4.4 Article

Integrated intravital microscopy and mathematical modeling to optimize nanotherapeutics delivery to tumors

期刊

AIP ADVANCES
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.3699060

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NCI Physical Sciences - Oncology Center (PS-OC) Young Investigator Trans-Network [U54CA143837]
  2. USC PS-OC Centers [U54CA143907]
  3. Cullen Trust for Health Care
  4. NIH/NCI PS-OC [U54CA143837]
  5. NIH-ICBP [U54CA149196]
  6. NSF [DMS-0818104]
  7. NSF, Division of Mathematical Sciences
  8. NIH [P50GM76516]
  9. DoD/BCRP [W81XWH-09-1-0212]
  10. NIH/NCI [U54CA151668]
  11. Ernest Cockrell Jr. Distinguished Endowed Chair
  12. BBSRC [BB/F002785/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/F002785/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inefficient vascularization hinders the optimal transport of cell nutrients, oxygen, and drugs to cancer cells in solid tumors. Gradients of these substances maintain a heterogeneous cell-scale microenvironment through which drugs and their carriers must travel, significantly limiting optimal drug exposure. In this study, we integrate intravital microscopy with a mathematical model of cancer to evaluate the behavior of nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems designed to circumvent biophysical barriers. We simulate the effect of doxorubicin delivered via porous 1000 x 400 nm plateloid silicon particles to a solid tumor characterized by a realistic vasculature, and vary the parameters to determine how much drug per particle and how many particles need to be released within the vasculature in order to achieve remission of the tumor. We envision that this work will contribute to the development of quantitative measures of nanoparticle design and drug loading in order to optimize cancer treatment via nanotherapeutics. Copyright 2012 Author(s). This article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3699060]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据