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6:12 (2011), 815–823.
35. [35] Wang, J. et al., The role of micelle size in tumor accumulation, penetration, and treatment. ACS Nano, 2015.
36. [36] Dreher, M.R. et al., Tumor vascular permeability, accumulation, and penetration of macromolecular drug carriers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 98:5 (2006), 335–344.
37. [37] Yue, J. et al., Size-dependent biodistribution and antitumour efficacy of polymer micelle drug delivery systems. J. Mater. Chem. B 1:34 (2013), 4273–4280.
38. [38] Chytil, P. et al., Dual fluorescent HPMA copolymers for passive tumor targeting with pH-sensitive drug release II: impact of release rate on biodistribution. J. Control. Release 172:2 (2013), 504–512.
39. [39] Duncan, R., Vicent, M.J., Polymer therapeutics-prospects for 21st century: the end of the beginning. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65:1 (2013), 60–70.
40. [40] Kopecek, J., Polymer-drug conjugates: origins, progress to date and future directions. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65:1 (2013), 49–59.
41. [41] Ashley, G.W. et al., Hydrogel drug delivery system with predictable and tunable drug release and degradation rates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110:6 (2013), 2318–2323.
42. [42] Hu, Q. et al., A novel approach for the intravenous delivery of leuprolide using core-cross-linked polymeric micelles. J. Control. Release 205 (2015), 98–108.
43. [43] Langer, C.J. et al., Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) in combination with carboplatin versus standard paclitaxel and carboplatin in the treatment of PS 2 patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 3:6 (2008), 623–630.
44. [44] Melancon, M.P. et al., A novel method for imaging in vivo degradation of poly(L-glutamic acid), a biodegradable drug carrier. Pharm. Res. 24:6 (2007), 1217–1224.
45. [45] Moghimi, S.M., Farhangrazi, Z.S., Just so stories: the random acts of anti-cancer nanomedicine performance. Nanomedicine 10:8 (2014), 1661–1666.
46. [46] Jain, R.K., Stylianopoulos, T., Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 7:11 (2010), 653–664.
47. [47] Park, K., Facing the truth about nanotechnology in drug delivery. ACS Nano 7:9 (2013), 7442–7447.
48. [48] Taurin, S., Nehoff, H., Greish, K., Anticancer nanomedicine and tumor vascular permeability; where is the missing link?. J. Control. Release 164:3 (2012), 265–275.
49. [49] Bertrand, N. et al., Cancer nanotechnology: the impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 66 (2014), 2–25.
50. [50] Lammers, T. et al., Personalized nanomedicine. Clin. Cancer Res. 18:18 (2012), 4889–4894.
51. [51] Noguchi, Y. et al., Early phase tumor accumulation of macromolecules: a great difference in clearance rate between tumor and normal tissues. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 89:3 (1998), 307–314.
52. [52] Maeda, H., Toward a full understanding of the EPR effect in primary and metastatic tumors as well as issues related to its heterogeneity. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 91 (2015), 3–6.
53. [53] Konno, T. et al., Selective targeting of anti-cancer drug and simultaneous image enhancement in solid tumors by arterially administered lipid contrast medium. Cancer 54:11 (1984), 2367–2374.
54. [54] Seymour, L.W., Passive tumor targeting of soluble macromolecules and drug conjugates. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 9:2 (1992), 135–187.
55. [55] Ojha, T. et al., Image-guided drug delivery: preclinical applications and clinical translation. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 12:8 (2015), 1203–1207.
56. [56] Harrington, K.J. et al., Effective targeting of solid tumors in patients with locally advanced cancers by radiolabeled pegylated liposomes. Clin. Cancer Res. 7:2 (2001), 243–254.
57. [57] Nagamitsu, A., Greish, K., Maeda, H., Elevating blood pressure as a strategy to increase tumor-targeted delivery of macromolecular drug SMANCS: cases of advanced solid tumors. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 39:11 (2009), 756–766.
58. [58] Koukourakis, M.I. et al., Liposomal doxorubicin and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and head and neck cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 17:11 (1999), 3512–3521.
59. [59] Clark, A.J. et al., CRLX101 nanoparticles localize in human tumors and not in adjacent, nonneoplastic tissue after intravenous dosing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 113:14 (2016), 3850–3854.
60. [60] Hansen, A.E. et al., Positron emission tomography based elucidation of the enhanced permeability and retention effect in dogs with cancer using copper-64 liposomes. ACS Nano, 2015.
61. [61] Jain, R.K., Normalizing tumor microenvironment to treat cancer: bench to bedside to biomarkers. J. Clin. Oncol. 31:17 (2013), 2205–2218.
62. [62] Nagy, J.A. et al., Why are tumour blood vessels abnormal and why is it important to know?. Br. J. Cancer 100:6 (2009), 865–869.
63. [63] Carmeliet, P., Jain, R.K., Molecular mechanisms and clinical applications of angiogenesis. Nature 473:7347 (2011), 298–307.
64. [64] Dvorak, H.F. et al., Vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular hyperpermeability, and angiogenesis. Am. J. Pathol. 146:5 (1995), 1029–1039.
65. [65] Padera, T.P. et al., Pathology: cancer cells compress intratumour vessels. Nature, 427(6976), 2004, 695.
66. [66] Goel, S. et al., Normalization of the vasculature for treatment of cancer and other diseases. Physiol. Rev. 91:3 (2011), 1071–1121.
67. [67] Folkman, J., Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N. Engl. J. Med. 285:21 (1971), 1182–1186.
68. [68] Beziere, N. et al., Dynamic imaging of PEGylated indocyanine green (ICG) liposomes within the tumor microenvironment using multi-spectral optoacoustic tomography (MSOT). Biomaterials 37 (2015), 415–424.
69. [69] Stapleton, S. et al., The intra-tumoral relationship between microcirculation, interstitial fluid pressure and liposome accumulation. J. Control. Release 211 (2015), 163–170.
70. [70] Stapleton, S. et al., Tumor perfusion imaging predicts the intra-tumoral accumulation of liposomes. J. Control. Release 172:1 (2013), 351–357.
71. [71] Ekdawi, S.N. et al., Spatial and temporal mapping of heterogeneity in liposome uptake and microvascular distribution in an orthotopic tumor xenograft model. J. Control. Release 207 (2015), 101–111.
72. [72] Theek, B. et al., Characterizing EPR-mediated passive drug targeting using contrast-enhanced functional ultrasound imaging. J. Control. Release 182 (2014), 83–89.
73. [73] Ito, K. et al., Radiolabeled liposome imaging determines an indication for liposomal anticancer agent in ovarian cancer mouse xenograft models. Cancer Sci. 107:1 (2016), 60–67.
74. [74] Chauhan, V.P. et al., Delivery of molecular and nanoscale medicine to tumors: transport barriers and strategies. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 2 (2011), 281–298.
75. [75] Jain, R.K., Baxter, L.T., Mechanisms of heterogeneous distribution of monoclonal antibodies and other macromolecules in tumors: significance of elevated interstitial pressure. Cancer Res. 48:24 Pt 1 (1988), 7022–7032.
76. [76] Karathanasis, E. et al., Imaging nanoprobe for prediction of outcome of nanoparticle chemotherapy by using mammography. Radiology 250:2 (2009), 398–406.
77. [77] Kiessling, F. et al., Nanoparticles for imaging: top or flop?. Radiology 273:1 (2014), 10–28.
78. [78] Chow, E.K., Ho, D., Cancer nanomedicine: from drug delivery to imaging. Sci. Transl. Med., 5(216), 2013, 216rv4.
79. [79] Lammers, T. et al., Nanotheranostics and image-guided drug delivery: current concepts and future directions. Mol. Pharm. 7:6 (2010), 1899–1912.
80. [80] Miller, M.A. et al., Predicting therapeutic nanomedicine efficacy using a companion magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle. Sci. Transl. Med., 7(314), 2015, 314ra183.
81. [81] Sachdev, J.C. et al., Abstract P5-01-06: characterization of metastatic breast cancer lesions with ferumoxytol MRI and treatment response to MM-398, nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI). Cancer Res., 75(9 Suppl.), 2015, P5-01-06.
82. [82] Sondak, V.K. et al., Combined analysis of phase III trials evaluating [(9)(9)mTc]tilmanocept and vital blue dye for identification of sentinel lymph nodes in clinically node-negative cutaneous melanoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 20:2 (2013), 680–688.
83. [83] Wallace, A.M. et al., Comparative evaluation of [(99 m)tc]tilmanocept for sentinel lymph node mapping in breast cancer patients: results of two phase 3 trials. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 20:8 (2013), 2590–2599.
84. [84] Whitley, M.J. et al., A mouse–human phase 1 co-clinical trial of a protease-activated fluorescent probe for imaging cancer. Sci. Transl. Med., 8(320), 2016, 320ra4.
85. [85] Chauhan, V.P., Jain, R.K., Strategies for advancing cancer nanomedicine. Nat. Mater. 12:11 (2013), 958–962.
86. [86] Stylianopoulos, T. et al., Causes, consequences, and remedies for growth-induced solid stress in murine and human tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109:38 (2012), 15101–15108.
87. [87] Miao, L., Lin, C.M., Huang, L., Stromal barriers and strategies for the delivery of nanomedicine to desmoplastic tumors. J. Control. Release, 2015.
88. [88] Kanapathipillai, M., Brock, A., Ingber, D.E., Nanoparticle targeting of anti-cancer drugs that alter intracellular signaling or influence the tumor microenvironment. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 79-80 (2014), 107–118.
89. [89] Eikenes, L. et al., Hyaluronidase induces a transcapillary pressure gradient and improves the distribution and uptake of liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in human osteosarcoma xenografts. Br. J. Cancer 93:1 (2005), 81–88.
90. [90] Buckway, B. et al., Overcoming the stromal barrier for targeted delivery of HPMA copolymers to pancreatic tumors. Int. J. Pharm. 456:1 (2013), 202–211.
91. [91] McKee, T.D. et al., Degradation of fibrillar collagen in a human melanoma xenograft improves the efficacy of an oncolytic herpes simplex virus vector. Cancer Res. 66:5 (2006), 2509–2513.
92. [92] Diop-Frimpong, B. et al., Losartan inhibits collagen I synthesis and improves the distribution and efficacy of nanotherapeutics in tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108:7 (2011), 2909–2914.
93. [93] Kanapathipillai, M. et al., Inhibition of mammary tumor growth using lysyl oxidase-targeting nanoparticles to modify extracellular matrix. Nano Lett. 12:6 (2012), 3213–3217.
94. [94] Chauhan, V.P. et al., Normalization of tumour blood vessels improves the delivery of nanomedicines in a size-dependent manner. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7:6 (2012), 383–388.
95. [95] Albanese, A. et al., Tumour-on-a-chip provides an optical window into nanoparticle tissue transport. Nat. Commun., 4, 2013, 2718.
96. [96] Kirtane, A.R., Siegel, R.A., Panyam, J., A pharmacokinetic model for quantifying the effect of vascular permeability on the choice of drug carrier: a framework for personalized nanomedicine. J. Pharm. Sci. 104:3 (2015), 1174–1186.
97. [97] Ashton, S. et al., AZD1152HQPA Accurin™ nanoparticles inhibit growth of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas and small cell lung cancer [abstract]. Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18–22; Philadelphia, PA., 2015, 2015, AACR (p. Abstract nr 3102).
98. [98] Barry, S.T. et al., AZD1152-hQPA Accurins: nanoparticle formulations showing extended release and the potential for improved therapeutic index [abstract]. Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research Cancer Res., 74(19 Suppl.), 2014 (p. Abstract nr 5409).
99. [99] Uziely, B. et al., Liposomal doxorubicin: antitumor activity and unique toxicities during two complementary phase I studies. J. Clin. Oncol. 13:7 (1995), 1777–1785.
100. [100] Waterhouse, D.N. et al., A comparison of liposomal formulations of doxorubicin with drug administered in free form: changing toxicity profiles. Drug Saf. 24:12 (2001), 903–920.
101. [101] Gould, S.E., Junttila, M.R., de Sauvage, F.J., Translational value of mouse models in oncology drug development. Nat. Med. 21:5 (2015), 431–439.
102. [102] Lum, D.H. et al., Overview of human primary tumorgraft models: comparisons with traditional oncology preclinical models and the clinical relevance and utility of primary tumorgrafts in basic and translational oncology research. Curr. Protoc. Pharmacol., 11, 2012 (Chapter 14: p. Unit 14.22).
103. [103] Ruggeri, B.A., Camp, F., Miknyoczki, S., Animal models of disease: pre-clinical animal models of cancer and their applications and utility in drug discovery. Biochem. Pharmacol. 87:1 (2014), 150–161.
104. [104] Kerbel, R.S., Human tumor xenografts as predictive preclinical models for anticancer drug activity in humans: better than commonly perceived-but they can be improved. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2:4 Suppl. 1 (2003), S134–S139.
105. [105] Day, C.P., Merlino, G., Van Dyke, T., Preclinical mouse cancer models: a maze of opportunities and challenges. Cell 163:1 (2015), 39–53.
106. [106] Morgan, R.A., Human tumor xenografts: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Mol. Ther. 20:5 (2012), 882–884.
107. [107] Kalra, A.V. et al., Preclinical activity of nanoliposomal irinotecan is governed by tumor deposition and intratumor prodrug conversion. Cancer Res. 74:23 (2014), 7003–7013.
108. [108] Song, G. et al., Effects of tumor microenvironment heterogeneity on nanoparticle disposition and efficacy in breast cancer tumor models. Clin. Cancer Res. 20:23 (2014), 6083–6095.
109. [109] Smith, N.R. et al., Tumor stromal architecture can define the intrinsic tumor response to VEGF-targeted therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 19:24 (2013), 6943–6956.
110. [110] DeRose, Y.S. et al., Tumor grafts derived from women with breast cancer authentically reflect tumor pathology, growth, metastasis and disease outcomes. Nat. Med. 17:11 (2011), 1514–1520.
111. [111] Delgado San Martin, J.A. et al., Tumour stromal morphology impacts nanomedicine cytotoxicity in patient-derived xenografts. Nanomedicine, 2015.
112. [112] Allen, T.M. et al., Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lipidic nano-particles in cancer. Anti Cancer Agents Med. Chem. 6:6 (2006), 513–523.