With countless research papers using preclinical models and showing the superiority of nanoparticle design over current drug therapies used to treat cancers, it is surprising how deficient the translation of these nano-sized drug carriers into the clinical setting is. This review article seeks to compare the preclinical and clinical results for Doxil®, PK1, Abraxane®, Genexol-PM®, Xyotax™, NC-6004, Mylotarg®, PK2, and CALAA-01. While not comprehensive, it covers nano-sized drug carriers designed to improve the efficacy of common drugs used in chemotherapy. While not always available or comparable, effort was made to compare the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy between the animal and human studies. Discussion is provided to suggest what might be causing the gap. Finally, suggestions and encouragement are dispensed for the potential that nano-sized drug carriers hold.

A dose circulating through the blood at one time will have different opportunities to access the tumor compared to a dose circulating hours later. Methods to test this hypothesis allowed us to differentiate two uniquely fluorescent doses of nanoparticles (administered as a mixture or sequentially) and to measure the distribution and correlation of these nanoparticle doses in three dimensions. Multiple colocalization analyses confirm that silica nanoparticles separated into different dose administrations will not accumulate in the same location. Decreased colocalization between separate doses implies dynamic extravasation events on the scale of microns. Further, the perfusion state of different blood vessels can change across the dosing period. Lastly, analyzing the distance traveled by these silica nanoparticles in two dimensions can be an overestimation when compared with three-dimensional distance analysis. Better understanding intratumoral distribution of delivered drugs will be crucial to overcoming the various barriers to transport in solid tumors.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract