4.8 Review

The Use of Alternative Strategies for Enhanced Nanoparticle Delivery to Solid Tumors

Journal

CHEMICAL REVIEWS
Volume 121, Issue 3, Pages 1746-1803

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00779

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Commission (ERC) [757398]
  2. FWO [G0B2919N]
  3. KU Leuven BOF [3M180306]
  4. FWO-SB student fellowship
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [757398] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research has shown that despite efforts to utilize the EPR effect for enhanced delivery of nanomaterials to solid tumors, the results are still poor. Furthermore, some studies question the role of the EPR effect, suggesting that nanomaterials may enter tumors through active mechanisms rather than through endothelial gaps.
Nanomaterial (NM) delivery to solid tumors has been the focus of intense research for over a decade. Classically, scientists have tried to improve NM delivery by employing passive or active targeting strategies, making use of the so-called enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect. This phenomenon is made possible due to the leaky tumor vasculature through which NMs can leave the bloodstream, traverse through the gaps in the endothelial lining of the vessels, and enter the tumor. Recent studies have shown that despite many efforts to employ the EPR effect, this process remains very poor. Furthermore, the role of the EPR effect has been called into question, where it has been suggested that NMs enter the tumor via active mechanisms and not through the endothelial gaps. In this review, we provide a short overview of the EPR and mechanisms to enhance it, after which we focus on alternative delivery strategies that do not solely rely on EPR in itself but can offer interesting pharmacological, physical, and biological solutions for enhanced delivery. We discuss the strengths and shortcomings of these different strategies and suggest combinatorial approaches as the ideal path forward.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available