Cancer nanomedicine: a review of recent success in drug delivery

Abstract

Cancer continues to be one of the most difficult global healthcare problems. Although there is a large library of drugs that can be used in cancer treatment, the problem is selectively killing all the cancer cells while reducing collateral toxicity to healthy cells. There are several biological barriers to effective drug delivery in cancer such as renal, hepatic, or immune clearance. Nanoparticles loaded with drugs can be designed to overcome these biological barriers to improve efficacy while reducing morbidity. Nanomedicine has ushered in a new era for drug delivery by improving the therapeutic indices of the active pharmaceutical ingredients engineered within nanoparticles. First generation nanomedicines have received widespread clinical approval over the past two decades, from Doxil ® (liposomal doxorubicin) in 1995 to Onivyde ® (liposomal irinotecan) in 2015. This review highlights the biological barriers to effective drug delivery in cancer, emphasizing the need for nanoparticles for improving therapeutic outcomes. A summary of different nanoparticles used for drug delivery applications in cancer are presented. The review summarizes recent successes in cancer nanomedicine in the clinic. The clinical trials of Onivyde leading to its approval in 2015 by the Food and Drug Adminstration are highlighted as a case study in the recent clinical success of nanomedicine against cancer. Next generation nanomedicines need to be better targeted to specifically destroy cancerous tissue, but face several obstacles in their clinical development, including identification of appropriate biomarkers to target, scale-up of synthesis, and reproducible characterization. These hurdles need to be overcome through multidisciplinary collaborations across academia, pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory agencies in order to achieve the goal of eradicating cancer. This review discusses the current use of clinically approved nanomedicines, the investigation of nanomedicines in clinical trials, and the challenges that may hinder development of the nanomedicines for cancer treatment.

Magnetic Hybrid Wax Nanocomposites as Externally Controlled Theranostic Vehicles: High MRI Enhancement and Synergistic Magnetically Assisted Thermo/Chemo Therapy

“…The upsurge of nanotechnology some years ago opened a plethora of opportunities in many fields. An area that has been proposed to benefit strongly from a nanoscience approach is Medicine . One of the entry points of nanotechnology into hospitals was in the form of magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) as contrast agents (CAs) for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) .…”

Advances in treatment formulations for acute myeloid leukemia

“…Third-generation particles comprise NPs with specific ligands on their surfaces, designed specifically to target cells of interest. The fourth generation corresponds to theranostic strategies (multifunctional nanocarriers that combine a diagnostic agent with a therapeutic agent) or targeting cell organelles [51].…”

Latest advances in combining gold nanomaterials with physical stimuli towards new responsive therapeutic and diagnostic strategies

“…Conversely, examples of FDA-approved, AuNM-based diagnostics can be found, such as the Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV-1/2, a singleuse rapid immunoassay for the qualitative detection of antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 and/or HIV-2 in human serum, plasma, and whole blood [13]; the VERIGENE® system, for the detection of DNA, RNA or protein targets; the First Response Gold Digital Pregnancy Test [14]; and the Single Path E. Coli O157 Gold Labelled Immunosorbent Assay, used in food analysis laboratories. All these diagnostic tests fall under the optical biosensor category, where AuNMs are used as labels for signal amplification in bio-recognizing events AuNMs and alloy/hybrid AuNMs can be finely tuned so that their therapeutic effect or diagnostic action is triggered by specific stimuli [15][16][17]. Stimuli can be associated with specific biological (endogenous) factors, such as the microenvironmental properties of a defined diseased condition (e.g., acidic pH [18] and levels of reductive agents [19] in the tumour tissue, or intracellular enzymatic activity [20]).…”