4.6 Review

Nanomedicine applied to translational oncology: A future perspective on cancer treatment

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2015.08.006

关键词

Cancer therapeutics; Nanomedicine; Translational oncology; Nanodrug design; Nanomedicine regulation

资金

  1. EU FP7 NAMDIATREAM project [246479]
  2. NANoREG project [310584]
  3. MULTIFUN project [262943]
  4. Science Foundation Ireland [SFI/12/RC/2278]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high global incidence of cancer is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity worldwide. By taking advantage of the properties of matter at the nanoscale, nanomedicine promises to develop innovative drugs with greater efficacy and less side effects than standard therapies. Here, we discuss both clinically available anti-cancer nanomedicines and those en route to future clinical application. The properties, therapeutic value, advantages and limitations of these nanomedicine products are highlighted, with a focus on their increased performance versus conventional molecular anticancer therapies. The main regulatory challenges toward the translation of innovative, clinically effective nanotherapeutics are discussed, with a view to improving current approaches to the clinical management of cancer. Ultimately, it becomes clear that the critical steps for clinical translation of nanotherapeutics require further interdisciplinary and international effort, where the whole stakeholder community is involved from bench to bedside. From the Clinical Editor: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and finding a cure remains the holy-grail for many researchers and clinicians. The advance in nanotechnology has enabled novel strategies to develop in terms of cancer diagnosis and therapy. In this concise review article, the authors described current capabilities in this field and outlined comparisons with existing drugs. The difficulties in bringing new drugs to the clinics were also discussed. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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