Biological barriers to drug transport prevent successful accumulation of nanotherapeutics specifically at diseased sites, limiting efficacious responses in disease processes ranging from cancer to inflammation. Although substantial research efforts have aimed to incorporate multiple functionalities and moieties within the overall nanoparticle design, many of these strategies fail to adequately address these barriers. Obstacles, such as nonspecific distribution and inadequate accumulation of therapeutics, remain formidable challenges to drug developers. A reimagining of conventional nanoparticles is needed to successfully negotiate these impediments to drug delivery. Site-specific delivery of therapeutics will remain a distant reality unless nanocarrier design takes into account the majority, if not all, of the biological barriers that a particle encounters upon intravenous administration. By successively addressing each of these barriers, innovative design features can be rationally incorporated that will create a new generation of nanotherapeutics, realizing a paradigmatic shift in nanoparticle-based drug delivery.

/pdf/principles-of-nanoparticle-design-for-overcoming-biological-4c2c5quqtc.pdf

Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery

Recent advances in nanotechnology have offered new hope for cancer detection, prevention, and treatment. While the enhanced permeability and retention effect has served as a key rationale for using nanoparticles to treat solid tumors, it does not enable uniform delivery of these particles to all regions of tumors in sufficient quantities. This heterogeneous distribution of therapeutics is a result of physiological barriers presented by the abnormal tumor vasculature and interstitial matrix. These barriers are likely to be responsible for the modest survival benefit offered by many FDA-approved nanotherapeutics and must be overcome for the promise of nanomedicine in patients to be realized. Here, we review these barriers to the delivery of cancer therapeutics and summarize strategies that have been developed to overcome these barriers. Finally, we discuss design considerations for optimizing the delivery of nanoparticles to tumors.

https://faculty.washington.edu/mzhang/mse599/NP-drug-Delivering%20nanomedicine%20to%20solid%20tumors-.2010..pdf

Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors

/pdf/nccn-clinical-practice-guidelines-in-oncology-hepatobiliary-1kpacqqvi8.pdf

NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: hepatobiliary cancers.

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/29293165/Cancer%20Nanotechnology.pdf?sequence=1

Cancer Nanotechnology: The impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology

2-D
: two-dimensional
3-D
: three-dimensional
5-FU
: 5-fluorouracil
ACE
: angiotensin-converting enzyme
ARB
: angiotensin II receptor blocker
ASE
: American Society of Echocardiography
BNP
: B-type natriuretic peptide
CABG
: coronary artery bypass graft
CAD
: coronary artery

/pdf/2016-esc-position-paper-on-cancer-treatments-and-1bzyne0xi3.pdf

2016 ESC Position Paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines

Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX™/Doxil®) versus conventional doxorubicin for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer

L. Alland

Papers

Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase III trial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX™/Doxil®) versus conventional doxorubicin for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer