4.8 Review

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

期刊

CHEMICAL REVIEWS
卷 121, 期 3, 页码 1746-1803

出版社

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

关键词

-

资金

  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)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

4.8
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