Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics

Nature Communications

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2018, Pages

  Rosenblum, Daniel ^a   Joshi, Nitin ^b,c   Tao, Wei ^b   Karp, Jeffrey M ^b,c   Peer, Dan ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c HARVARD MIT DIVISION OF HEALTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER; DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY; TUMOR;

CANCER THERAPY; HUMAN; REVIEW; CHEMISTRY; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG FORMULATION; GENETICS; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; NANOMEDICINE; NEOPLASM; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; DRUG CARRIER; NANOPARTICLE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG CARRIERS; DRUG COMPOUNDING; HUMANS; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY; NANOMEDICINE; NANOPARTICLES; NEOPLASMS;

EID: 85045523734     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20411723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-03705-y     Document Type: Review

References (93)

1. Peer, D. et al Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat. Nano 2, 751-760 (2007).
2. Wilhelm, S. et al Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16014 (2016).
3. Sadauskas, E. et al. Kupffer cells are central in the removal of nanoparticles from the organism. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 4, 1-7 (2007).
4. Blanco, E., Shen, H. & Ferrari, M. Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery. Nat. Biotech. 33, 941-951 (2015).
5. Anselmo, A. C. & Mitragotri, S. Nanoparticles in the clinic. Bioeng. Transl. Med. 1, 10-29 (2016).
6. Kumari, P., & Ghosh, B. & Biswas, S. Nanocarriers for cancer-targeted drug delivery. J. Drug Target 24, 179-191 (2015).
7. Shi, J., Kantoff, P. W., Wooster, R. & Farokhzad, O. C. Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer 17, 20-37 (2017).
8. Saha, R. N., Vasanthakumar, S., Bende, G. & Snehalatha, M. Nanoparticulate drug delivery systems for cancer chemotherapy. Mol. Membr. Biol. 27, 215-231 (2010).
9. Alexis, F., Pridgen, E., Molnar, L. K. & Farokhzad, O. C. Factors affecting the clearance and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Mol. Pharm. 5, 505-515 (2008).
10. Byrne, J. D., Betancourt, T. & Brannon-Peppas, L. Active targeting schemes for nanoparticle systems in cancer therapeutics. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 60, 1615-1626 (2008).
11. Bogart, L. K. et al. Nanoparticles for imaging, sensing, and therapeutic intervention. ACS Nano 8, 3107-3122 (2014).
12. Barenholz, Y. Doxil®-the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J. Control. Release 160, 117-134 (2012).
13. Rosenblum, D. & Peer, D. Omics-based nanomedicine: the future of personalized oncology. Cancer Lett. 352, 126-136 (2014).
14. 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, 6387-6392 (1986).
15. Awada, A. et al. A randomized controlled phase II trial of a novel composition of paclitaxel embedded into neutral and cationic lipids targeting tumor endothelial cells in advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Ann. Oncol. 25, 824-831 (2014).
16. Burris, H. A. et al. A phase I, open-label, first-time-in-patient dose escalation and expansion study to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of nanoparticle encapsulated Aurora B kinase inhibitor AZD2811 in patients with advanced solid tumours. J. Clin. Oncol. 35, TPS2608-TPS2608 (2017).
17. Batist, G. et al. A multicenter, phase II study of CPX-1 liposome injection in patients (pts) with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 4108-4108 (2008).
18. Gradishar, W. J. et al. Phase III trial of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 7794-7803 (2005).
19. Lancet, J. E. et al. Final results of a phase III randomized trial of CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 in older patients with newly diagnosed high risk (secondary) AML. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 7000-7000 (2016).
20. Chauhan, V. P. & Jain, R. K. Strategies for advancing cancer nanomedicine. Nat. Mater. 12, 958-962 (2013).
21. Yuan, F. et al. Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size. Cancer Res. 55, 3752-3756 (1995).
22. Lee, H., Hoang, B., Fonge, H., Reilly, R. M. & Allen, C. In vivo distribution of polymeric nanoparticles at the whole-body, tumor, and cellular levels. Pharm. Res. 27, 2343-2355 (2010).
23. Ernsting, M. J., Murakami, M., Roy, A. & Li, S.-D. Factors controlling the pharmacokinetics, biodistribution and intratumoral penetration of nanoparticles. J. Control. Release 172, 782-794 (2013).
24. CabralH et al. Accumulation of sub-100 nm polymeric micelles in poorly permeable tumours depends on size. Nat. Nano 6, 815-823 (2011).
25. Kolhar, P. et al. Using shape effects to target antibody-coated nanoparticles to lung and brain endothelium. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 10753-10758 (2013).
26. Wong, C. et al. Multistage nanoparticle delivery system for deep penetration into tumor tissue. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2426-2431 (2011).
27. Tong, R., Hemmati, H. D., Langer, R. & Kohane, D. S. Photoswitchable nanoparticles for triggered tissue penetration and drug delivery. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 8848-8855 (2012).
28. Tong, R., Chiang, H. H. & Kohane, D. S. Photoswitchable nanoparticles for in vivo cancer chemotherapy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 19048-19053 (2013).
29. Li, H.-J. et al. Stimuli-responsive clustered nanoparticles for improved tumor penetration and therapeutic efficacy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4164-4169 (2016).
30. Tang, L., Fan, T. M., Borst, L. B. & Cheng, J. Synthesis and biological response of size-specific, monodisperse drug-silica nanoconjugates. ACS Nano 6, 3954-3966 (2012).
31. Toy, R., Peiris, P. M., Ghaghada, K. B. & Karathanasis, E. Shaping cancer nanomedicine: the effect of particle shape on the in vivo journey of nanoparticles. Nanomed 9, 121-134 (2014).
32. Smith, B. R. et al. Shape matters: intravital microscopy reveals surprising geometrical dependence for nanoparticles in tumor models of extravasation. Nano. Lett. 12, 3369-3377 (2012).
33. Barua, S. et al. Particle shape enhances specificity of antibody-displaying nanoparticles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 3270-3275 (2013).
34. Ananta, J. S. et al. Geometrical confinement of gadolinium-based contrast agents in nanoporous particles enhances T1 contrast. Nat. Nanotechnol. 5, 815 (2010).
35. Anselmo, A. C. et al. Elasticity of nanoparticles influences their blood circulation, phagocytosis, endocytosis, and targeting. ACS Nano 9, 3169-3177 (2015).
36. Sykes, E. A. et al. Tailoring nanoparticle designs to target cancer based on tumor pathophysiology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E1142-E1151 (2016).
37. Theek, B. et al. Characterizing EPR-mediated passive drug targeting using contrast-enhanced functional ultrasound imaging. J. Control. Release 182, 83-89 (2014).
38. 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 9, 6985-6995 (2015).
39. Miller, M. A. et al. Predicting therapeutic nanomedicine efficacy using a companion magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 314ra183 (2015).
40. Lee, H. et al. 64Cu-MM-302 positron emission tomography quantifies variability of enhanced permeability and retention of nanoparticles in relation to treatment response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 4190-4202 (2017).
41. van Vlerken, L. E., Duan, Z., Little, S. R., Seiden, M. V. & Amiji, M. M. Biodistribution and pharmacokinetic analysis of paclitaxel and ceramide administered in multifunctional polymer-blend nanoparticles in drug resistant breast cancer model. Mol. Pharm. 5, 516-526 (2008).
42. Cui, Y. et al. Dual-targeting magnetic PLGA nanoparticles for codelivery of paclitaxel and curcumin for brain tumor therapy. ACS Appl. Mater. & Interfaces 8, 32159-32169 (2016).
43. Peer, D. & Margalit, R. Tumor-targeted hyaluronan nanoliposomes increase the antitumor activity of liposomal doxorubicin in syngeneic and human xenograft mouse tumor models. Neoplasia 6, 343-353 (2004).
44. Shi, J., Xiao, Z., Kamaly, N. & Farokhzad, O. C. Self-assembled targeted nanoparticles: evolution of technologies and bench to bedside translation. Acc. Chem. Res. 44, 1123-1134 (2011).
45. Xu, R. et al. An injectable nanoparticle generator enhances delivery of cancer therapeutics. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 414-418 (2016).
46. Levy, O. et al. A prodrug-doped cellular Trojan Horse for the potential treatment of prostate cancer. Biomaterials 91, 140-150 (2016).
47. Huang, B. et al. Active targeting of chemotherapy to disseminated tumors using nanoparticle-carrying T cells. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 291ra294 (2015).
48. Bertrand, N., Wu, J., Xu, X., Kamaly, N. & Farokhzad, O. C. Cancer nanotechnology: the impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 66, 2-25 (2014).
49. Farokhzad, O. C. & Langer, R. Impact of nanotechnology on drug delivery. ACS Nano 3, 16-20 (2009).
50. Kirpotin, D. B. et al. Antibody targeting of long-circulating lipidic nanoparticles does not increase tumor localization but does increase internalization in animal models. Cancer Res. 66, 6732 (2006).
51. Schmidt, M. M. & Wittrup, K. D. A modeling analysis of the effects of molecular size and binding affinity on tumor targeting. Mol. Cancer Ther. 8, 2861 (2009).
52. Sahay, G., Alakhova, D. Y. & Kabanov, A. V. Endocytosis of nanomedicines. J. Control. Release.: Off. J. Control. Release. Soc. 145, 182-195 (2010).
53. Sahay, G. et al. Efficiency of siRNA delivery by lipid nanoparticles is limited by endocytic recycling. Nat. Biotech. 31, 653-658 (2013).
54. Gilleron, J. et al. Image-based analysis of lipid nanoparticle-mediated siRNA delivery, intracellular trafficking and endosomal escape. Nat. Biotech. 31, 638-646 (2013).
55. Meacham, C. E. & Morrison, S. J. Tumour heterogeneity and cancer cell plasticity. Nature 501, 328-337 (2013).
56. Ryan, S. et al. Target acquired: progress and promise of targeted therapeutics in the treatment of prostate cancer. Curr. Cancer Drug. Targets 15, 394-405 (2015).
57. Kedmi, R. et al A modular platform for targeted RNAi therapeutics. Nat. Nanotechnol 13, 214-219 (2018).
58. Bertrand, N. & Leroux, J.-C. The journey of a drug-carrier in the body: an anatomo-physiological perspective. J. Control. Release 161, 152-163 (2012).
59. Mahmoudi, M., Bertrand, N., Zope, H. & Farokhzad, O. C. Emerging understanding of the protein corona at the nano-bio interfaces. Nano Today 11, 817-832 (2016).
60. Caracciolo, G. & Farokhzad, O.C. & Mahmoudi, M. Biological identity of nanoparticles in vivo: clinical implications of the protein corona. Trends Biotechnol. 35, 257-264 (2017).
61. Salvati, A. et al. Transferrin-functionalized nanoparticles lose their targeting capabilities when a biomolecule corona adsorbs on the surface. Nat. Nano 8, 137-143 (2013).
62. Kedmi, R., Ben-Arie, N. & Peer, D. The systemic toxicity of positively charged lipid nanoparticles and the role of Toll-like receptor 4 in immune activation. Biomaterials 31, 6867-6875 (2010).
63. Walkey, C. D., Olsen, J. B., Guo, H., Emili, A. & Chan, W. C. Nanoparticle size and surface chemistry determine serum protein adsorption and macrophage uptake. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 134, 2139-2147 (2012).
64. Schöttler, S. et al. Protein adsorption is required for stealth effect of poly (ethylene glycol)- and poly(phosphoester)-coated nanocarriers. Nat. Nano 11, 372-377 (2016).
65. Dobrovolskaia, M. A. & McNeil, S. E. Immunological properties of engineered nanomaterials. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2, 469-478 (2007).
66. Szebeni, J., Muggia, F., Gabizon, A. & Barenholz, Y. Activation of complement by therapeutic liposomes and other lipid excipient-based therapeutic products: prediction and prevention. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 63, 1020-1030 (2011).
67. Rodriguez, P. L. et al. Minimal "self" peptides that inhibit phagocytic clearance and enhance delivery of nanoparticles. Science 339, 971 (2013).
68. Parodi, A. et al. Synthetic nanoparticles functionalized with biomimetic leukocyte membranes possess cell-like functions. Nat. Nano 8, 61-68 (2013).
69. Farokhzad, O. C. Nanotechnology: platelet mimicry. Nature 526, 47-48 (2015).
70. Hu, Q. et al. Anticancer platelet-mimicking nanovehicles. Adv. Mater. 27, 7043-7050 (2015).
71. Semple, S. C. et al. Rational design of cationic lipids for siRNA delivery. Nat. Biotech. 28, 172-176 (2010).
72. Tam, Y. Y. C., Chen, S. & Cullis, P. R. Advances in lipid nanoparticles for siRNA delivery. Pharmaceutics 5, 498-507 (2013).
73. Ramishetti, S. & Landesman-Milo, D. & Peer, D. Advances in RNAi therapeutic delivery to leukocytes using lipid nanoparticles. J. Drug Target. 24, 780-786 (2016).
74. Mi, Y. et al. Enzyme-responsive multistage vector for drug delivery to tumor tissue. Pharmacol. Res. 113, 92-99 (2016).
75. Tasciotti, E. et al. Mesoporous silicon particles as a multistage delivery system for imaging and therapeutic applications. Nat. Nano 3, 151-157 (2008).
76. Poon, Z., Chang, D., Zhao, X. & Hammond, P. T. Layer-by-layer nanoparticles with a pH sheddable layer for in vivo targeting of tumor hypoxia. ACS nano 5, 4284-4292 (2011).
77. Colombo, M. et al. Tumour homing and therapeutic effect of colloidal nanoparticles depend on the number of attached antibodies. Nat. Commun. 7, 13818 (2016).
78. Yatvin, M. B., Weinstein, J. N., Dennis, W. H. & Blumenthal, R. Design of liposomes for enhanced local release of drugs by hyperthermia. Science 202, 1290-1293 (1978).
79. Mura, S., Nicolas, J. & Couvreur, P. Stimuli-responsive nanocarriers for drug delivery. Nat. Mater. 12, 991-1003 (2013).
80. Foy, S. P. et al. Optical imaging and magnetic field targeting of magnetic nanoparticles in tumors. ACS Nano 4, 5217-5224 (2010).
81. Cole, A. J. et al. Polyethylene glycol modified, cross-linked starch-coated iron oxide nanoparticles for enhanced magnetic tumor targeting. Biomaterials 32, 2183-2193 (2011).
82. Cole, A. J., David, A. E., Wang, J., Galbán, C. J. & Yang, V. C. Magnetic brain tumor targeting and biodistribution of long-circulating PEG-modified, crosslinked starch-coated iron oxide nanoparticles. Biomaterials 32, 6291-6301 (2011).
83. Watson, K. D. et al. Ultrasound increases nanoparticle delivery by reducing intratumoral pressure and increasing transport in epithelial and epithelial-mesenchymal transition tumors. Cancer Res. 72, 1485 (2012).
84. Aryal, M., Vykhodtseva, N., Zhang, Y.-Z., Park, J. & McDannold, N. Multiple treatments with liposomal doxorubicin and ultrasound-induced disruption of blood-tumor and blood-brain barriers improve outcomes in a rat glioma model. J. Control. Release 169, 103-111 (2013).
85. Schleich, N. et al. Comparison of active, passive and magnetic targeting to tumors of multifunctional paclitaxel/SPIO-loaded nanoparticles for tumor imaging and therapy. J. Control. Release 194, 82-91 (2014).
86. Sawyer, A. J. et al. Convection-enhanced delivery of camptothecin-loaded polymer nanoparticles for treatment of intracranial tumors. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 1, 34-42 (2011).
87. Cohen, Z. R. et al. Localized RNAi therapeutics of chemoresistant grade IV glioma using hyaluronan-grafted lipid-based nanoparticles. ACS Nano 9, 1581-1591 (2015).
88. Cristea, M., Han, E., Salmon, L. & Morgan, R. J. Practical considerations in ovarian cancer chemotherapy. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2, 175-187 (2010).
89. Liu, R. et al. Paclitaxel-eluting polymer film reduces locoregional recurrence and improves survival in a recurrent sarcoma model: a novel investigational therapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 19, 199-206 (2012).
90. Liu, R. et al. Prevention of local tumor recurrence following surgery using lowdose chemotherapeutic polymer films. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 17, 1203-1213 (2010).
91. Baldeshwiler, A. M. History of FDA good laboratory practices. Qual. Assur. J. 7, 157-161 (2003).
92. Sanhai, W. R., Spiegel, J. & Ferrari, M. A critical path approach to advance nanoengineered medical products. Drug Discov. Today: Technol. 4, 35-41 (2007).
93. Ramanathan, R. K. et al. Correlation between ferumoxytol uptake in tumor lesions by MRI and response to nanoliposomal irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors: a pilot study. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 3638 (2017).