4.8 Article

The effect of liposomal size on the targeted delivery of doxorubicin to Integrin αvβ3-expressing tumor endothelial cells

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 34, 期 22, 页码 5617-5627

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.03.094

关键词

Size of liposomes; Ligand multivalency; Drug-resistant cancer; Tumor vasculature targeting; Anti-angiogenic effect

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT)
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan (MHLW)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Size of the liposomes (LPs) specially governs its biodistribution. In this study, LPs were developed with controlled sizes, where variation in LP size dictates the ligand receptor interaction, cellular internalization and its distribution within the tumor microenvironment. The therapeutic efficacies of doxorubicin (DOX)-loaded RGD modified small size (similar to 100 nm in diameter, dnm) and large size (similar to 300 dnm) PEGylated LPs (RGD-PEG-LPs) were compared to that of Doxil (a clinically used DOX-loaded PEG-LP, similar to 100 dnm) in DOX resistant OSRC-2 (Renal cell carcinoma, RCC) tumor xenografts. Doxil, which accumulated in tumor tissue via the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, failed to suppress tumor growth. Small size RGD-PEG-LP, that targets the tumor endothelial cells (TECs) and extravasates to tumor cells, failed to provide anti-tumor effect. Large size RGD-PEG-LP preferentially targets the TECs via minimization of the EPR effect, and significantly reduced the tumor growth, which was exerted through its strong anti-angiogenic activity on the tumor vasculature rather than having a direct effect on DOX resistant RCC. The prepared large size RGD-PEG-LP that targets the TECs via interacting with Integrin alpha v beta 3, is a potentially effective and alternate therapeutic strategy for the treatment of DOX resistant tumor cells by utilizing DOX, in cases where Doxil is ineffective. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.8
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