4.7 Review

Focused Ultrasound and Microbubbles-Mediated Drug Delivery to Brain Tumor

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13010015

关键词

blood– brain barrier (BBB); blood– brain– tumor barrier (BBTB); central nervous system (CNS); convention-enhanced delivery (CED); focused ultrasound (FUS)

资金

  1. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering of the National Institutes of Health [RO1-EB003268]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [FDN 154272]
  3. Temerty Chair in Focused Ultrasound Research at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of blood-brain barriers is a major obstacle in effectively delivering therapeutics to the central nervous system, especially in treating malignant brain tumors. Conventional methods have not been successful, but techniques like convention-enhanced delivery and focused ultrasound show promise in overcoming this challenge.
The presence of blood-brain barrier (BBB) and/or blood-brain-tumor barriers (BBTB) is one of the main obstacles to effectively deliver therapeutics to our central nervous system (CNS); hence, the outcomes following treatment of malignant brain tumors remain unsatisfactory. Although some approaches regarding BBB disruption or drug modifications have been explored, none of them reach the criteria of success. Convention-enhanced delivery (CED) directly infuses drugs to the brain tumor and surrounding tumor infiltrating area over a long period of time using special catheters. Focused ultrasound (FUS) now provides a non-invasive method to achieve this goal via combining with systemically circulating microbubbles to locally enhance the vascular permeability. In this review, different approaches of delivering therapeutic agents to the brain tumors will be discussed as well as the characterization of BBB and BBTB. We also highlight the mechanism of FUS-induced BBB modulation and the current progress of this technology in both pre-clinical and clinical studies.

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

4.7
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