4.6 Review

Concise Review: Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Based Drug Delivery: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Promise

Journal

STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 7, Issue 9, Pages 651-663

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/sctm.18-0024

Keywords

Mesenchymal stem cell; Cell-based therapy; Drug delivery; Homing; In vivo cell tracking; Cell size

Funding

  1. Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award
  2. Patrick C. Walsh Prostate Cancer Research Fund
  3. SKCCC CCSG [P30 CA006973]
  4. NIH-Prostate SPORE [P50 CA058236]
  5. Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Research Program [W81XWH-16-1-0410, W81XWH-17-1-0528]
  6. NCI [R01CA201035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The development of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) as cell-based drug delivery vectors for numerous clinical indications, including cancer, has significant promise. However, a considerable challenge for effective translation of these approaches is the limited tumor tropism and broad biodistribution observed using conventional MSCs, which raises concerns for toxicity to nontarget peripheral tissues (i.e., the bad). Consequently, there are a variety of synthetic engineering platforms in active development to improve tumor-selective targeting via increased homing efficiency and/or specificity of drug activation, some of which are already being evaluated clinically (i.e., the good). Unfortunately, the lack of robust quantification and widespread adoption of standardized methodologies with high sensitivity and resolution has made accurate comparisons across studies difficult, which has significantly impeded progress (i.e., the ugly). Herein, we provide a concise review of active and passive MSC homing mechanisms and biodistribution postinfusion; in addition to in vivo cell tracking methodologies and strategies to enhance tumor targeting with a focus on MSC-based drug delivery strategies for cancer therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available