Translational radionanomedicine: a clinical perspective

Abstract

Many nanomaterials were developed for the anticipated in vivo theranostic use exploiting their unique characteristics as a multifunctional platform. Nevertheless, only a few nanomaterials are under investigation for human use, most of which have not entered clinical trials yet. Radionanomedicine, a convergent discipline of radiotracer technology and use of nanomaterials in vivo, can facilitate clinical nanomedicine because of its advantages of radionuclide imaging and internal radiation therapy. In this review, we focuse on how radionanomedicine would impact profoundly on clinical translation of nanomaterial theranostics. Up-to-date advances and future challenges are critically reviewed regarding the issues of how to radiolabel and engineer radionanomaterials, in vivo behavior tracing of radionanomaterials and then the desired clinical radiation dosimetry. Radiolabeled extracellular vesicles were further discussed as endogenous nanomaterials radiolabeled for possible clinical use.

68 Ga-Radiolabeled AGuIX Nanoparticles as Dual-Modality Imaging Agents for PET/MRI-Guided Radiation Therapy

“…PET imaging tracers injected at very low concentrations are sufficient to provide high-quality images [25,26]. This fact was our first steppingstone for the initiation of our experiments to go as low as possible, in other words, to achieve a high specific activity product to work with.…”

“…In general, for successful translation of a radiolabeled imaging agent to the clinical, it is very important to evaluate the degree to which the association between the radioactive label and the core molecule remains intact in vivo [25,32]. In our case, it is critical to assess the stability of radiolabeled NPs, once administered into systemic circulation.…”

Radiolabeled inorganic nanoparticles for positron emission tomography imaging of cancer: an overview

“…Although innumerable preclinical studies have reported cellular interactions, biodistribution and subsequent clearance of radiolabeled inorganic nanoparticles, these data could not be normalized with respect to experimental conditions. 129 Therefore, the general conclusions from these studies could not be validated even at the preclinical level. There are some recent reports which suggest that the nanoparticle design parameters ( e.g.…”

“…126 It is also pertinent to mention here that though the EPR effect, which has amply been established in small animal models in preclinical studies, similar evidence is lacking for humans in clinical trials. 126, 129 This is one of the major issues toward clinical translation of radiolabeled nanoparticles. Another issue related to differences between human and animal experiments is the optimization of the number of targeting ligands on a nanoparticle.…”

“…, size, shape, charge, and porosity to name a few) also guides their biocompatibility and biodegradability when administered in vivo . 126, 129 As a result, these parameters need to be analytically evaluated at the preclinical level, and also at the clinical level wherever appropriate, to obtain fundamental information on biodistribution, toxicity, and biocompatibility of radiolabeled nanoparticles in order to maximize their chances for clinical success. 129 Additionally, detailed dosimetry studies would be required before administration of clinically relevant doses of the radiolabeled nanoparticles in human subjects for PET imaging of cancer.…”