Human solid tumors and clinical relevance of the enhanced permeation and retention effect: a ‘golden gate’ for nanomedicine in preclinical studies?

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. Ca Cancer J. Clin. 72(1), 7–33 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2. Maeda H, Tsukigawa K, Fang J. A retrospective 30 years after discovery of the enhanced permeability and retention effect of solid tumors: next-generation chemotherapeutics and photodynamic therapy – problems, solutions, and prospects. Microcirculation. 23(3), 173–182 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Nakamura H, Fang J, Jun F, Maeda H. Development of next-generation macromolecular drugs based on the EPR effect: challenges and pitfalls. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 12(1), 53–64 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4. 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), 6387–92 (1986).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5. Greish K. Enhanced permeability and retention of macromolecular drugs in solid tumors: a royal gate for targeted anticancer nanomedicines. J. Drug Target. 15(7–8), 457–464 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Nichols JW, Bae YH. EPR: Evidence and fallacy. J. Control. Rel. 190, 451–464 (2014). •• The clinical results from nano-sized drug-delivery devices have shown that the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) is less dependable than initially supposed. When examined in clinical trials, drug carriers often fail to outperform free drug systems in terms of effectiveness. A deeper investigation finds that high tumor interstitial fluid pressure, uneven vascular distribution and inadequate blood flow inside tumors hinder EPR-dependent medication delivery.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Melincovici CS, Boşca AB, Şuşman S et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) – key factor in normal and pathological angiogenesis. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 59(2), 455–67 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8. Goradel NH, Najafi M, Salehi E et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 in cancer: A review. J. Cell. Physiol. 234(5), 5683–5699 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9. Somasundaram V, Basudhar D, Bharadwaj G et al. Molecular mechanisms of nitric oxide in cancer progression, signal transduction, and metabolism. Antioxid. Redox. Sign. 30(8), 1124–1143 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10. Hofseth LJ, Hussain SP, Wogan GN, Harris CC. Nitric oxide in cancer and chemoprevention. Free Radical Bio. Med. 34(8), 955–968 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Gabizon AA, de Rosales RTM, La-Beck NM. Translational considerations in nanomedicine: the oncology perspective. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 158, 140–157 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Saraswat A, Patki M, Fu Y et al. Nanoformulation of proteolysis targeting chimera targeting ‘undruggable’ c-Myc for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 15(18), 1761–1777 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Doddapaneni R, Patel K, Owaid IH, Singh M. Tumor neovasculature-targeted cationic PEGylated liposomes of gambogic acid for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. Drug Deliv. 23(4), 1232–1241 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Chowdhury N, Vhora I, Patel K et al. Liposomes co-loaded with 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose-2, 6-biphosphatase 3 (PFKFB3) shRNA plasmid and docetaxel for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. Pharm. Res. 34(11), 2371–2384 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Fu Y, Saraswat A, Wei Z et al. Development of dual ARV-825 and nintedanib-loaded PEGylated nano-liposomes for synergistic efficacy in vemurafnib-resistant melanoma. Pharmaceutics 13(7), 1005 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Vemana HP, Saraswat A, Bhutkar S et al. A novel gene therapy for neurodegenerative Lafora disease via EPM2A-loaded DLinDMA lipoplexes. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 16(13), 1081–1095 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Saraswat AL, Maher TJ. Development and optimization of stealth liposomal system for enhanced in vitro cytotoxic effect of quercetin. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Tec. 55, 101477 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. Fang J, Sawa T, Maeda H. Factors and mechanism of ‘EPR’ effect and the enhanced antitumor effects of macromolecular drugs including SMANCS. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 519, 29–49 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. Barenholz Y. Doxil^® – the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J. Control. Rel. 160(2), 117–134 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Silverman JA, Deitcher SR. Marqibo^® (vincristine sulfate liposome injection) improves the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vincristine. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 71(3), 555–564 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Zhang H. Onivyde for the therapy of multiple solid tumors. Oncotargets Ther. 9, 3001–3007 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Patra JK, Das G, Fraceto LF et al. Nano based drug delivery systems: recent developments and future prospects. J. Nanobiotechnol. 16(1), 71 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23. Maeda H. The 35th anniversary of the discovery of EPR effect: a new wave of nanomedicines for tumor-targeted drug delivery – personal remarks and future prospects. J. Per. Med. 11(3), 229 (2021). •• Focuses on the status quo of the 35 years of discovery, criticism and reality of the EPR effect and tumor targeting.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24. Roma-Rodrigues C, Mendes R, Baptista PV, Fernandes AR. Targeting tumor microenvironment for cancer therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20(4), 840 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Golombek SK, May J-N, Theek B et al. Tumor targeting via EPR: strategies to enhance patient responses. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 130, 17–38 (2018). •• Summarizes tumor targeting by EPR, outlines the essential articles in which these tactics are investigated and highlights how these approaches might be used to improve patient responses.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Yu Y, Cui J. Present and future of cancer immunotherapy: a tumor microenvironmental perspective. Oncol. Lett. 16(4), 4105–4113 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27. Sugahara M, Tanaka T, Nangaku M. Hypoxia-inducible factor and oxygen biology in the kidney. Kidney 360 1(9), 1021–1031 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 28. Iyer AK, Khaled G, Fang J, Maeda H. Exploiting the enhanced permeability and retention effect for tumor targeting. Drug Discov. Today 11(17–18), 812–818 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Narum SM, Le T, Le DP et al. Passive targeting in nanomedicine: fundamental concepts, body interactions, and clinical potential. In: Nanoparticles for Biomedical Applications. Elsevier, PA, USA, 37–53 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 30. de Lázaro I, Mooney DJ. A nanoparticle's pathway into tumours. Nat. Mater. 19(5), 486–487 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31. Din FU, Aman W, Ullah I et al. Effective use of nanocarriers as drug delivery systems for the treatment of selected tumors. Int. J. Nanomed. 12, 7291–7309 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 32. Bazak R, Houri M, Achy S et al. Passive targeting of nanoparticles to cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Mol. Clin. Oncol. 2(6), 904–908 (2014). • Examines the optimal treatment (the ‘magic bullet’) that will selectively target cancer without afflicting significant morbidity. Focuses on passive targeting. The EPR effect is based on the nanometer size range of the nanoparticles and two fundamental characteristics of the neoplastic tissues, the leaky vasculature and impaired lymphatic drainage.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 33. Ferretti S, Allegrini PR, Becquet MM, McSheehy PMJ. Tumor interstitial fluid pressure as an early-response marker for anticancer therapeutics. Neoplasia 11(9), 874–881 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Lu Y, Hu D, Ying W. A fast numerical method for oxygen supply in tissue with complex blood vessel network. PLOS ONE 16(2), e0247641 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35. Vaupel P. The role of hypoxia-induced factors in tumor progression. Oncology 9(S5), 10–17 (2004).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 36. Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis. Adv. Cancer Res. 43, 175–203 (1985).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37. Padera TP, Meijer EFJ, Munn LL. The lymphatic system in disease processes and cancer progression. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 18(1), 1–34 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 38. Torchilin VP. Passive and active drug targeting: drug delivery to tumors as an example. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. (197), 3–53 (2010). • Provides information on nanoparticulate pharmaceutical carriers that are set to remain in circulation for long periods. They aggregate in pathological regions for damaged and leaky vasculature (tumors, inflammation and infarcted areas). The two techniques of tumor targeting are thoroughly addressed.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39. Danhier F. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: since the EPR effect fails in the clinic, what is the future of nanomedicine? J. Control. Rel. 244(Pt A), 108–121 (2016). •• Presents a comprehensive overview of the current status of the EPR effect, the future of nanomedicine and tumor microenvironment manipulation techniques to optimize nanomedicine delivery.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 40. Ayloo S, Gu C. Transcytosis at the blood–brain barrier. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 57, 32–38 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41. Nel A, Ruoslahti E, Meng H. New insights into ‘permeability’ as in the enhanced permeability and retention effect of cancer nanotherapeutics. ACS Nano 11(10), 9567–9569 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Zhou Q, Li J, Xiang J et al. Transcytosis-enabled active extravasation of tumor nanomedicine. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 189, 114480 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Pandit S, Dutta D, Nie S. Active transcytosis and new opportunities for cancer nanomedicine. Nat. Mater. 19(5), 478–480 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44. Liu X, Jiang J, Meng H. Transcytosis – an effective targeting strategy that is complementary to ‘EPR effect’ for pancreatic cancer nano drug delivery. Theranostics 9(26), 8018–8025 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Liu X, Jiang J, Nel AE, Meng H. Major effect of transcytosis on nano drug delivery to pancreatic cancer. Mol. Cell. Oncol. 4(4), e1335273 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46. Matsumura Y. Cancer stromal targeting therapy to overcome the pitfall of EPR effect. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 154, 142–150 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 47. Yu W, Liu R, Zhou Y, Gao H. Size-tunable strategies for a tumor targeted drug delivery system. ACS Central Sci. 6(2), 100–116 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48. Yu W, Shevtsov M, Chen X, Gao H. Advances in aggregatable nanoparticles for tumor-targeted drug delivery. Chinese Chem. Lett. 31(6), 1366–1374 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 49. Liu R, Yu M, Yang X et al. Linear chimeric triblock molecules self-assembled micelles with controllably transformable property to enhance tumor retention for chemo-photodynamic therapy of breast cancer. Adv. Funct. Mater. 29(23), 1808462 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 50. Jia W, Liu R, Wang Y et al. Dual-responsive nanoparticles with transformable shape and reversible charge for amplified chemo-photodynamic therapy of breast cancer. Acta Pharm. Sinica B. 12(8), 3354–3366 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51. van Vlerken LE, Duan Z, Little SR et al. Biodistribution and pharmacokinetic analysis of paclitaxel and ceramide administered in multifunctional polymer-blend nanoparticles in a drug-resistant breast cancer model. Mol. Pharm. 5, 516–526 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 52. Izci M, Maksoudian C, Manshian BB, Soenen SJ. The use of alternative strategies for enhanced nanoparticle delivery to solid tumors. Chem. Rev. 121(3), 1746–1803 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53. Wilhelm S, Tavares AJ, Dai Q et al. Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1(5), 16014 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 54. McNeil SE. Evaluation of nanomedicines: stick to the basics. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1(10), 16073 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 55. Price LSL, Stern ST, Deal AM et al. A reanalysis of nanoparticle tumor delivery using classical pharmacokinetic metrics. Sci. Adv. 6(29), eaay9249 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56. Bhowmik S, Bhowmick S, Maiti K et al. Two multicenter phase I randomized trials to compare the bioequivalence and safety of a generic doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome injection with Doxil^® or Caelyx^® in advanced ovarian cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 82(3), 521–532 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57. Crain ML. Daunorubicin & Cytarabine liposome (Vyxeos™). Oncol. Times 40(10), 30 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 58. Romeo C, Joly F, Ray-Coquard I et al. Non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (NPLD, Myocet^®) + carboplatin in patients with platinum sensitive ovarian cancers: a ARCAGY-GINECO phase IB-II trial. Gynecol. Oncol. 152(1), 68–75 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 59. Kim D-W, Kim S-Y, Kim H-K et al. Multicenter phase II trial of Genexol-PM, a novel Cremophor-free, polymeric micelle formulation of paclitaxel, with cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 18(12), 2009–2014 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 60. Bracken MB. Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure. J. R. Soc. Med. 102(3), 120–122 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 61. Heldin C-H, Rubin K, Pietras K, Östman A. High interstitial fluid pressure – an obstacle in cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 4(10), 806–813 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62. Huynh E, Zheng G. Cancer nanomedicine: addressing the dark side of the enhanced permeability and retention effect. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(13), 1993–1995 (2015). • Reports on cancer nanomedicine and addresses the dark side of the EPR by enhancing the EPR effect and bypassing it by highlighting the obstacles and expectations. A depth of clinical knowledge of the EPR effect is required to discover why various nanomedicines have failed clinical trials and how to overcome these concerns. Furthermore, knowing how the EPR effect changes with tumor heterogeneity is essential. Is it intratumorally and across different tumor kinds? Are there stages of designing clinically relevant animal models and nanomedicines for those circumstances?
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 63. Guerin MV, Finisguerra V, den Eynde BJV et al. Preclinical murine tumor models: a structural and functional perspective. Elife. 9, e50740 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64. Jung J. Human tumor xenograft models for preclinical assessment of anticancer drug development. Toxicol. Res. 30(1), 1–5 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 65. Natfji AA, Ravishankar D, Osborn HMI, Greco F. Parameters affecting the enhanced permeability and retention effect: the need for patient selection. J. Pharm. Sci. 106(11), 3179–3187 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66. Ozao-Choy J, Ma G, Kao J et al. The novel role of tyrosine kinase inhibitor in the reversal of immune suppression and modulation of tumor microenvironment for immune-based cancer therapies. Cancer Res. 69(6), 2514–2522 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 67. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 63(1), 181–187 (1989).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68. Danhier F, Préat V. Strategies to improve the EPR effect for the delivery of anti-cancer nanomedicines. Cancer Cell. Microenviron. 2(3), e808, 1–7 (2015). •• Describes the significant developments and upcoming concepts of such EPR-enhancing techniques and discusses the 723 clinical studies using nanoparticles with EPR enhancers.
  Google Scholar
• 69. Nichols JW, Bae YH. Odyssey of a cancer nanoparticle: From injection site to site of action. Nano Today 7(6), 606–618 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 70. Yuan F, Leunig M, Huang SK et al. Microvascular permeability and interstitial penetration of sterically stabilized (stealth) liposomes in a human tumor xenograft. Cancer Res. 54(13), 3352–3356 (1994).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 71. Thomas OS, Weber W. Overcoming physiological barriers to nanoparticle delivery – are we there yet? Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7, 415 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 72. de Jong M, Maina T. Of mice and humans: are they the same? – Implications in cancer translational research. J. Nucl. Med. 51(4), 501–504 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 73. Siolas D, Hannon GJ. Patient-derived tumor xenografts: transforming clinical samples into mouse models. Cancer Res. 73(17), 5315–5319 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 74. Fu Y, Rathod D, Patel K. Protein kinase C inhibitor anchored BRD4 PROTAC PEGylated nanoliposomes for the treatment of vemurafenib-resistant melanoma. Exp. Cell. Res. 396(1), 112275 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75. Nakamura Y, Mochida A, Choyke PL, Kobayashi H. Nanodrug delivery: is the enhanced permeability and retention effect sufficient for curing cancer? Bioconjugate Chem. 27(10), 2225–2238 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 76. Brooks DP, Ruffolo RR. Pharmacological mechanism of angiotensin II receptor antagonists: implications for the treatment of elevated systolic blood pressure. J. Hypertens. Suppl. Official J. Int. Soc. Hypertens. 17(2), S27–32 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77. Chiaverina G, di Blasio L, Monica V et al. Dynamic interplay between pericytes and endothelial cells during sprouting angiogenesis. Cells 8(9), 1109 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 78. Burton AC. Relation of structure to function of the tissues of the wall of blood vessels. Physiol. Rev. 34(4), 619–642 (1954).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 79. Greish K. Enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect for anticancer nanomedicine drug targeting. Methods Mol. Biol. Clifton N J. 624, 25–37 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 80. Suzuki M, Hori K, Abe I et al. A new approach to cancer chemotherapy: selective enhancement of tumor blood flow with angiotensin II. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 67(3), 663–9 (1981).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81. Li CJ, Miyamoto Y, Kojima Y, Maeda H. Augmentation of tumour delivery of macromolecular drugs with reduced bone marrow delivery by elevating blood pressure. Br. J. Cancer 67(5), 975–980 (1993).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 82. Subhan MA, Yalamarty SSK, Filipczak N et al. Recent advances in tumor targeting via ePR effect for cancer treatment. J. Pers. Med. 11(6), 571 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 83. Yasuda H, Yamaya M, Nakayama K et al. Randomized phase II trial comparing nitroglycerin plus vinorelbine and cisplatin with vinorelbine and cisplatin alone in previously untreated stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 24(4), 688–694 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 84. Islam W, Fang J, Imamura T et al. Augmentation of the enhanced permeability and retention effect with nitric oxide-generating agents improves the therapeutic effects of nanomedicines. Mol. Cancer Ther. 17(12), 2643–2653 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 85. Yoshikawa T, Mori Y, Feng H et al. Rapid and continuous accumulation of nitric oxide-releasing liposomes in tumors to augment the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect. Int. J. Pharm. 565, 481–487 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 86. Divakaran S, Loscalzo J. The role of nitroglycerin and other nitrogen oxides in cardiovascular therapeutics. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70(19), 2393–2410 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 87. Ojha T, Pathak V, Shi Y et al. Pharmacological and physical vessel modulation strategies to improve EPR-mediated drug targeting to tumors. Adv. Drug Delive. Rev. 119, 44–60 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 88. Dimcevski G, Kotopoulis S, Bjånes T et al. A human clinical trial using ultrasound and microbubbles to enhance gemcitabine treatment of inoperable pancreatic cancer. J. Control. Rel. 243, 172–181 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 89. Theek B, Baues M, Ojha T et al. Sonoporation enhances liposome accumulation and penetration in tumors with low EPR. J. Control. Rel. 231, 77–85 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 90. Lee H, Han J, Shin H et al. Combination of chemotherapy and photodynamic therapy for cancer treatment with sonoporation effects. J. Control. Rel. 283, 190–199 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 91. Deng CX. Targeted drug delivery across the blood–brain barrier using ultrasound technique. Ther. Deliv. 1(6), 819–48 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 92. Treat LH, McDannold N, Zhang Y et al. Improved anti-tumor effect of liposomal doxorubicin after targeted blood–brain barrier disruption by MRI-guided focused ultrasound in rat glioma. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 38(10), 1716–1725 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 93. Ponce AM, Vujaskovic Z, Yuan F et al. Hyperthermia mediated liposomal drug delivery. Int. J. Hyperther. 22(3), 205–213 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 94. Song CW, Park HJ, Lee CK, Griffin R. Implications of increased tumor blood flow and oxygenation caused by mild temperature hyperthermia in tumor treatment. Int. J. Hyperther. 21(8), 761–767 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 95. Landon CD, Park J-Y, Needham D, Dewhirst MW. Nanoscale drug delivery and hyperthermia: the materials design and preclinical and clinical testing of low temperature-sensitive liposomes used in combination with mild hyperthermia in the treatment of local cancer. Open Nanomed. J. 3(1), 38–64 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 96. Grüll H, Langereis S. Hyperthermia-triggered drug delivery from temperature-sensitive liposomes using MRI-guided high intensity focused ultrasound. J. Control. Rel. 161(2), 317–327 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 97. Mirza AN, Fornage BD, Sneige N et al. Radiofrequency ablation of solid tumors. Cancer J. 7(2), 95–102 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 98. Ng KKC, Poon RTP, Chan SC et al. High-intensity focused ultrasound for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center experience. Ann. Surg. 253(5), 981–987 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 99. Fishman PS, Frenkel V. Focused ultrasound: an emerging therapeutic modality for neurologic disease. Neurotherapeutics 14(2), 393–404 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 100. Kok HP, Cressman ENK, Ceelen W et al. Heating technology for malignant tumors: a review. Int. J. Hyperther. 37(1), 711–741 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 101. Seynhaeve ALB, Amin M, Haemmerich D et al. Hyperthermia and smart drug delivery systems for solid tumor therapy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 163, 125–144 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 102. Ngen EJ, Azad BB, Boinapally S et al. MRI assessment of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeting by a PSMA-targeted magnetic nanoparticle: potential for image-guided therapy. Mol. Pharm. 16(5), 2060–2068 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 103. Li M, Deng L, Li J et al. Actively targeted magnetothermally responsive nanocarriers/doxorubicin for thermochemotherapy of hepatoma. ACS Appl. Mater. Inter. 10(48), 41107–41117 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 104. Dilnawaz F, Singh A, Mohanty C, Sahoo SK. Dual drug loaded superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for targeted cancer therapy. Biomaterials 31(13), 3694–3706 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 105. Wang Y, Ng YW, Chen Y et al. Formulation of superparamagnetic iron oxides by nanoparticles of biodegradable polymers for magnetic resonance imaging. Adv. Funct. Mater. 18(2), 308–318 (2008).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 106. Tak WY, Lin S-M, Wang Y et al. Phase III HEAT study adding lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin to radiofrequency ablation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma lesions. Clin. Cancer Res. 24(1), 73–83 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 107. Kobayashi H, Watanabe R, Choyke PL. Improving conventional enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effects; what is the appropriate target? Theranostics 4(1), 81–89 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 108. Kobayashi H, Choyke PL. Near-infrared photoimmunotherapy of cancer. Accounts Chem. Res. 52(8), 2332–2339 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 109. Kobayashi H, Choyke PL. Super enhanced permeability and retention (SUPR) effects in tumors following near infrared photoimmunotherapy. Nanoscale 8(25), 12504–12509 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 110. Pérez-Medina C, Abdel-Atti D, Tang J et al. Nanoreporter PET predicts the efficacy of anti-cancer nanotherapy. Nat. Commun. 7(1), 11838 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 111. Baghban R, Roshangar L, Jahanban-Esfahlan R et al. Tumor microenvironment complexity and therapeutic implications at a glance. Cell Commun. Signal. 18(1), 59 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 112. Belli C, Trapani D, Viale G et al. Targeting the microenvironment in solid tumors. Cancer Treat. Rev. 65, 22–32 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 113. Fu Y, Saraswat AL, Monpara J, Patel K. Stromal disruption facilitating invasion of a ‘nano-arsenal’ into the solid tumor. Drug Discov. Today 27(4), 1132–1141 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 114. Park J, Choi Y, Chang H et al. Alliance with EPR effect: combined strategies to improve the EPR effect in the tumor microenvironment. Theranostics 9(26), 8073–8090 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 115. Manzo A, Montanino A, Carillio G et al. Angiogenesis inhibitors in NSCLC. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18(10), 2021 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 116. Malakouti-Nejad M, Bardania H, Aliakbari F et al. Formulation of nanoliposome-encapsulated bevacizumab (Avastin): statistical optimization for enhanced drug encapsulation and properties evaluation. Int. J. Pharmaceut. 590, 119895 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 117. Gong L, Giacomini MM, Giacomini C et al. PharmGKB summary: sorafenib pathways. Pharmacogenet.Genom. 27(6), 240–246 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 118. Maj E, Papiernik D, Wietrzyk J. Antiangiogenic cancer treatment: the great discovery and greater complexity (Review). Int. J. Oncol. 49(5), 1773–1784 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 119. Hu J, Yuan X, Wang F et al. The progress and perspective of strategies to improve tumor penetration of nanomedicines. Chinese Chem. Lett. 32(4), 1341–1347 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 120. Yang S, Gao H. Nanoparticles for modulating tumor microenvironment to improve drug delivery and tumor therapy. Pharm. Res. 126, 97–108 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 121. Zhou Y, Chen X, Cao J, Gao H. Overcoming the biological barriers in the tumor microenvironment for improving drug delivery and efficacy. J. Mater. Chem. B. 8(31), 6765–6781 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 122. Loeffler M, Krüger JA, Niethammer AG, Reisfeld RA. Targeting tumor-associated fibroblasts improves cancer chemotherapy by increasing intratumoral drug uptake. J. Clin. Invest. 119(2), 421 (2009).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 123. Patel K, Doddapaneni R, Sekar V et al. Combination approach of YSA peptide anchored docetaxel stealth liposomes with oral antifibrotic agent for the treatment of lung cancer. Mol. Pharmaceut. 13(6), 2049–2058 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 124. Chavanpatil MD, Khdair A, Panyam J. Nanoparticles for cellular drug delivery: mechanisms and factors influencing delivery. J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 6(9), 2651–2663 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 125. Yu M, Zheng J. Clearance pathways and tumor targeting of imaging nanoparticles. ACS Nano 9(7), 6655–6674 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 126. Wong P-P, Demircioglu F, Ghazaly E et al. Dual-action combination therapy enhances angiogenesis while reducing tumor growth and spread. Cancer Cell. 27(1), 123–137 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 127. Tong RT, Boucher Y, Kozin SV et al. Vascular normalization by vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 blockade induces a pressure gradient across the vasculature and improves drug penetration in tumors. Cancer Res. 64(11), 3731–3736 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 128. Miller MA, Chandra R, Cuccarese MF et al. Radiation therapy primes tumors for nanotherapeutic delivery via macrophage-mediated vascular bursts. Sci. Transl. Med. 9(392), eaal0225 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 129. Sindhwani S, Chan WCW. Nanotechnology for modern medicine: next step towards clinical translation. J. Intern. Med. 290(3), 486–498 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 130. Lancet JE, Uy GL, Cortes JE 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(Suppl. 15), 7000 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 131. Lencioni R, Cioni D. RFA plus lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin: in search of the optimal approach to cure intermediate-size hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatic Oncol. 3(3), 193–200 (2016).
  Google Scholar
• 132. Vaupel PW, Kelleher DK. Pathophysiological and vascular characteristics of tumours and their importance for hyperthermia: heterogeneity is the key issue. Int. J. Hyperther. 26(3), 211–223 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 133. Manzoor AA, Lindner LH, Landon CD et al. Overcoming limitations in nanoparticle drug delivery: triggered, intravascular release to improve drug penetration into tumors. Cancer Res. 72(21), 5566–5575 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 134. Dou Y, Hynynen K, Allen C. To heat or not to heat: challenges with clinical translation of thermosensitive liposomes. J. Control. Rel. 249, 63–73 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 135. Moghimi SM, Patel HM. Serum-mediated recognition of liposomes by phagocytic cells of the reticuloendothelial system – the concept of tissue specificity. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 32(1–2), 45–60 (1998).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 136. Suk JS, Xu Q, Kim N et al. PEGylation as a strategy for improving nanoparticle-based drug and gene delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 99(Pt A), 28–51 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 137. Hussain Z, Khan S, Imran M et al. PEGylation: a promising strategy to overcome challenges to cancer-targeted nanomedicines: a review of challenges to clinical transition and promising resolution. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 9(3), 721–734 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 138. Wang S-H, Lee AC-L, Chen I-J et al. Structure-based optimization of GRP78-binding peptides that enhances efficacy in cancer imaging and therapy. Biomaterials 94, 31–44 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 139. Saraswat A, Vemana HP, Dukhande VV, Patel K. Galactose-decorated liver tumor-specific nanoliposomes incorporating selective BRD4-targeted PROTAC for hepatocellular carcinoma therapy. Heliyon 8(1), e08702 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 140. Haute DV, Berlin JM. Challenges in realizing selectivity for nanoparticle biodistribution and clearance: lessons from gold nanoparticles. Ther. Deliv. 8(9), 763–774 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 141. Rosenblum D, Joshi N, Tao W et al. Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 1410 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 142. Wang Y, Wang Z, Xu C et al. A disassembling strategy overcomes the EPR effect and renal clearance dilemma of the multifunctional theranostic nanoparticles for cancer therapy. Biomaterials 197, 284–293 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 143. Wu J, Chen J, Feng Y et al. An immune cocktail therapy to realize multiple boosting of the cancer-immunity cycle by combination of drug/gene delivery nanoparticles. Sci. Adv. 6(40), eabc7828 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 144. Mukosera GT, Liu T, Manaen M et al. Deferoxamine produces nitric oxide under ferricyanide oxidation, blood incubation, and UV-irradiation. Free Radical Bio. Med. 160, 458–470 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 145. Kim MJ, Kim S-M, Lee EK et al. Tumor doubling time predicts response to sorafenib in radioactive iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer. Endocr. J. 66(7), 597–604 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 146. Nakashima K, Uematsu T, Takahashi K et al. Does breast cancer growth rate really depend on tumor subtype? Measurement of tumor doubling time using serial ultrasonography between diagnosis and surgery. Breast Cancer – Tokyo 26(2), 206–214 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 147. Hori K, Zhang QH, Saito S et al. Microvascular mechanisms of change in tumor blood flow due to angiotensin II, epinephrine, and methoxamine: a functional morphometric study. Cancer Res. 53(22), 5528–34 (1993).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 148. Kalyane D, Raval N, Maheshwari R et al. Employment of enhanced permeability and retention effect (EPR): nanoparticle-based precision tools for targeting of therapeutic and diagnostic agent in cancer. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. Mater. Biol. Sci. 98, 1252–1276 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 149. Jäger D, Jäger E, Knuth A. Immune responses to tumour antigens: implications for antigen specific immunotherapy of cancer. J. Clin. Pathol. 54(9), 669–74 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 150. Lurie DJ, Mäder K. Monitoring drug delivery processes by EPR and related techniques – principles and applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 57(8), 1171–1190 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 151. Walker S, Busatto S, Pham A et al. Extracellular vesicle-based drug delivery systems for cancer treatment. Theranostics 9(26), 8001–8017 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 152. Xulu KR, Augustine TN. Antiplatelet therapy combined with anastrozole induces features of partial EMT in breast cancer cells and fails to mitigate breast-cancer induced hypercoagulation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(8), 4153 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 153. Xiao W, Gao H. The impact of protein corona on the behavior and targeting capability of nanoparticle-based delivery system. Int. J. Pharmaceut. 552(1–2), 328–339 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 154. Barrán-Berdón AL, Pozzi D, Caracciolo G et al. Time evolution of nanoparticle–protein corona in human plasma: relevance for targeted drug delivery. Langmuir 29(21), 6485–6494 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 155. Mahmoudi M, Sheibani S, Milani AS et al. Crucial role of the protein corona for the specific targeting of nanoparticles. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(2), 215–226 (2015).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 156. Corbo C, Molinaro R, Parodi A et al. The impact of nanoparticle protein corona on cytotoxicity, immunotoxicity and target drug delivery. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 11(1), 81–100 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 157. Yoo J-W, Chambers E, Mitragotri S. Factors that control the circulation time of nanoparticles in blood: challenges, solutions and future prospects. Curr. Pharm. Design. 16(21), 2298–307 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 158. Barui AK, Oh JY, Jana B et al. Cancer-targeted nanomedicine: overcoming the barrier of the protein corona. Adv. Ther. 3(1), 1900124 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 159. Gawali P, Jadhav BL. Synthesis of Ag/AgCl nanoparticles and their action on human serum albumin: a fluorescence study. Process Biochem. 69, 106–122 (2018).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 160. Patel A, Saraswat A, Patel H, Chen Z-S, Patel K. Palmitoyl carnitine-anchored nanoliposomes for neovasculature-specific delivery of gemcitabine elaidate to treat pancreatic cancer. Cancers. 15(1), 182 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 161. Maruyama K. Intracellular targeting delivery of liposomal drugs to solid tumors based on EPR effects. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 63(3), 161–169 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 162. Armijo-Olivo S. The importance of determining the clinical significance of research results in physical therapy clinical research. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 22(3), 175–176 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 163. Musselman KE. Clinical significance testing in rehabilitation research: what, why, and how? Phys. Ther. Rev. 12(4), 287–296 (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 164. Vartak R, Saraswat A, Yang Y et al. Susceptibility of lung carcinoma cells to nanostructured lipid carrier of ARV-825, a BRD4 degrading proteolysis targeting chimera. Pharm. Res. 39(11), 2745–2759 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 165. Voelkl B, Vogt L, Sena ES, Würbel H. Reproducibility of preclinical animal research improves with heterogeneity of study samples. PLOS Biol. 16(2), e2003693 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 166. Pusztai L, Hatzis C, Andre F. Reproducibility of research and preclinical validation: problems and solutions. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 10(12), 720–724 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 167. Bae YH. Drug targeting and tumor heterogeneity. J. Control. Rel. 133(1), 2–3 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 168. Quencer KB, Friedman T, Sheth R, Oklu R. Tumor thrombus: incidence, imaging, prognosis and treatment. Cardiovasc. Diagnosis Ther. 7(3), S165–S177 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 169. Sun D, Zhou S, Gao W. What went wrong with anticancer nanomedicine design and how to make it right. ACS Nano 14(10), 12281–12290 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 170. Ngoune R, Peters A, von Elverfeldt D et al. Accumulating nanoparticles by EPR: a route of no return. J. Control. Rel. 238, 58–70 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 171. Rosenkrantz AB, Friedman K, Chandarana H et al. Current status of hybrid PET/MRI in oncologic imaging. Am. J. Roentgenol. 206(1), 162–172 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 172. Herzog E, Taruttis A, Beziere N et al. Optical imaging of cancer heterogeneity with multispectral optoacoustic tomography. Radiology 263(2), 461–468 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 173. Dorbala S, Ananthasubramaniam K, Armstrong IS et al. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging guidelines: instrumentation, acquisition, processing, and interpretation. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 25(5), 1784–1846 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 174. Podoloff DA, Advani RH, Allred C et al. NCCN task force report: positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scanning in cancer. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 5(Suppl. 1), S1-22, S23-2 (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 175. Hafeez MN, Celia C, Petrikaite V. Challenges towards targeted drug delivery in cancer nanomedicines. Process 9(9), 1527 (2021).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 176. Matsumura Y. Principle of CAST strategy. In: Cancer Drug Delivery Systems Based on the Tumor Microenvironment. Springer, Tokyo, Japan, 255–267 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 177. Shi Y, van der Meel R, Chen X, Lammers T. The EPR effect and beyond: strategies to improve tumor targeting and cancer nanomedicine treatment efficacy. Theranostics 10(17), 7921–7924 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 178. Bor G, Azmi IDM, Yaghmur A. Nanomedicines for cancer therapy: current status, challenges and future prospects. Ther. Deliv. 10(2), 113–132 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 179. Wilson B, KM G. Artificial intelligence and related technologies enabled nanomedicine for advanced cancer treatment. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 15(05), 433–435 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 180. Khade BS, Waghmare MN, Bhatawale N et al. A quantitative fluorescence study of α-amylase with different sizes of colloidal silver nanoparticles and its effect on human lung carcinoma A549 cells. Adv. Sci. Eng. Med. 12(5), 662–671 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 181. Acebes-Fernández V, Landeira-Viñuela A, Juanes-Velasco P et al. Nanomedicine and onco-immunotherapy: from the bench to bedside to biomarkers. Nanomaterials (Basel) 10(7), 1274 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 182. Xu X, Ho W, Zhang X et al. Cancer nanomedicine: from targeted delivery to combination therapy. Trends Mol. Med. 21(4), 223–232 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar