Next Article in Journal
Functional Assessment for Clinical Use of Serum-Free Adapted NK-92 Cells
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction of Posterior Paraglottic Space and Cricoarytenoid Unit Involvement in Endoscopically T3 Glottic Cancer with Arytenoid Fixation by Magnetic Resonance with Surface Coils
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/cancers11010068
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Targeted Delivery to Tumors: Multidirectional Strategies to Improve Treatment Efficiency

by
Olga M. Kutova
1,
Evgenii L. Guryev
1,
Evgeniya A. Sokolova
1,
Razan Alzeibak
1 and
Irina V. Balalaeva
1,2,*
1
The Institute of Biology and Biomedicine, Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, 23 Gagarin ave., Nizhny Novgorod 603950, Russia
2
The Institute of Molecular Medicine, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 8-2 Trubetskaya str., Moscow 119991, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2019, 11(1), 68; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11010068
Submission received: 26 November 2018 / Revised: 6 January 2019 / Accepted: 7 January 2019 / Published: 10 January 2019
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Malignant tumors are characterized by structural and molecular peculiarities providing a possibility to directionally deliver antitumor drugs with minimal impact on healthy tissues and reduced side effects. Newly formed blood vessels in malignant lesions exhibit chaotic growth, disordered structure, irregular shape and diameter, protrusions, and blind ends, resulting in immature vasculature; the newly formed lymphatic vessels also have aberrant structure. Structural features of the tumor vasculature determine relatively easy penetration of large molecules as well as nanometer-sized particles through a blood–tissue barrier and their accumulation in a tumor tissue. Also, malignant cells have altered molecular profile due to significant changes in tumor cell metabolism at every level from the genome to metabolome. Recently, the tumor interaction with cells of immune system becomes the focus of particular attention, that among others findings resulted in extensive study of cells with preferential tropism to tumor. In this review we summarize the information on the diversity of currently existing approaches to targeted drug delivery to tumor, including (i) passive targeting based on the specific features of tumor vasculature, (ii) active targeting which implies a specific binding of the antitumor agent with its molecular target, and (iii) cell-mediated tumor targeting.

1. Introduction

A personalized approach has emerged a few decades ago as a rapidly developing paradigm of disease treatment. The shift to personalized medicine is most clearly represented in oncology: according to the Personalized Medicine Coalition (PMC) reports 2014–2017 approximately 50% of lately FDA approved novel personalized medicines are antitumor agents. The progress of the approach is based on accumulation of large amount of data on the molecular basis of carcinogenesis and tumor growth regulation as well as architectural peculiarities of tumors tissue [1]. Structural and molecular features of tumors provide an ability to directionally deliver antitumor drugs with minimal impact on healthy tissues and reduced side effects. The overall strategy of personalized treatment implies histological analysis and molecular profiling of an individual tumor, potential targets characterization and selection of a personal treatment tactics. The additional testing on patient-derived 3D-in vitro or in vivo tumor models can be included to experimentally confirm the potency of the chosen drug or drugs combination [2,3,4].
Among the features which characterize neoplastic lesions are disordered (compared to normal) tissue structure and aberrant vasculature mostly due to a discrepancy in the tumor mass growth rate and the rate of formation of new blood and lymphatic vessels. This causes the tumor cells deprivation in nutrient and oxygen and elevation of tumor interstitial pressure. Hence hypoxic and acidic conditions develop in the tumor tissue and the extracellular matrix undergoes a transformation towards compaction/stiffness which promotes further tumor progression [5,6,7]. These alterations in tissue architectonics, microenvironment and vasculature become the selective criteria which distinguish the normal and malignant tissues, and thus they can be used as a basis for rational drug design and targeted delivery to tumor site.
Tumor targeting effectiveness can be enhanced by taking into account an altered molecular profile of malignant cells. Tumors are capable of a massive production of molecular factors which condition tumor progression and invasion (growth factors, interleukins, proteases of different classes, etc.) and are characterized by overexpression of G-protein-coupled receptors and receptors of growth factors, transferrin, some interleukins, vitamins, and sugar moieties. The presence of the characteristic molecules on the tumor cells surface and in tumor microenvironment can serve as a specific label to targeted drugs functionalized with specific targeting moiety, leading to increased drug accumulation in the tumor [8,9,10].
An alternative relatively new approach is based on using cells which possess a tropism to tumors as carriers for a therapeutic agent. The loaded cells can migrate along with the gradients of molecules acting as attractants e.g., cytokines, chemokines or growth factors. The promising candidates for cell-based drug delivery are immunocytes. The main benefits of this approach are drug delivery through blood–tissue barriers, hiding the agent from the cells which are responsible for drug clearance and metabolizing; and prolonged circulation in an organism [11].
It should be noted that the targeted treatment implies also using a wide range of agents that do not exhibit a specific tropism to tumor cells, but have a specific action towards them. In particular, tyrosine kinase inhibitors can be attributed to this group. In the present work we do not consider this type of agents.
In this review we summarize the information on the diversity of currently existing approaches to targeted drug delivery to tumor, including (i) passive targeting based on the specific features of tumor vasculature, (ii) active targeting which implies a specific binding of the antitumor agent with its molecular target, and (iii) cell-mediated tumor targeting.

2. Passive Targeting

2.1. Tumor Vasculature Peculiarities

Passive targeting is associated with the structural features of the tumor vasculature (Figure 1). The formation of new vessels that provide tumor nutrition and metabolite outflow is a vital condition for tumor development. This process starts when the tumor reaches about 1–2 mm in size [12,13,14]. The aggressive growth of malignant cell population is accompanied by a massive release of pro-angiogenic factors, which leads to the chaotic growth of newly formed vessels. The tumor vascular bed is comprised of immature and tortuous vessels and is characterized by a disordered structure with no defined vessel hierarchy and no clearly distinguishable arterioles, capillaries, and venules [15]. Tumor vessels are irregular in shape and diameter; they possess uneven inner surface with abnormal protrusions, blind ends, arteriovenous shunts, and so-called plasma channels that lack blood cells [16,17].
The newly formed lymphatic vessels also have aberrant structure: they are dilated and their endothelial lining is discontinuous and leaky. The integrity of tumor lymphatic vessels is often more disrupted than that of blood vessels. This might be due to better mechanical resistance of blood vessels to the excessive interstitial pressure of the tumor, conditioned by a residual arterial pressure [18,19]. Lymphatic vessels play an important role in tumor progression and metastasis. Although intratumoral lymphatic network is nearly absent, solid tumors tend to develop an extensive surrounding network of lymphatic vessels. As the tumor mass is poorly drained, an excessive interstitial pressure induces a backflow of exfoliated tumor cells up to the lymph nodes, causing distant metastases, which are associated with poor prognosis [20].
It is also important to mention that advanced tumors often form vessel-like structures lined by tumor cells, in order to overcome severe hypoxia and nutrient deprivation. This phenomenon is known as vasculogenic mimicry and it is associated with poor prognosis and low survival rates [21,22].
The vascular network architectonics and geometric resistance to blood flow determine significantly impaired functionality of the tumor vasculature: the decreased blood flow rate, inadequate oxygen supply and subsequently the development of hypoxia at the micro-regional level [23,24,25,26]. The discontinuous endothelial lining of tumor vessels with the lack of smooth muscle layer and impaired integrity of the basement membrane conditions an increased vascular permeability which leads to the release of vascular contents into the intercellular space and to an elevation of interstitial pressure in the tumor, which in turn provokes a collapse of the vessels and insufficient perfusion of the tumor [27,28].
The gaps between endotheliocytes and fenestrations in tumor vessels can vary in diameter from 200 nm to 2 μm and more [29,30], whereas in most normal tissues they do not exceed 5 nm [31].
In addition to the inconsistency between the rates of tumor mass increase and vascular growth there are a number of factors which are involved in vascular permeability regulation in tumors. Among them are the kinin-kallikrein system [32,33], nitric oxide NO [34,35], reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, including H2O2, O2–•, ONOO–, formed in various reactions both by tumor cells and tumor infiltrating leukocytes [36,37], carbon monoxide CO, which is a product of the reaction of hemoxygenase [38], prostaglandins [39], matrix metalloproteinases [40,41], protein factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), transforming growth factor TGF-β, tumor necrosis factor TNF-α [42,43,44]. The tumor development and tumor-associated inflammation typically shift the balance of the listed systems towards an increase in vascular permeability, which is a factor contributing to the intravasation and dissemination of tumor cells.

2.2. EPR-Effect in Drug Delivery to Tumor

Both structural and functional features of the tumor vasculature determine the relatively easy penetration of large molecules, supramolecular complexes, as well as any nanometer-sized particles independently of their nature, through the blood–tissue barrier and their accumulation in the tumor tissue. This phenomenon was first described by Y. Matsumura and H.A. Maeda and called the Enhanced Permeability and Retention effect (EPR effect) [45]. The idea of using dimensional effects for selective delivery caused a wide response in the research community (see reviews: [46,47,48,49,50,51]).
To date, the EPR effect has been shown for a wide range of agents e.g., liposomes, micelles, nanodisperse albumin and its modifications, polymer nanoparticles, dendrimers, inorganic nanoparticles of different composition. Some of these agents such as liposomes, micelles, and nanodisperse albumin modifications are approved for clinical practice or undergo different phases of clinical trials, other types of agents are being intensively investigated. A brief overview of them is given below.
Liposomes are the nanoscale vesicles composed mainly of phospho- and sphingolipids which are organized into a bilayer and enclosed into a ball-like structure. To date liposomal antitumor drugs approved by FDA are represented by liposomal forms of doxorubicin (Doxil®(ALZA corp., Mountain View, CA, USA), Caelyx® (Janssen Inc., Toronto, Canada), Myocet® (Teva B.V., Haarlem, The Netherlands)) used for treatment of ovarian and breast cancer, multiple myeloma and Kaposi’s sarcoma [52,53], daunorubicin (DaunoXome® (Galen Ltd., Craigavon, UK)) for treatment of HIV-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma [54], cytarabine (Depocyt® (Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA)) for treatment of neoplastic meningitis, mifamurtide (Mepact® (Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan)) for treatment of high-grade, resectable, non-metastatic osteosarcoma, vincristine (Marqibo® (Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Henderson, NV, USA)) for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and irinotecan (Onivyde® Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA) for treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Clinical trials are carried out on liposomal forms of doxorubicin and its analogues, cisplatin, topoisomerase I (topotecan, lurtotecan and irinotecan metabolite) and II (mitoxantrone) inhibitors, taxanes (paclitaxel and docetaxel), siRNAs, and others. A comprehensive review on liposomal antitumor formulations is provided elsewhere [55,56]. The further directions in antitumor liposomal formulations progress are the development and improvement of stimuli-sensitive smart liposomes (thermo-, redox-, ultrasound-, enzyme-sensitive), magnetic liposomes, and liposomes for photodynamic therapy [57,58,59,60,61,62,63].
A promising nanoscale drug carrier is the nanodisperse albumin. This protein possesses an outstanding binding capacity due to its molecular structure [64]. Thus it is possible to modify the properties of albumin-based nanoparticles using surfactants, cationic and thermosensitive polymers, PEG, or targeting moieties such as folate, transferrin, apolipoproteins, peptides, or mAbs. [65]. The positive example of using albumin nanoparticles in antitumor treatment is confirmed by a successful application and FDA approval of Abraxane® (Celegene Corporation, Summit, NJ, USA) (paclitaxel incorporated in albumin nanoparticles for a metastatic breast cancer, non-small cell lung carcinoma, pancreatic cancer, cervical cancer [66,67,68,69,70]. Albumin based nanoparticles loaded with lapatinib (triple negative breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer), gemcitabine (pancreatic cancer), siRNAs (breast and lung cancers), gold nanoparticles for NSCLC, photosensitizers are also being developed [71,72,73,74,75,76,77].
Organic polymer particles are a promising alternative to liposomes or albumin. An advantage of using such type of particles is in the rational molecule design that allows highly reproducible synthesis of the carriers with desired properties. There is a variety of intensively studied drug carrying vehicles which can be designed with synthetic (polyethylene glycol, polylactic and polyglycolic acids, polycaprolactone, derivatives of polymethacrilic acid, etc.) [78,79,80,81,82,83] or natural polymers (gelatin, collagen, chitosan, dextran, solid lipid nanoparticles, etc.) [84,85,86,87]. Besides the material-based diversity of the polymer nanoparticles, there is also a diversity in shape, size, surface charge and structural organization [88,89,90,91,92,93].
To combine targeted drug delivery with a possibility to use the agent for diagnostic purposes, the inorganic nanoparticles of different composition can be applied. Thus, noble metals are now widely used to create tumor targeting agents. Golden, silver and platinum nanoparticle delivery systems showed pronounced antitumor efficacy towards in vitro and in vivo tumor models [94,95,96,97,98] and represented themselves as a potent tumor imaging agents [99,100]. Highly fluorescent quantum dots, up-conversion nanoparticles, carbon-based nanoparticles are the promising tool for fluorescence guided drug delivery [101,102,103,104,105]. To engage the magnetic resonance imaging, superparamagnetic nanoparticles of iron oxides can be employed [106,107,108,109]. Porous inorganic materials are also being developed as containers for therapeutic or imaging compounds [102,110,111,112]. The above list of organic and inorganic nanoparticles is far from complete and the range of nanoparticles used for the drug delivery is constantly expanding.
As mentioned above passively targeted agents accumulate in the tumor tissue due to its peculiar structure and architectonics. In this respect a fact must be mentioned that nanoscale agents can also be accumulated by tumor associated macrophages which act in this case as a reservoir, gradually releasing the active substance, which significantly prolongs the presence of the agent in the tumor [113].

2.3. Questioning the EPR Efficiency

Despite the generally accepted approach of using the EPR effect for targeted delivery to a tumor, it is worth noting, however, that this effect is well manifested in rapidly growing experimental tumors in animals and cannot be considered common for all solid tumors by default. For example, a meta-analysis of preclinical data collected over 10 years showed that the median value of the drug dose delivered to a tumor when using nanoscale carriers is only 0.7% of that was administered [114]. This value several times exceeds the delivery efficiency of low-molecular analogs, which, as a rule, is no more than 0.2%, but nevertheless cannot be considered as fully satisfying the requirements of clinical oncologists.
Though the multiple reports about successful EPR effect-based creative solutions in cancer treatment are expanding it should be noted, that data are accumulated on the absence of the expected effect when moving from animal models to human tumors [115,116]. The most evident example illustrating the gap between preclinical models and clinical practice is the clinical trials results for FDA-approved nano-formulations Doxil® (PEGilated liposomal doxorubicin) and Abraxane® (nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel). The treatment efficiency of Doxil® was comparable to free doxorubicin. Its clinical benefit resulted from the modified profile of side effects, primarily from reduced cardiotoxicity [117]. The second example, Abraxane®, in clinical trials was significantly more efficacious than conventional formulation Taxol. In this case, the emulsion of Cremophor® EL (currently known as Kolliphor® EL (BASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany)), a modified castor oil used for paclitaxel solubilization in Taxol, was eliminated, that resulted in significant increase of maximum tolerated dose [118]. In both cases, the benefits over conventional formulations can be credited to EPR-effect only to a small extent.
Currently, the inconsistency in drug distribution in animal tumor models and in tumors of human patients is considered to be a potential cause of such a discrepancy in the results of preclinical and clinical trials. The growth rate of a human tumor and its relative volume is much smaller than in case of an experimental model, at the same time an absolute volume is often much larger. Thus, the microenvironmental conditions in the human tumors have their peculiar characteristics: vascular network with fewer fenestrations, hypoxic and acidified sites formed due to the heterogeneity of the blood supply, heterogeneous basal membrane and reduced pericyte coverage, matrix heterogeneity and rigidity, elevated interstitial fluid pressure which promotes convective transport with subsequent nanomedicine clearance from the central zone of the tumor to its periphery [119,120]. The set of these parameters can vary considerably basing on individual characteristics of the patient, type of the tumor the patient suffers of and the stage of its development, hence the manifestation of EPR effect also differs [121].
Optimization of the carrier size is the simplest and promising approach of improving drugs targeting to tumors, but it demands further development. The following directions seems to be the most applicable: elaboration of the tools for controlled modification of vascular permeability (see review: [50]); systematic study on the dependence between physicochemical properties of the carrier and drug delivery efficiency, which would allow the rational design of agents with desired properties; creation of the personalized treatment approaches with consideration of the histomorphological features of the individual tumor (as an example: [121]); and elaboration of approaches combining the use of the EPR effect with other methods of targeted delivery.

3. Active Targeting

Active targeting is an approach complementary to passive targeting and is aimed at improvement of accumulation selectivity and increased time of intratumoral retention of the antitumor agent. The active targeting strategy implies covalent or non-covalent binding of the antitumor agent to the molecule, which is capable of selective interaction with specific molecules on the surface of target cells (Figure 2). Active targeting of oncological lesions is possible due to altered molecular profile of malignant cells which is resulted from significant changes in tumor cell metabolism (compared to normal cells) at every level from the genome to metabolome [122,123,124]. We should emphasize that this approach manifests its targeting properties only at microscale: the targeted agent should be located no further than 0.5 nm from the target [125]. The previous drug route from the administration into the body to tumor site is directed by other mechanisms.

3.1. Cancer-Specific Molecular Targets

In order to precisely attack a tumor an appropriate target should be selected. A target molecule must be overexpressed on the surface of malignant cells compared to normal cells or, in ideal situation, be absent in normal tissues (Table 1). Also, the potential using of tumor stroma associated targets should be noted.
EGFR (HER1-4) epidermal growth factor receptor family is the most studied in terms of involvement in tumor metabolism and targeting fitness. Overexpression of receptors of this family is characteristic for many types of carcinomas, including breast, lung, stomach, brain and some other cancers [165,166]. EGFR/HER1, HER2 and HER3 receptors are successfully used as targets for targeted delivery of various antitumor agents [167]. To date there is only one FDA approved anti-tumor agent targeted to the EGFR family member, excluding non-conjugated therapeutic antibodies from consideration. Kadcyla® is based on an antibody specific for HER2 (Trastuzumab) and an antimitotic agent emtansine (DM1) inhibiting the polymerization of microtubules that are chemically linked together via a non-reducible thioether linker. This agent is used for the second line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.
Clinical and preclinical trials of Kadcyla® are underway for other types of HER2-overexpressing tumors, for example, for monotherapy of metastatic breast cancer and for therapy of gastric cancer in patients previously treated with taxane drugs [168].
Chemical conjugation allows obtaining targeted agents of various specificity with different toxic/cytostatic moieties. For example, this approach is used to create EGFR-specific agents for boron neutron capture therapy of brain tumors, which are now undergoing preclinical trials [169,170]. Chemical conjugation of functional modules has its drawbacks such as manufacturing difficulties and varying composition. Progress in genetic engineering has allowed the creation of recombinant antitumor agents where protein toxins of various origins and the mechanism of action are fused with a targeting moiety into a single polypeptide chain. The wide spectrum of recombinant antitumor agents specific to EGFR family receptors undergo clinical [171,172,173,174] and preclinical trials [131,135,136,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185].
Tumor development is accompanied by angiogenesis which is naturally associated with the high expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFR 1–3) and integrins (αvβ3 and others), mainly on endothelial cells [186]. The applicability of these receptors as target molecules is twofold: they can be used for targeted drug delivery and as the direct means for the tumor disruption by restriction of nutrients supply [187,188,189]. VEGF-receptors are often present in a prostate cancer, melanoma and leukemia. The examples of other growth factor receptors associated with tumor development and used as targets are platelet growth factor receptor PDGFRα/β [142] and insulin-like growth factor receptor IGF-1R [144].
Rapidly dividing cancer cells are in a great need for iron so the increased expression of transferrin (iron-binding protein) receptors, TfR1-2 is reported for brain, lung, bladder, intestine, pancreas, and some other cancers [190,191]. Thus targeted drug delivery can be performed using both transferrin itself and antibodies to its receptor as a targeting moiety [191,192,193]. Similarly, a significant proportion of fast-growing tumors are characterized by high expression of receptors for folic acid [194,195], biotin [196,197], and other vitamins, as well as membrane carriers of sugars [198,199,200].
In case of blood cancers, including various forms of lymphoma, leukemia and myeloma, the lymphocyte antigens and a number of other proteins which are overexpressed on the surface of transformed cells are employed as molecular targets. Disseminated nature of such tumors promoted the implementation of the targeted approach to treatment. To date, a wide number of molecular targets, including clusters of differentiation CD3, CD19, CD20, CD22, CD25, CD27, CD30, CD33, CD37, CD40, CD52, CD56, CD70, CD74, CD79, CD80, CD138, CD 307, and B-cell maturation antigen BCMA, and some other have been tested (with varying success) for the drug delivery to hematological tumors (for details see reviews: [201,202,203]).
The range of potential targets has significantly expanded in recent years. Thus, it has been shown that aberrant expression and activation of a number of members of G-protein-coupled receptor family plays an important role in carcinogenesis, tumor growth and invasion, cell migration and metastasis.
The most studied proteins of this group are receptors of angiotensin, lysophosphatidic acid, sphingosin-1-phosphate, melanocortin, vasopressin, estrogen, gastrin-releasing peptide, etc. [9,204]. This extensive group of receptors is of great interest and, apparently, the number of targeted agents specific to them will rapidly increase in the nearest future.
Several other molecular targets ought to be mentioned: interleukin receptors expressed, particularly, in some types of gliomas [205]; mesothelin which is involved in cell adhesion and is highly expressed on mesothelioma cells and in a number of adenocarcinomas [206,207]; prostate-specific membrane antigen PSMA [208,209]; plasma membrane proteoglycans, for example the mucin (MUC-1) overexpressed in carcinomas [210,211]. The altered glycosylation profile of the tumor cells surface makes them possible to be recognized by lectins [212].
The above listed molecules are expressed on the surface of tumor cells. However, stromal components of a tumor, both nonmalignant cells and extracellular matrix (ECM), can also serve as a target for directional treatment. Tumor progression is strongly determined by the microenvironment of tumor cells and crosstalk between tumor cells, cancer associated fibroblasts, endothelial cells, pericytes, and smooth muscle cells composing tumor vasculature, as well as infiltrating immune and inflammatory cells [213]. Targeting non-malignant cells of tumor stroma (including their signaling pathway participants) [214,215,216] and vasculature [217,218,219] seems to be the potent treatment approach with most remarkable progress in immune checkpoints inhibition [220].
To date, the existing treatment strategies are mostly aimed at improvement in blood perfusion, drug extravasation and tissue penetration by modulating of tumor stroma as well as at activation of the antitumor immune response [221,222]. However, the specificity of tumor microenvironment makes it potentially possible to develop the approaches for drug delivery based on targeting stromal compartment. For example, a number of antiangiogenic nanoparticle-based agents with receptor specific peptides have been reported [223,224].
The list of aforementioned cancer-specific molecular targets is far from complete. The development of molecular oncology and the gradual deciphering of the mechanisms responsible for cells transformation and regulation of their malignant phenotype lead to the formulation of new principles and approaches to control tumor progression and eliminate tumor cells. It can be said that currently there is an active search for new targets that would provide effective antitumor treatment [225,226].

3.2. Targeting Agents

Antibodies and their recombinant derivatives are target-recognizing molecules most commonly used for drug delivery to tumor [227,228]. Historically, the first antibody fragment were obtained by hydrolytic cleavage of a full-size antibody and included one or two antigen-binding domains (Fab and (Fab)2, respectively) [229]. The development of recombinant protein technology lead to creation of scFv-type (single chain fragment variable) fragments represented by variable domains of the heavy and light chains fused together by a peptide linker [230,231], and dsFv-type (Disulfide-stabilized fragment variable) fragments in which the variable domains are linked by a disulfide bond [232,233]. Single-chain antibodies of the Camelidae family and Chondrichthyes class were used to construct single-domain antibodies (sdAb or nanobodies) [234]. The major advantage of recombinant antibody fragments is the possibility of their genetic fusion with other proteins in order to create multivalent and/or multispecific agents [235,236,237]. A plethora of targeted antitumor agents based on antibodies derivatives are under preclinical efficiency trials. There are some promising results obtained for scFv-based [128,183,238], dsFv-based [148,239,240], nanobody-based [184,241] immunotoxins. Antibody fragments are also widely used as a targeting moiety of hybrid multifunctional complexes with QDs, superparamagnetic iron-oxide, gold nanoparticles, etc. [101,107,242].
Although antibody-based agents are indisputably potent drug targeting units there is a promising alternative represented by non-immunoglobulin scaffold proteins which also have hypervariable sites responsible for highly specific target recognition [243,244,245]. These proteins possess several advantages compared to antibodies: they have no propensity to aggregate and commonly are highly thermodynamically stable so they are less susceptible to the external factors such as temperature, pH, and protease activity [246]. The valuable characteristic of non-immunoglobulin scaffold proteins is their smaller size. Targeting moieties based on adnectins, affibodies, DARPins, and knottins are successfully tested [132,139,141,143,247,248,249]. The next promising group is represented by fynomers [250,251], anticalins, and Kunitz domains (modified Kunitz-type inhibitors) which demonstrated high binding capacity and can be potentially applied for targeted delivery of various agents [252,253].
In the case when the molecular target is represented by membrane receptor, the delivered agent can be conjugated directly to the ligand of this receptor. This approach is widely used to antitumor agent design both in case when the targeting moiety is a low molecular weight compound (folate, carbohydrate residues, vitamins etc.) [147,194,254] or a protein (transferrin, growth factors) [131,255].
Finally, it is worth mentioning peptides as a means of targeted drug delivery. These peptides may be divided into two groups. The first group is represented by tumor-homing peptides (THPs) which are capable of specific recognition of certain tumor-associated antigens. The best-known THP is RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) binding to integrins ανβ3 and ανβ5, which are widely present on the surface of endothelial cells of tumor vessels [256]. This sequence was first discovered as minimal binding epitope of fibronectin [257]. To date two forms of RGD peptides are being investigated: linear tri-heptapeptides and cyclic motifs. The structural rigidity of cyclic RGD peptides conditions their elevated specificity to receptor subtypes compared to linear peptides, they are also less susceptible to degradation [258,259]. Internalizing RGD (iRGD) peptides with 9-amino acid cyclic motifs was shown to launch transcytosis of nano-carriers through the vascular endothelium. This allows delivering loaded nano-carriers to the tumors with non-leaky vasculature where the EPR based delivery strategy is not applicable. A significant improvement of drug delivery and hence antitumor efficacy has been shown for a wide variety of nano-carriers in multiple tumor models [260], both in case when the iRGD-peptide was chemically bound to the nano-carrier [261,262] or co-administered [263].
Among cell penetrating peptides chlorotoxins or CTX-like peptides (a group of peptides derived from the scorpion venom) is intensely studied as targeting agents for targeted drug delivery. CTX peptide was purified and characterized in early 1990s [264] and then was shown to specifically bind to glioma cells [265]. The further research in this area indicated that CTX-like peptides can be internalized both by the energy-dependent (endocytosis) and by the energy-independent way. It was also shown that CTX-like peptides have a tumor binding activity, but their molecular target is not yet specified; nevertheless chlorine channels, matrix metalloproteinase-2 and annexin A2 are considered as potential candidates. Currently, the use of CTX-like peptides is investigated for various types of tumors (mainly for brain tumors) for imaging, drug delivery and radiotherapy [266,267].
Another representatives of the THP group are transferrin receptor-specific peptides (7pep, HAIYPRH), peptides having R/KXXR/K motif, which undergo neurophilin mediated internalization, and many others, including artificially synthesized peptides [268,269].
The second group of peptides with high potential for targeted drug delivery is represented by cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) which are non-homologous peptides composed with 5–30 a.a. and originated from different organisms including humans. The common property of these peptides is the ability to penetrate the cell membrane by endocytosis or direct translocation. The penetration mechanism is not yet fully comprehended, but obviously is associated with the presence of cationic amino acid residues in the peptides. Cell-penetrating peptides have no binding selectivity to cells of a specific molecular profile but significantly facilitate cell entry [270,271].
Thus, active drug delivery to tumor cells is an intensively developing approach. Active search for new targets, development of targeting moieties specific to them and employing of various toxic and/or imaging moieties led to an explosive growth of a number of candidate antitumor agents in recent years. The spectrum of delivered agents extends from cytostatic drugs such as DM-1, doxorubicin, maytansinoid [140,147,155], truncated plant and bacterial toxins e.g., gelonin and Pseudomonas exotoxin A [128,131], radionuclides mostly for imaging purposes (99Tc, 111In, 68Ga) [133,138], up to photosensitizing dyes e.g., porphyrin, phthalocyanine [272,273] and nanoparticles of different nature (QDs, carbon, polymer, gold nanoparticles, UCNPs) [101,139,144,151,152,272]. The latter group, targeted nanoparticle-based drugs, is particularly attractive for producing hybrid multifunctional complexes combining properties of imaging and therapeutic agent.

4. Cell-Mediated Targeting

In recent years, a new approach has been proposed implying drug delivery by cells which possess preferential tropism to tumor (Figure 3).
This approach possesses some distinct advantages: it allows active delivery of the loaded drug directionally to the target site, prolonged half-life, gradual and controlled release and decreased side cytotoxicity and immunogenicity [11]. Certain cell populations are able to infiltrate a tumor despite an increased interstitial pressure and the presence of a tumor stroma. Gradients of cytokines (macrophage colony-stimulating factor CSF1, pro-inflammatory cytokines), chemokines (particularly those which are recognized by the CXCR4/CXCL12 receptor system, as well as the MCP-1 monocyte chemotactic protein) and growth factors (VEGF, TGF-β and fibroblast growth factor FGF-2) can act as cell attractants [274]. To date, several cell types have been tested as drug carriers. Thus, naive T-cells tropic to lymph nodes were successfully used to attack tumors of this localization [275]. Primed T-cells specific to a certain tumor cell surface antigen can be used in case of tumors of other localizations [276]. In addition, cytokine and growth factor gradients direct the migration of some cell types, which allows using them as drug carriers. Monocytes and neutrophils [277,278,279], macrophages [280,281], as well as mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and cord blood [282,283], neural stem cells [284,285] and some other cell types were successfully applied for antitumor agents delivery.
The procedure is basically associated with the collection of autologous or donor material, ex vivo cell loading/activation, expansion the cells to the required quantities and administration to the patient. Cell-mediated approach provides delivery of low-molecular compounds, proteins, genetic material, nanoparticles and oncolytic viruses possible [286,287,288]. Recently developed T-cell genetic “reprogramming” using CAR (chimeric antigen receptor) technology producing cells with designed specificity to antigens and intended to activate antitumor immunity (see review: [289]) seems to be also promising when combined with cell loading by antitumor agents.
Although a significant success was achieved in this area, there are still some limitations which ought to be considered and overcome. They are associated both with the method procedure and specific properties of the cells acting as drug carriers. Methodological limitations include the risk of the carrier-cells contamination during cultivation and loading with possible subsequent blood contamination, drug loading difficulties e.g., low loading capacity and disintegration within the carrier-cell, limited control of drug release. Cell type specific limitations are generally represented by short ex vivo life, impaired resistance to damaging factors (mechanical or osmotic) induced by loading procedures and cultivation difficulties. Thus, platelets are prone to induce thrombogenesis, leucocytes are characterized by poor transduction level, stem cells tend to lose potency in vitro [290]. It must be noted that many technologies from this group are directly related to the production of tumoricidal cells.

5. Conclusions

The rapid accumulation of knowledge on the mechanisms driving carcinogenesis and peculiar features of tumor growth lead to development of a number of approaches to the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents to tumor cells or to the newly formed tumor vasculature. The opportunity of choosing the most appropriate treatment method which takes molecular and histomorphological tumor features into account and precise adjustment of administration schedule and regime is moving us towards ideals of personalized medicine.
Despite the significant progress in the area and the creation of an unprecedentedly wide range of targeted agents which are now at the clinical or pre-clinical trials, it is necessary to admit that there is still a huge range of outstanding issues. Thus methods to increase passive targeting efficiency and reduce drug dissipation (an unwanted capture by liver or kidney excretion) have to be developed. There is a direct relationship between half-time of blood circulation and the efficiency of passive delivery. The commonly proposed coating of the delivered agent with poly(ethylene)glycol (PEG) or its analogs has now been being critically revised. Such type of coating is intended to prolong circulation time by prevention of protein opsonization on the agent surface and following capturing of the agent by macrophages [291]. However, about 30 years of clinical experience resulted in elucidating possible side effects and complications, including registered cases of hypersensitivity, unexpected effects on drug pharmacokinetics, non-biodegradability and possible accumulation in the body, toxic side products, and production of anti-PEG antibodies [292,293,294]. Nowadays the problem of a protein corona formation on the nano-sized agents and its impact on a biological identity including specificity to target cells and retention in pathological sites is among the highly attractive for research community. The proposed ways to optimize blood circulation time and enhance the delivery efficiency vary from using low adhesive coatings which prevent protein binding [295,296] to preconditioning of the delivered agent with proteins such as albumin before they are administered in to the blood stream to artificially produce protein corona with desired prosperities [297,298].
Another perspective approach is to improve the delivery efficiency is to affect the tumor microenvironmental processes, especially angiogenesis and oxygenation. Antiangiogenic drugs block invasion of new vessels into the tumor and can temporarily normalize tumor vasculature and hence the oxygenation level. This leads to a reduction of tumor interstitial pressure, improved drug delivery, and the realization of the “oxygen effect” during radiotherapy [299,300].
The common limitation of drug delivery to solid tumors is a poor penetration of the any agents into the deep of the tumor mass [301]. The approach has been proposed to improve the penetration efficiency by simultaneous targeting the tight junctions which are widely represented in solid tumors. Several protein agents targeting intercellular tight junctions has been created and demonstrated its potency in combination with various agents [302,303,304]. This approach is of particular interest when applying targeted agents specifically binding to cell surface receptors, since the latter are often hidden under cell adhesion proteins and may be unavailable for binding.
To summarize, the progress in understanding intratumoral transport of nutrients and metabolites, tumor peculiarities at molecular and cellular level, growing list of potential molecular targets of tumor cells, extending amount of data elucidating tumor interaction with cells of immune system allow to expect generation of novel ideas and solutions to overcome encountered issues and to improve antitumor drug delivery and treatment efficiency.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.V.B.; data curation, E.L.G., I.V.B.; Writing—Original Draft preparation, O.M.K., E.L.G., R.A., I.V.B.; Writing—Review and Editing, O.M.K., E.A.S., I.V.B., supervision, I.V.B.

Funding

This research and the APC were funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, grant number RFMEFI58418x0033.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell 2011, 144, 646–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fong, E.L.; Harrington, D.A.; Farach-Carson, M.C.; Yu, H. Heralding a new paradigm in 3D tumor modeling. Biomaterials 2016, 108, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Weeber, F.; Ooft, S.N.; Dijkstra, K.K.; Voest, E.E. Tumor Organoids as a Pre-clinical Cancer Model for Drug Discovery. Cell Chem. Biol. 2017, 24, 1092–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sokolova, E.A.; Vodeneev, V.A.; Deyev, S.M.; Balalaeva, I.V. 3D in vitro models of tumors expressing EGFR family receptors: A potent tool for studying receptor biology and targeted drug development. Drug Discov. Today 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rankin, E.B.; Giaccia, A.J. Hypoxic control of metastasis. Science 2016, 352, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Nagelkerke, A.; Bussink, J.; Rowan, A.E.; Span, P.N. The mechanical microenvironment in cancer: How physics affects tumours. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2015, 35, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Corbet, C.; Feron, O. Tumour acidosis: From the passenger to the driver’s seat. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2017, 17, 577–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Witsch, E.; Sela, M.; Yarden, Y. Roles for growth factors in cancer progression. Physiology 2010, 25, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, Y.; An, S.; Ward, R.; Yang, Y.; Guo, X.X.; Li, W.; Xu, T.R. G protein-coupled receptors as promising cancer targets. Cancer Lett. 2016, 376, 226–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Trapani, G.; Denora, N.; Trapani, A.; Laquintana, V. Recent advances in ligand targeted therapy. J. Drug Target. 2012, 20, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Batrakova, E.V.; Gendelman, H.E.; Kabanov, A.V. Cell-mediated drug delivery. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2011, 8, 415–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Folkman, J. Tumor angiogenesis: Therapeutic implications. N. Engl. J. Med. 1971, 285, 1182–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Siemann, D.W. The unique characteristics of tumor vasculature and preclinical evidence for its selective disruption by Tumor-Vascular Disrupting Agents. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2011, 37, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Forster, J.C.; Harriss-Phillips, W.M.; Douglass, M.J.; Bezak, E. A review of the development of tumor vasculature and its effects on the tumor microenvironment. Hypoxia 2017, 5, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Konerding, M.A.; Fait, E.; Gaumann, A. 3D microvascular architecture of pre-cancerous lesions and invasive carcinomas of the colon. Br. J. Cancer 2001, 84, 1354–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dewhirst, M.W.; Kimura, H.; Rehmus, S.W.; Braun, R.D.; Papahadjopoulos, D.; Hong, K.; Secomb, T.W. Microvascular studies on the origins of perfusion-limited hypoxia. Br. J. Cancer 1996, 27, S247–S251. [Google Scholar]
  17. McDonald, D.M.; Choyke, P.L. Imaging of angiogenesis: From microscope to clinic. Nat. Med. 2003, 9, 713–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Leu, A.J.; Berk, D.A.; Lymboussaki, A.; Alitalo, K.; Jain, R.K. Absence of functional lymphatics within a murine sarcoma: A molecular and functional evaluation. Cancer Res. 2000, 60, 4324–4327. [Google Scholar]
  19. Padera, T.P.; Kadambi, A.; di Tomaso, E.; Carreira, C.M.; Brown, E.B.; Boucher, Y.; Choi, N.C.; Mathisen, D.; Wain, J.; Mark, E.J.; et al. Lymphatic metastasis in the absence of functional intratumor lymphatics. Science 2002, 296, 1883–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Padera, T.P.; Meijer, E.F.; Munn, L.L. The Lymphatic System in Disease Processes and Cancer Progression. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2016, 18, 125–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Maniotis, A.J.; Folberg, R.; Hess, A.; Seftor, E.A.; Gardner, L.M.; Pe’er, J.; Trent, J.M.; Meltzer, P.S.; Hendrix, M.J. Vascular channel formation by human melanoma cells in vivo and in vitro: Vasculogenic mimicry. Am. J. Pathol. 1999, 155, 739–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Folberg, R.; Maniotis, A.J. Vasculogenic mimicry. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Immunol. Scand. 2004, 112, 508–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Vaupel, P.; Hockel, M. Blood supply, oxygenation status and metabolic micromilieu of breast cancers: Characterization and therapeutic relevance. Int. J. Oncol. 2000, 17, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wijffels, K.I.; Kaanders, J.H.; Rijken, P.F.; Bussink, J.; van den Hoogen, F.J.; Marres, H.A.; de Wilde, P.C.; Raleigh, J.A.; van der Kogel, A.J. Vascular architecture and hypoxic profiles in human head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Br. J. Cancer 2000, 83, 674–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Beasley, N.J.; Wykoff, C.C.; Watson, P.H.; Leek, R.; Turley, H.; Gatter, K.; Pastorek, J.; Cox, G.J.; Ratcliffe, P.; Harris, A.L. Carbonic anhydrase IX, an endogenous hypoxia marker, expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and its relationship to hypoxia, necrosis, and microvessel density. Cancer Res. 2001, 61, 5262–5267. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hoogsteen, I.J.; Lok, J.; Marres, H.A.; Takes, R.P.; Rijken, P.F.; van der Kogel, A.J.; Kaanders, J.H. Hypoxia in larynx carcinomas assessed by pimonidazole binding and the value of CA-IX and vascularity as surrogate markers of hypoxia. Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 2906–2914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Carmeliet, P.; Jain, R.K. Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature 2000, 407, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Gee, M.S.; Procopio, W.N.; Makonnen, S.; Feldman, M.D.; Yeilding, N.M.; Lee, W.M. Tumor vessel development and maturation impose limits on the effectiveness of anti-vascular therapy. Am. J. Pathol. 2003, 162, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hobbs, S.K.; Monsky, W.L.; Yuan, F.; Roberts, W.G.; Griffith, L.; Torchilin, V.P.; Jain, R.K. Regulation of transport pathways in tumor vessels: Role of tumor type and microenvironment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 4607–4612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Hashizume, H.; Baluk, P.; Morikawa, S.; McLean, J.W.; Thurston, G.; Roberge, S.; Jain, R.K.; McDonald, D.M. Openings between defective endothelial cells explain tumor vessel leakiness. Am. J. Pathol. 2000, 156, 1363–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rippe, B.; Rosengren, B.I.; Carlsson, O.; Venturoli, D. Transendothelial transport: The vesicle controversy. J. Vasc. Res. 2002, 39, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Matsumura, Y.; Kimura, M.; Yamamoto, T.; Maeda, H. Involvement of the kinin-generating cascade in enhanced vascular permeability in tumor tissue. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 1988, 79, 1327–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cote, J.; Bovenzi, V.; Savard, M.; Dubuc, C.; Fortier, A.; Neugebauer, W.; Tremblay, L.; Muller-Esterl, W.; Tsanaclis, A.M.; Lepage, M.; et al. Induction of selective blood-tumor barrier permeability and macromolecular transport by a biostable kinin B1 receptor agonist in a glioma rat model. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e37485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Maeda, H.; Noguchi, Y.; Sato, K.; Akaike, T. Enhanced vascular permeability in solid tumor is mediated by nitric oxide and inhibited by both new nitric oxide scavenger and nitric oxide synthase inhibitor. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 1994, 85, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Weidensteiner, C.; Reichardt, W.; Shami, P.J.; Saavedra, J.E.; Keefer, L.K.; Baumer, B.; Werres, A.; Jasinski, R.; Osterberg, N.; Weyerbrock, A. Effects of the nitric oxide donor JS-K on the blood-tumor barrier and on orthotopic U87 rat gliomas assessed by MRI. Nitric Oxide 2013, 30, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Okada, F. Beyond foreign-body-induced carcinogenesis: Impact of reactive oxygen species derived from inflammatory cells in tumorigenic conversion and tumor progression. Int. J. Cancer 2007, 121, 2364–2372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Gu, Y.T.; Xue, Y.X.; Wang, Y.F.; Wang, J.H.; ShangGuan, Q.R.; Zhang, J.X.; Qin, L.J. Role of ROS/RhoA/PI3K/PKB signaling in NS1619-mediated blood-tumor barrier permeability increase. J. Mol. Neurosci. 2012, 48, 302–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fang, J.; Qin, H.; Nakamura, H.; Tsukigawa, K.; Shin, T.; Maeda, H. Carbon monoxide, generated by heme oxygenase-1, mediates the enhanced permeability and retention effect in solid tumors. Cancer Sci. 2012, 103, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tanaka, S.; Akaike, T.; Wu, J.; Fang, J.; Sawa, T.; Ogawa, M.; Beppu, T.; Maeda, H. Modulation of tumor-selective vascular blood flow and extravasation by the stable prostaglandin 12 analogue beraprost sodium. J. Drug Target. 2003, 11, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, J.; Akaike, T.; Hayashida, K.; Okamoto, T.; Okuyama, A.; Maeda, H. Enhanced vascular permeability in solid tumor involving peroxynitrite and matrix metalloproteinases. Jpn. J. Cancer Res. 2001, 92, 439–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Deryugina, E.I. Chorioallantoic Membrane Microtumor Model to Study the Mechanisms of Tumor Angiogenesis, Vascular Permeability, and Tumor Cell Intravasation. Methods Mol. Biol. 2016, 1430, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Murohara, T.; Horowitz, J.R.; Silver, M.; Tsurumi, Y.; Chen, D.; Sullivan, A.; Isner, J.M. Vascular endothelial growth factor/vascular permeability factor enhances vascular permeability via nitric oxide and prostacyclin. Circulation 1998, 97, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kano, M.R.; Bae, Y.; Iwata, C.; Morishita, Y.; Yashiro, M.; Oka, M.; Fujii, T.; Komuro, A.; Kiyono, K.; Kaminishi, M.; et al. Improvement of cancer-targeting therapy, using nanocarriers for intractable solid tumors by inhibition of TGF-beta signaling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 3460–3465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Seki, T.; Carroll, F.; Illingworth, S.; Green, N.; Cawood, R.; Bachtarzi, H.; Subr, V.; Fisher, K.D.; Seymour, L.W. Tumour necrosis factor-alpha increases extravasation of virus particles into tumour tissue by activating the Rho A/Rho kinase pathway. J. Controll. Release 2011, 156, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Matsumura, Y.; Maeda, H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: Mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent smancs. Cancer Res. 1986, 46, 6387–6392. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Maeda, H. The link between infection and cancer: Tumor vasculature, free radicals, and drug delivery to tumors via the EPR effect. Cancer Sci. 2013, 104, 779–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Maeda, H. Toward a full understanding of the EPR effect in primary and metastatic tumors as well as issues related to its heterogeneity. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2015, 91, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Maeda, H. Polymer therapeutics and the EPR effect. J. Drug Target. 2017, 25, 781–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, J.; Sui, M.; Fan, W. Nanoparticles for tumor targeted therapies and their pharmacokinetics. Curr. Drug Metab. 2010, 11, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Golombek, S.K.; May, J.N.; Theek, B.; Appold, L.; Drude, N.; Kiessling, F.; Lammers, T. Tumor targeting via EPR: Strategies to enhance patient responses. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2018, 130, 17–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rosenblum, D.; Joshi, N.; Tao, W.; Karp, J.M.; Peer, D. Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Working, P.K.; Dayan, A.D. Pharmacological-toxicological expert report. CAELYX. (Stealth liposomal doxorubicin HCl). Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1996, 15, 751–785. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Batist, G.; Ramakrishnan, G.; Rao, C.S.; Chandrasekharan, A.; Gutheil, J.; Guthrie, T.; Shah, P.; Khojasteh, A.; Nair, M.K.; Hoelzer, K.; et al. Reduced cardiotoxicity and preserved antitumor efficacy of liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide compared with conventional doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in a randomized, multicenter trial of metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 1444–1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Petre, C.E.; Dittmer, D.P. Liposomal daunorubicin as treatment for Kaposi’s sarcoma. Int. J. Nanomed. 2007, 2, 277–288. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yingchoncharoen, P.; Kalinowski, D.S.; Richardson, D.R. Lipid-Based Drug Delivery Systems in Cancer Therapy: What Is Available and What Is Yet to Come. Pharmacol. Rev. 2016, 68, 701–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Bulbake, U.; Doppalapudi, S.; Kommineni, N.; Khan, W. Liposomal Formulations in Clinical Use: An Updated Review. Pharmaceutics 2017, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hardiansyah, A.; Huang, L.Y.; Yang, M.C.; Liu, T.Y.; Tsai, S.C.; Yang, C.Y.; Kuo, C.Y.; Chan, T.Y.; Zou, H.M.; Lian, W.N.; et al. Magnetic liposomes for colorectal cancer cells therapy by high-frequency magnetic field treatment. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Chen, X.; Zhang, Y.; Tang, C.; Tian, C.; Sun, Q.; Su, Z.; Xue, L.; Yin, Y.; Ju, C.; Zhang, C. Co-delivery of paclitaxel and anti-survivin siRNA via redox-sensitive oligopeptide liposomes for the synergistic treatment of breast cancer and metastasis. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 529, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Chi, Y.; Yin, X.; Sun, K.; Feng, S.; Liu, J.; Chen, D.; Guo, C.; Wu, Z. Redox-sensitive and hyaluronic acid functionalized liposomes for cytoplasmic drug delivery to osteosarcoma in animal models. J. Controll. Release 2017, 261, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Pourhassan, H.; Clergeaud, G.; Hansen, A.E.; Ostrem, R.G.; Fliedner, F.P.; Melander, F.; Nielsen, O.L.; O’Sullivan, C.K.; Kjaer, A.; Andresen, T.L. Revisiting the use of sPLA2-sensitive liposomes in cancer therapy. J. Controll. Release 2017, 261, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Deyev, S.; Proshkina, G.; Baryshnikova, O.; Ryabova, A.; Avishai, G.; Katrivas, L.; Giannini, C.; Levi-Kalisman, Y.; Kotlyar, A. Selective staining and eradication of cancer cells by protein-carrying DARPin-functionalized liposomes. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2018, 130, 296–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Salkho, N.M.; Paul, V.; Kawak, P.; Vitor, R.F.; Martins, A.M.; Al Sayah, M.; Husseini, G.A. Ultrasonically controlled estrone-modified liposomes for estrogen-positive breast cancer therapy. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Yudintsev, A.V.; Shilyagina, N.Y.; Dyakova, D.V.; Lermontova, S.A.; Klapshina, L.G.; Guryev, E.L.; Balalaeva, I.V.; Vodeneev, V.A. Liposomal Form of Tetra(Aryl)Tetracyanoporphyrazine: Physical Properties and Photodynamic Activity In Vitro. J. Fluoresc. 2018, 28, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fasano, M.; Curry, S.; Terreno, E.; Galliano, M.; Fanali, G.; Narciso, P.; Notari, S.; Ascenzi, P. The extraordinary ligand binding properties of human serum albumin. IUBMB Life 2005, 57, 787–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Elzoghby, A.O.; Samy, W.M.; Elgindy, N.A. Albumin-based nanoparticles as potential controlled release drug delivery systems. J. Controll. Release 2012, 157, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Goldstein, D.; El-Maraghi, R.H.; Hammel, P.; Heinemann, V.; Kunzmann, V.; Sastre, J.; Scheithauer, W.; Siena, S.; Tabernero, J.; Teixeira, L.; et al. nab-Paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: Long-term survival from a phase III trial. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2015, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Hirsh, V. nab-Paclitaxel for the management of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2014, 14, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Yamamoto, Y.; Kawano, I.; Iwase, H. nab-Paclitaxel for the treatment of breast cancer: Efficacy, safety, and approval. OncoTargets Ther. 2011, 4, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Duan, J.; Hao, Y.; Wan, R.; Yu, S.; Bai, H.; An, T.; Zhao, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhuo, M.; Wang, J. Efficacy and safety of weekly intravenous nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel for non-small cell lung cancer patients who have failed at least two prior systemic treatments. Thorac. Cancer 2017, 8, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Saif, M.W. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves paclitaxel protein-bound particles (Abraxane(R)) in combination with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. J. Pancreas 2013, 14, 686–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wan, X.; Zheng, X.; Pang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Jing, T.; Xu, W.; Zhang, Q. The potential use of lapatinib-loaded human serum albumin nanoparticles in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 484, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yu, X.; Di, Y.; Xie, C.; Song, Y.; He, H.; Li, H.; Pu, X.; Lu, W.; Fu, D.; Jin, C. An in vitro and in vivo study of gemcitabine-loaded albumin nanoparticles in a pancreatic cancer cell line. Int. J. Nanomed. 2015, 10, 6825–6834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Peralta, D.V.; He, J.; Wheeler, D.A.; Zhang, J.Z.; Tarr, M.A. Encapsulating gold nanomaterials into size-controlled human serum albumin nanoparticles for cancer therapy platforms. J. Microencapsul. 2014, 31, 824–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Han, J.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Gong, T.; Sun, X. Cationic bovine serum albumin based self-assembled nanoparticles as siRNA delivery vector for treating lung metastatic cancer. Small 2014, 10, 524–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Piao, L.; Li, H.; Teng, L.; Yung, B.C.; Sugimoto, Y.; Brueggemeier, R.W.; Lee, R.J. Human serum albumin-coated lipid nanoparticles for delivery of siRNA to breast cancer. Nanomedicine 2013, 9, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Choi, S.H.; Byeon, H.J.; Choi, J.S.; Thao, L.; Kim, I.; Lee, E.S.; Shin, B.S.; Lee, K.C.; Youn, Y.S. Inhalable self-assembled albumin nanoparticles for treating drug-resistant lung cancer. J. Controll. Release 2015, 197, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Lian, H.; Wu, J.; Hu, Y.; Guo, H. Self-assembled albumin nanoparticles for combination therapy in prostate cancer. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 7777–7787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Klapshina, L.G.; Douglas, W.E.; Grigoryev, I.S.; Ladilina, E.Y.; Shirmanova, M.V.; Mysyagin, S.A.; Balalaeva, I.V.; Zagaynova, E.V. Novel PEG-organized biocompatible fluorescent nanoparticles doped with an ytterbium cyanoporphyrazine complex for biophotonic applications. Chem. Commun. 2010, 46, 8398–8400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tyler, B.; Gullotti, D.; Mangraviti, A.; Utsuki, T.; Brem, H. Polylactic acid (PLA) controlled delivery carriers for biomedical applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2016, 107, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bowerman, C.J.; Byrne, J.D.; Chu, K.S.; Schorzman, A.N.; Keeler, A.W.; Sherwood, C.A.; Perry, J.L.; Luft, J.C.; Darr, D.B.; Deal, A.M.; et al. Docetaxel-Loaded PLGA Nanoparticles Improve Efficacy in Taxane-Resistant Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Grossen, P.; Witzigmann, D.; Sieber, S.; Huwyler, J. PEG-PCL-based nanomedicines: A biodegradable drug delivery system and its application. J. Controll. Release 2017, 260, 46–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Sivak, L.; Subr, V.; Tomala, J.; Rihova, B.; Strohalm, J.; Etrych, T.; Kovar, M. Overcoming multidrug resistance via simultaneous delivery of cytostatic drug and P-glycoprotein inhibitor to cancer cells by HPMA copolymer conjugate. Biomaterials 2017, 115, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Dalela, M.; Shrivastav, T.G.; Kharbanda, S.; Singh, H. pH-Sensitive Biocompatible Nanoparticles of Paclitaxel-Conjugated Poly(styrene-co-maleic acid) for Anticancer Drug Delivery in Solid Tumors of Syngeneic Mice. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015, 7, 26530–26548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Abozeid, S.M.; Hathout, R.M.; Abou-Aisha, K. Silencing of the metastasis-linked gene, AEG-1, using siRNA-loaded cholamine surface-modified gelatin nanoparticles in the breast carcinoma cell line MCF-7. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2016, 145, 607–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yhee, J.Y.; Song, S.; Lee, S.J.; Park, S.G.; Kim, K.S.; Kim, M.G.; Son, S.; Koo, H.; Kwon, I.C.; Jeong, J.H.; et al. Cancer-targeted MDR-1 siRNA delivery using self-cross-linked glycol chitosan nanoparticles to overcome drug resistance. J. Controll. Release 2015, 198, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Deshpande, N.U.; Jayakannan, M. Cisplatin-Stitched Polysaccharide Vesicles for Synergistic Cancer Therapy of Triple Antagonistic Drugs. Biomacromolecules 2017, 18, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Oliveira, R.R.; Carriao, M.S.; Pacheco, M.T.; Branquinho, L.C.; de Souza, A.L.R.; Bakuzis, A.F.; Lima, E.M. Triggered release of paclitaxel from magnetic solid lipid nanoparticles by magnetic hyperthermia. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2018, 92, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Elsabahy, M.; Wooley, K.L. Design of polymeric nanoparticles for biomedical delivery applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012, 41, 2545–2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Huang, B.; Otis, J.; Joice, M.; Kotlyar, A.; Thomas, T.P. PSMA-targeted stably linked “dendrimer-glutamate urea-methotrexate” as a prostate cancer therapeutic. Biomacromolecules 2014, 15, 915–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, T.; Smet, M.; Dehaen, W.; Xu, H. Selenium-Platinum Coordination Dendrimers with Controlled Anti-Cancer Activity. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 3609–3614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pearce, A.K.; Simpson, J.D.; Fletcher, N.L.; Houston, Z.H.; Fuchs, A.V.; Russell, P.J.; Whittaker, A.K.; Thurecht, K.J. Localised delivery of doxorubicin to prostate cancer cells through a PSMA-targeted hyperbranched polymer theranostic. Biomaterials 2017, 141, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Cabral, H.; Kataoka, K. Progress of drug-loaded polymeric micelles into clinical studies. J. Controll. Release 2014, 190, 465–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  93. Shilyagina, N.Y.; Peskova, N.N.; Lermontova, S.A.; Brilkina, A.A.; Vodeneev, V.A.; Yakimansky, A.V.; Klapshina, L.G.; Balalaeva, I.V. Effective delivery of porphyrazine photosensitizers to cancer cells by polymer brush nanocontainers. J. Biophotonics 2017, 10, 1189–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Lee, C.S.; Kim, H.; Yu, J.; Yu, S.H.; Ban, S.; Oh, S.; Jeong, D.; Im, J.; Baek, M.J.; Kim, T.H. Doxorubicin-loaded oligonucleotide conjugated gold nanoparticles: A promising in vivo drug delivery system for colorectal cancer therapy. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2017, 142, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Khan, M.S.; Talib, A.; Pandey, S.; Bhaisare, M.L.; Gedda, G.; Wu, H.F. Folic Acid navigated Silver Selenide nanoparticles for photo-thermal ablation of cancer cells. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2017, 159, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Jawaid, P.; Rehman, M.U.; Hassan, M.A.; Zhao, Q.L.; Li, P.; Miyamoto, Y.; Misawa, M.; Ogawa, R.; Shimizu, T.; Kondo, T. Effect of platinum nanoparticles on cell death induced by ultrasound in human lymphoma U937 cells. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2016, 31, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Feng, Q.; Shen, Y.; Fu, Y.; Muroski, M.E.; Zhang, P.; Wang, Q.; Xu, C.; Lesniak, M.S.; Li, G.; Cheng, Y. Self-Assembly of Gold Nanoparticles Shows Microenvironment-Mediated Dynamic Switching and Enhanced Brain Tumor Targeting. Theranostics 2017, 7, 1875–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Deyev, S.; Proshkina, G.; Ryabova, A.; Tavanti, F.; Menziani, M.C.; Eidelshtein, G.; Avishai, G.; Kotlyar, A. Synthesis, Characterization, and Selective Delivery of DARPin-Gold Nanoparticle Conjugates to Cancer Cells. Bioconjugate Chem. 2017, 28, 2569–2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Naha, P.C.; Lau, K.C.; Hsu, J.C.; Hajfathalian, M.; Mian, S.; Chhour, P.; Uppuluri, L.; McDonald, E.S.; Maidment, A.D.; Cormode, D.P. Gold silver alloy nanoparticles (GSAN): An imaging probe for breast cancer screening with dual-energy mammography or computed tomography. Nanoscale 2016, 8, 13740–13754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhao, Y.; Pang, B.; Luehmann, H.; Detering, L.; Yang, X.; Sultan, D.; Harpstrite, S.; Sharma, V.; Cutler, C.S.; Xia, Y.; et al. Gold Nanoparticles Doped with (199) Au Atoms and Their Use for Targeted Cancer Imaging by SPECT. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2016, 5, 928–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Balalaeva, I.V.; Zdobnova, T.A.; Krutova, I.V.; Brilkina, A.A.; Lebedenko, E.N.; Deyev, S.M. Passive and active targeting of quantum dots for whole-body fluorescence imaging of breast cancer xenografts. J. Biophotonics 2012, 5, 860–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Depan, D.; Misra, R.D. Structural and physicochemical aspects of silica encapsulated ZnO quantum dots with high quantum yield and their natural uptake in HeLa cells. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2014, 102, 2934–2941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Balalaeva, I.V.; Zdobnova, T.A.; Sokolova, E.A.; Deyev, S.M. Targeted delivery of quantum dots to the HER2-expressing tumor using recombinant antibodies. Russ. J. Bioorg. Chem. 2015, 41, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Li, Y.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, X.; Liu, S.; Pei, Q.; Zheng, M.; Xie, Z. Porphyrin-Based Carbon Dots for Photodynamic Therapy of Hepatoma. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2017, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Liang, L.; Care, A.; Zhang, R.; Lu, Y.; Packer, N.H.; Sunna, A.; Qian, Y.; Zvyagin, A.V. Facile Assembly of Functional Upconversion Nanoparticles for Targeted Cancer Imaging and Photodynamic Therapy. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 11945–11953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Nikitin, M.P.; Zdobnova, T.A.; Lukash, S.V.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Deyev, S.M. Protein-assisted self-assembly of multifunctional nanoparticles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5827–5832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Nikitin, M.P.; Shipunova, V.O.; Deyev, S.M.; Nikitin, P.I. Biocomputing based on particle disassembly. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2014, 9, 716–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Ding, N.; Sano, K.; Kanazaki, K.; Ohashi, M.; Deguchi, J.; Kanada, Y.; Ono, M.; Saji, H. In Vivo HER2-Targeted Magnetic Resonance Tumor Imaging Using Iron Oxide Nanoparticles Conjugated with Anti-HER2 Fragment Antibody. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2016, 18, 870–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ahmadi, Y.; Kostenich, G.; Oron-Herman, M.; Wadsak, W.; Mitterhauser, M.; Orenstein, A.; Mirzaei, S.; Knoll, P. In vivo magnetic resonance imaging of pancreatic tumors using iron oxide nanoworms targeted with PTR86 peptide. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2017, 158, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wang, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Han, N.; Bai, L.; Li, J.; Liu, J.; Che, E.; Hu, L.; Zhang, Q.; Jiang, T.; et al. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles in drug delivery and biomedical applications. Nanomedicine 2015, 11, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Parakhonskiy, B.V.; Haase, A.; Antolini, R. Sub-Micrometer Vaterite Containers: Synthesis, Substance Loading, and Release. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2012, 51, 1195–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Abalymov, A.A.; Verkhovskii, R.A.; Novoselova, M.V.; Parakhonskiy, B.V.; Gorin, D.A.; Yashchenok, A.M.; Sukhorukov, G.B. Live-Cell Imaging by Confocal Raman and Fluorescence Microscopy Recognizes the Crystal Structure of Calcium Carbonate Particles in HeLa Cells. Biotechnol. J. 2018, 13, e1800071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Miller, M.A.; Zheng, Y.R.; Gadde, S.; Pfirschke, C.; Zope, H.; Engblom, C.; Kohler, R.H.; Iwamoto, Y.; Yang, K.S.; Askevold, B.; et al. Tumour-associated macrophages act as a slow-release reservoir of nano-therapeutic Pt(IV) pro-drug. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Wilhelm, S.; Tavares, A.J.; Dai, Q.; Ohta, S.; Audet, J.; Dvorak, H.F.; Chan, W.C.W. Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2016, 1, 16014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Danhier, F. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: Since the EPR effect fails in the clinic, what is the future of nanomedicine? J. Controll. Release 2016, 244, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Maeda, H.; Khatami, M. Analyses of repeated failures in cancer therapy for solid tumors: Poor tumor-selective drug delivery, low therapeutic efficacy and unsustainable costs. Clin. Transl. Med. 2018, 7, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. O’Brien, M.E.R.; Wigler, N.; Inbar, M.; Rosso, R.; Grischke, E.; Santoro, A.; Catane, R.; Kieback, D.G.; Tomczak, P.; Ackland, S.P.; et al. 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. Ann. Oncol. 2004, 15, 440–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Gradishar, W.J.; Tjulandin, S.; Davidson, N.; Shaw, H.; Desai, N.; Bhar, P.; Hawkins, M.; O’Shaughnessy, J. Phase III Trial of Nanoparticle Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel Compared With Polyethylated Castor Oil–Based Paclitaxel in Women With Breast Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 7794–7803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Gillies, R.J.; Schornack, P.A.; Secomb, T.W.; Raghunand, N. Causes and effects of heterogeneous perfusion in tumors. Neoplasia 1999, 1, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Jain, R.K. Transport of molecules in the tumor interstitium: A review. Cancer Res. 1987, 47, 3039–3051. [Google Scholar]
  121. Natfji, A.A.; Ravishankar, D.; Osborn, H.M.I.; Greco, F. Parameters Affecting the Enhanced Permeability and Retention Effect: The Need for Patient Selection. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 106, 3179–3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Romero-Garcia, S.; Lopez-Gonzalez, J.S.; Baez-Viveros, J.L.; Aguilar-Cazares, D.; Prado-Garcia, H. Tumor cell metabolism: An integral view. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2011, 12, 939–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  123. DeBerardinis, R.J.; Chandel, N.S. Fundamentals of cancer metabolism. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1600200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Uhlen, M.; Zhang, C.; Lee, S.; Sjostedt, E.; Fagerberg, L.; Bidkhori, G.; Benfeitas, R.; Arif, M.; Liu, Z.; Edfors, F.; et al. A pathology atlas of the human cancer transcriptome. Science 2017, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Bae, Y.H.; Park, K. Targeted drug delivery to tumors: Myths, reality and possibility. J. Controll. Release 2011, 153, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Zalba, S.; Contreras, A.M.; Haeri, A.; Ten Hagen, T.L.; Navarro, I.; Koning, G.; Garrido, M.J. Cetuximab-oxaliplatin-liposomes for epidermal growth factor receptor targeted chemotherapy of colorectal cancer. J. Controll. Release 2015, 210, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Glatt, D.M.; Beckford Vera, D.R.; Prabhu, S.S.; Mumper, R.J.; Luft, J.C.; Benhabbour, S.R.; Parrott, M.C. Synthesis and Characterization of Cetuximab-Docetaxel and Panitumumab-Docetaxel Antibody-Drug Conjugates for EGFR-Overexpressing Cancer Therapy. Mol. Pharm. 2018, 15, 5089–5102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Pardo, A.; Stocker, M.; Kampmeier, F.; Melmer, G.; Fischer, R.; Thepen, T.; Barth, S. In vivo imaging of immunotoxin treatment using Katushka-transfected A-431 cells in a murine xenograft tumour model. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2012, 61, 1617–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Huang, L.; Gainkam, L.O.; Caveliers, V.; Vanhove, C.; Keyaerts, M.; De Baetselier, P.; Bossuyt, A.; Revets, H.; Lahoutte, T. SPECT imaging with 99mTc-labeled EGFR-specific nanobody for in vivo monitoring of EGFR expression. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2008, 10, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Kruwel, T.; Nevoltris, D.; Bode, J.; Dullin, C.; Baty, D.; Chames, P.; Alves, F. In vivo detection of small tumour lesions by multi-pinhole SPECT applying a (99m)Tc-labelled nanobody targeting the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Berstad, M.B.; Cheung, L.H.; Berg, K.; Peng, Q.; Fremstedal, A.S.; Patzke, S.; Rosenblum, M.G.; Weyergang, A. Design of an EGFR-targeting toxin for photochemical delivery: In vitro and in vivo selectivity and efficacy. Oncogene 2015, 34, 5582–5592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Goldstein, R.; Sosabowski, J.; Livanos, M.; Leyton, J.; Vigor, K.; Bhavsar, G.; Nagy-Davidescu, G.; Rashid, M.; Miranda, E.; Yeung, J.; et al. Development of the designed ankyrin repeat protein (DARPin) G3 for HER2 molecular imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2015, 42, 288–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Vaneycken, I.; Devoogdt, N.; Van Gassen, N.; Vincke, C.; Xavier, C.; Wernery, U.; Muyldermans, S.; Lahoutte, T.; Caveliers, V. Preclinical screening of anti-HER2 nanobodies for molecular imaging of breast cancer. FASEB J. 2011, 25, 2433–2446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Sokolova, E.A.; Zdobnova, T.A.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Balalaeva, I.V.; Deyev, S.M. Novel recombinant anti-HER2/neu immunotoxin: Design and antitumor efficiency. Biochemistry 2014, 79, 1376–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zdobnova, T.; Sokolova, E.; Stremovskiy, O.; Karpenko, D.; Telford, W.; Turchin, I.; Balalaeva, I.; Deyev, S. A novel far-red fluorescent xenograft model of ovarian carcinoma for preclinical evaluation of HER2-targeted immunotoxins. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 30919–30928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Cao, Y.; Marks, J.W.; Liu, Z.; Cheung, L.H.; Hittelman, W.N.; Rosenblum, M.G. Design optimization and characterization of Her2/neu-targeted immunotoxins: Comparative in vitro and in vivo efficacy studies. Oncogene 2014, 33, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Sokolova, E.; Proshkina, G.; Kutova, O.; Shilova, O.; Ryabova, A.; Schulga, A.; Stremovskiy, O.; Zdobnova, T.; Balalaeva, I.; Deyev, S. Recombinant targeted toxin based on HER2-specific DARPin possesses a strong selective cytotoxic effect in vitro and a potent antitumor activity in vivo. J. Controll. Release 2016, 233, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sandberg, D.; Tolmachev, V.; Velikyan, I.; Olofsson, H.; Wennborg, A.; Feldwisch, J.; Carlsson, J.; Lindman, H.; Sorensen, J. Intra-image referencing for simplified assessment of HER2-expression in breast cancer metastases using the Affibody molecule ABY-025 with PET and SPECT. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2017, 44, 1337–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Guryev, E.L.; Volodina, N.O.; Shilyagina, N.Y.; Gudkov, S.V.; Balalaeva, I.V.; Volovetskiy, A.B.; Lyubeshkin, A.V.; Sen, A.V.; Ermilov, S.A.; Vodeneev, V.A.; et al. Radioactive ((90)Y) upconversion nanoparticles conjugated with recombinant targeted toxin for synergistic nanotheranostics of cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 9690–9695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Peters, S.; Stahel, R.; Bubendorf, L.; Bonomi, P.; Villegas, A.; Kowalski, D.M.; Baik, C.S.; Isla, D.; Carpeno, J.C.; Garrido, P.; et al. Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) in Patients with Previously Treated HER2-Overexpressing Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Efficacy, Safety, and Biomarkers. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Rosestedt, M.; Andersson, K.G.; Mitran, B.; Tolmachev, V.; Lofblom, J.; Orlova, A.; Stahl, S. Affibody-mediated PET imaging of HER3 expression in malignant tumours. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  142. Miller, K.; Dixit, S.; Bredlau, A.L.; Moore, A.; McKinnon, E.; Broome, A.M. Delivery of a drug cache to glioma cells overexpressing platelet-derived growth factor receptor using lipid nanocarriers. Nanomedicine 2016, 11, 581–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  143. Mitran, B.; Altai, M.; Hofstrom, C.; Honarvar, H.; Sandstrom, M.; Orlova, A.; Tolmachev, V.; Graslund, T. Evaluation of 99mTc-Z IGF1R:4551-GGGC affibody molecule, a new probe for imaging of insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor expression. Amino Acids 2015, 47, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Li, N.; Zhao, Q.; Shu, C.; Ma, X.; Li, R.; Shen, H.; Zhong, W. Targeted killing of cancer cells in vivo and in vitro with IGF-IR antibody-directed carbon nanohorns based drug delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2015, 478, 644–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Xu, L.; Pirollo, K.F.; Tang, W.H.; Rait, A.; Chang, E.H. Transferrin-liposome-mediated systemic p53 gene therapy in combination with radiation results in regression of human head and neck cancer xenografts. Hum. Gene Ther. 1999, 10, 2941–2952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Chatalic, K.L.; Veldhoven-Zweistra, J.; Bolkestein, M.; Hoeben, S.; Koning, G.A.; Boerman, O.C.; de Jong, M.; van Weerden, W.M. A Novel (1)(1)(1)In-Labeled Anti-Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Nanobody for Targeted SPECT/CT Imaging of Prostate Cancer. J. Nucl. Med. 2015, 56, 1094–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Ikemoto, K.; Shimizu, K.; Ohashi, K.; Takeuchi, Y.; Shimizu, M.; Oku, N. Bauhinia purprea agglutinin-modified liposomes for human prostate cancer treatment. Cancer Sci. 2016, 107, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Hassan, R.; Sharon, E.; Thomas, A.; Zhang, J.; Ling, A.; Miettinen, M.; Kreitman, R.J.; Steinberg, S.M.; Hollevoet, K.; Pastan, I. Phase 1 study of the antimesothelin immunotoxin SS1P in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin for front-line therapy of pleural mesothelioma and correlation of tumor response with serum mesothelin, megakaryocyte potentiating factor, and cancer antigen 125. Cancer 2014, 120, 3311–3319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Wang, B.; Lv, L.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Lv, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Xin, H.; Xu, Q. Improved anti-glioblastoma efficacy by IL-13Ralpha2 mediated copolymer nanoparticles loaded with paclitaxel. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 16589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Moore, K.N.; Borghaei, H.; O’Malley, D.M.; Jeong, W.; Seward, S.M.; Bauer, T.M.; Perez, R.P.; Matulonis, U.A.; Running, K.L.; Zhang, X.; et al. Phase 1 dose-escalation study of mirvetuximab soravtansine (IMGN853), a folate receptor alpha-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, in patients with solid tumors. Cancer 2017, 123, 3080–3087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Paulmurugan, R.; Bhethanabotla, R.; Mishra, K.; Devulapally, R.; Foygel, K.; Sekar, T.V.; Ananta, J.S.; Massoud, T.F.; Joy, A. Folate Receptor-Targeted Polymeric Micellar Nanocarriers for Delivery of Orlistat as a Repurposed Drug against Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2016, 15, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Otake, E.; Sakuma, S.; Torii, K.; Maeda, A.; Ohi, H.; Yano, S.; Morita, A. Effect and mechanism of a new photodynamic therapy with glycoconjugated fullerene. Photochem. Photobiol. 2010, 86, 1356–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Hong, S.S.; Zhang, M.X.; Zhang, M.; Yu, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhang, X.Y.; Xu, C.J. Follicle-stimulating hormone peptide-conjugated nanoparticles for targeted shRNA delivery lead to effective gro-alpha silencing and antitumor activity against ovarian cancer. Drug Deliv. 2018, 25, 576–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Frankel, A.E.; Zuckero, S.L.; Mankin, A.A.; Grable, M.; Mitchell, K.; Lee, Y.J.; Neville, D.M.; Woo, J.H. Anti-CD3 recombinant diphtheria immunotoxin therapy of cutaneous T cell lymphoma. Curr. Drug Targets 2009, 10, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Kantarjian, H.M.; Lioure, B.; Kim, S.K.; Atallah, E.; Leguay, T.; Kelly, K.; Marolleau, J.P.; Escoffre-Barbe, M.; Thomas, X.G.; Cortes, J.; et al. A Phase II Study of Coltuximab Ravtansine (SAR3419) Monotherapy in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2016, 16, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  156. Ogura, M.; Tobinai, K.; Hatake, K.; Davies, A.; Crump, M.; Ananthakrishnan, R.; Ishibashi, T.; Paccagnella, M.L.; Boni, J.; Vandendries, E.; et al. Phase I Study of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin Combined with R-CVP for Relapsed/Refractory CD22+ B-cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 4807–4816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Wayne, A.S.; Shah, N.N.; Bhojwani, D.; Silverman, L.B.; Whitlock, J.A.; Stetler-Stevenson, M.; Sun, W.; Liang, M.; Yang, J.; Kreitman, R.J.; et al. Phase 1 study of the anti-CD22 immunotoxin moxetumomab pasudotox for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2017, 130, 1620–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Kreitman, R.J.; Stetler-Stevenson, M.; Jaffe, E.S.; Conlon, K.C.; Steinberg, S.M.; Wilson, W.; Waldmann, T.A.; Pastan, I. Complete Remissions of Adult T-cell Leukemia with Anti-CD25 Recombinant Immunotoxin LMB-2 and Chemotherapy to Block Immunogenicity. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 310–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Zinzani, P.L.; Pellegrini, C.; Chiappella, A.; Di Rocco, A.; Salvi, F.; Cabras, M.G.; Argnani, L.; Stefoni, V. Brentuximab vedotin in relapsed primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma: Results from a phase 2 clinical trial. Blood 2017, 129, 2328–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sherbenou, D.W.; Aftab, B.T.; Su, Y.; Behrens, C.R.; Wiita, A.; Logan, A.C.; Acosta-Alvear, D.; Hann, B.C.; Walter, P.; Shuman, M.A.; et al. Antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD46 eliminates multiple myeloma cells. J. Clin. Investig. 2016, 126, 4640–4653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Berdeja, J.G.; Ailawadhi, S.; Weitman, S.D.; Zildjian, S.; O’Leary, J.J.; O’Keeffe, J.; Guild, R.; Whiteman, K.; Chanan-Khan, A. Phase I study of lorvotuzumab mertansine (LM, IMGN901) in combination with lenalidomide (Len) and dexamethasone (Dex) in patients with CD56-positive relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 8013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Jeffrey, S.C.; Burke, P.J.; Lyon, R.P.; Meyer, D.W.; Sussman, D.; Anderson, M.; Hunter, J.H.; Leiske, C.I.; Miyamoto, J.B.; Nicholas, N.D.; et al. A potent anti-CD70 antibody-drug conjugate combining a dimeric pyrrolobenzodiazepine drug with site-specific conjugation technology. Bioconjugate Chem. 2013, 24, 1256–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Sapra, P.; Stein, R.; Pickett, J.; Qu, Z.; Govindan, S.V.; Cardillo, T.M.; Hansen, H.J.; Horak, I.D.; Griffiths, G.L.; Goldenberg, D.M. Anti-CD74 antibody-doxorubicin conjugate, IMMU-110, in a human multiple myeloma xenograft and in monkeys. Clin. Cancer Res. 2005, 11, 5257–5264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Tai, Y.T.; Mayes, P.A.; Acharya, C.; Zhong, M.Y.; Cea, M.; Cagnetta, A.; Craigen, J.; Yates, J.; Gliddon, L.; Fieles, W.; et al. Novel anti-B-cell maturation antigen antibody-drug conjugate (GSK2857916) selectively induces killing of multiple myeloma. Blood 2014, 123, 3128–3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  165. Salomon, D.S.; Brandt, R.; Ciardiello, F.; Normanno, N. Epidermal growth factor-related peptides and their receptors in human malignancies. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 1995, 19, 183–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Ocana, A.; Pandiella, A. Targeting HER receptors in cancer. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2013, 19, 808–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Polanovski, O.L.; Lebedenko, E.N.; Deyev, S.M. ERBB oncogene proteins as targets for monoclonal antibodies. Biochem. Biokhim. 2012, 77, 227–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Ballantyne, A.; Dhillon, S. Trastuzumab emtansine: First global approval. Drugs 2013, 73, 755–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Yang, W.; Barth, R.F.; Wu, G.; Huo, T.; Tjarks, W.; Ciesielski, M.; Fenstermaker, R.A.; Ross, B.D.; Wikstrand, C.J.; Riley, K.J.; et al. Convection enhanced delivery of boronated EGF as a molecular targeting agent for neutron capture therapy of brain tumors. J. Neuro-Oncol. 2009, 95, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Wu, G.; Yang, W.; Barth, R.F.; Kawabata, S.; Swindall, M.; Bandyopadhyaya, A.K.; Tjarks, W.; Khorsandi, B.; Blue, T.E.; Ferketich, A.K.; et al. Molecular targeting and treatment of an epidermal growth factor receptor-positive glioma using boronated cetuximab. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007, 13, 1260–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Pai-Scherf, L.H.; Villa, J.; Pearson, D.; Watson, T.; Liu, E.; Willingham, M.C.; Pastan, I. Hepatotoxicity in cancer patients receiving erb-38, a recombinant immunotoxin that targets the erbB2 receptor. Clin. Cancer Res. 1999, 5, 2311–2315. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  172. Azemar, M.; Djahansouzi, S.; Jager, E.; Solbach, C.; Schmidt, M.; Maurer, A.B.; Mross, K.; Unger, C.; von Minckwitz, G.; Dall, P.; et al. Regression of cutaneous tumor lesions in patients intratumorally injected with a recombinant single-chain antibody-toxin targeted to ErbB2/HER2. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2003, 82, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Sampson, J.H.; Akabani, G.; Archer, G.E.; Berger, M.S.; Coleman, R.E.; Friedman, A.H.; Friedman, H.S.; Greer, K.; Herndon, J.E., 2nd; Kunwar, S.; et al. Intracerebral infusion of an EGFR-targeted toxin in recurrent malignant brain tumors. Neuro-Oncol. 2008, 10, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Chandramohan, V.; Pegram, C.N.; Piao, H.; Szafranski, S.E.; Kuan, C.T.; Pastan, I.H.; Bigner, D.D. Production and quality control assessment of a GLP-grade immunotoxin, D2C7-(scdsFv)-PE38KDEL, for a phase I/II clinical trial. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017, 101, 2747–2766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Mahmud, H.; Dalken, B.; Wels, W.S. Induction of programmed cell death in ErbB2/HER2-expressing cancer cells by targeted delivery of apoptosis-inducing factor. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009, 8, 1526–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  176. Serebrovskaya, E.O.; Edelweiss, E.F.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Lukyanov, K.A.; Chudakov, D.M.; Deyev, S.M. Targeting cancer cells by using an antireceptor antibody-photosensitizer fusion protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 9221–9225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Wang, F.; Ren, J.; Qiu, X.C.; Wang, L.F.; Zhu, Q.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Huan, Y.; Meng, Y.L.; Yao, L.B.; Chen, S.Y.; et al. Selective cytotoxicity to HER2-positive tumor cells by a recombinant e23sFv-TD-tBID protein containing a furin cleavage sequence. Clin. Cancer Res. 2010, 16, 2284–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Mironova, K.E.; Proshkina, G.M.; Ryabova, A.V.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Lukyanov, S.A.; Petrov, R.V.; Deyev, S.M. Genetically encoded immunophotosensitizer 4D5scFv-miniSOG is a highly selective agent for targeted photokilling of tumor cells in vitro. Theranostics 2013, 3, 831–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Gaborit, N.; Abdul-Hai, A.; Mancini, M.; Lindzen, M.; Lavi, S.; Leitner, O.; Mounier, L.; Chentouf, M.; Dunoyer, S.; Ghosh, M.; et al. Examination of HER3 targeting in cancer using monoclonal antibodies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 839–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Sadat, S.M.; Saeidnia, S.; Nazarali, A.J.; Haddadi, A. Nano-pharmaceutical formulations for targeted drug delivery against HER2 in breast cancer. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2015, 15, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Meng, J.; Liu, Y.; Gao, S.; Lin, S.; Gu, X.; Pomper, M.G.; Wang, P.C.; Shan, L. A bivalent recombinant immunotoxin with high potency against tumors with EGFR and EGFRvIII expression. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2015, 16, 1764–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  182. Niesen, J.; Hehmann-Titt, G.; Woitok, M.; Fendel, R.; Barth, S.; Fischer, R.; Stein, C. A novel fully-human cytolytic fusion protein based on granzyme B shows in vitro cytotoxicity and ex vivo binding to solid tumors overexpressing the epidermal growth factor receptor. Cancer Lett. 2016, 374, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Sokolova, E.; Guryev, E.; Yudintsev, A.; Vodeneev, V.; Deyev, S.; Balalaeva, I. HER2-specific recombinant immunotoxin 4D5scFv-PE40 passes through retrograde trafficking route and forces cells to enter apoptosis. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 22048–22058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Deng, C.; Xiong, J.; Gu, X.; Chen, X.; Wu, S.; Wang, Z.; Wang, D.; Tu, J.; Xie, J. Novel recombinant immunotoxin of EGFR specific nanobody fused with cucurmosin, construction and antitumor efficiency in vitro. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 38568–38580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Proshkina, G.M.; Kiseleva, D.V.; Shilova, O.N.; Ryabova, A.V.; Shramova, E.I.; Stremovskiy, O.A.; Deyev, S.M. [Bifunctional Toxin DARP-LoPE Based on the HER2-Specific Innovative Module of a Non-Immunoglobulin Scaffold as a Promising Agent for Theranostics]. Mol. Biol. 2017, 51, 997–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Prager, G.W.; Poettler, M.; Unseld, M.; Zielinski, C.C. Angiogenesis in cancer: Anti-VEGF escape mechanisms. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2012, 1, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Fokong, S.; Theek, B.; Wu, Z.; Koczera, P.; Appold, L.; Jorge, S.; Resch-Genger, U.; van Zandvoort, M.; Storm, G.; Kiessling, F.; et al. Image-guided, targeted and triggered drug delivery to tumors using polymer-based microbubbles. J. Controll. Release 2012, 163, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Goel, S.; Chen, F.; Hong, H.; Valdovinos, H.F.; Hernandez, R.; Shi, S.; Barnhart, T.E.; Cai, W. VEGF(1)(2)(1)-conjugated mesoporous silica nanoparticle: A tumor targeted drug delivery system. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 21677–21685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Dvorak, H.F. Tumor Stroma, Tumor Blood Vessels, and Antiangiogenesis Therapy. Cancer J. 2015, 21, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Qian, Z.M.; Li, H.; Sun, H.; Ho, K. Targeted drug delivery via the transferrin receptor-mediated endocytosis pathway. Pharmacol. Rev. 2002, 54, 561–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Tortorella, S.; Karagiannis, T.C. Transferrin receptor-mediated endocytosis: A useful target for cancer therapy. J. Membr. Biol. 2014, 247, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Tortorella, S.; Karagiannis, T.C. The significance of transferrin receptors in oncology: The development of functional nano-based drug delivery systems. Curr. Drug Deliv. 2014, 11, 427–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Nogueira-Librelotto, D.R.; Codevilla, C.F.; Farooqi, A.; Rolim, C.M. Transferrin-Conjugated Nanocarriers as Active-Targeted Drug Delivery Platforms for Cancer Therapy. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2017, 23, 454–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Subia, B.; Chandra, S.; Talukdar, S.; Kundu, S.C. Folate conjugated silk fibroin nanocarriers for targeted drug delivery. Integr. Biol. 2014, 6, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Carron, P.M.; Crowley, A.; O’Shea, D.; McCann, M.; Howe, O.; Hunt, M.; Devereux, M. Targeting the Folate Receptor: Improving Efficacy in Inorganic Medicinal Chemistry. Curr. Med. Chem. 2018, 25, 2675–2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Chen, S.; Zhao, X.; Chen, J.; Chen, J.; Kuznetsova, L.; Wong, S.S.; Ojima, I. Mechanism-based tumor-targeting drug delivery system. Validation of efficient vitamin receptor-mediated endocytosis and drug release. Bioconjugate Chem. 2010, 21, 979–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Maiti, S.; Paira, P. Biotin conjugated organic molecules and proteins for cancer therapy: A review. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 145, 206–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Niemela, E.; Desai, D.; Nkizinkiko, Y.; Eriksson, J.E.; Rosenholm, J.M. Sugar-decorated mesoporous silica nanoparticles as delivery vehicles for the poorly soluble drug celastrol enables targeted induction of apoptosis in cancer cells. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2015, 96, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Eroglu, M.S.; Oner, E.T.; Mutlu, E.C.; Bostan, M.S. Sugar Based Biopolymers in Nanomedicine; New Emerging Era for Cancer Imaging and Therapy. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2017, 17, 1507–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Tanasova, M.; Begoyan, V.V.; Weselinski, L.J. Targeting Sugar Uptake and Metabolism for Cancer Identification and Therapy: An Overview. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2018, 18, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Mittal, N.K.; Bhattacharjee, H.; Mandal, B.; Balabathula, P.; Thoma, L.A.; Wood, G.C. Targeted liposomal drug delivery systems for the treatment of B cell malignancies. J. Drug Target. 2014, 22, 372–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Stephenson, R.; Singh, A. Drug discovery and therapeutic delivery for the treatment of B and T cell tumors. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2017, 114, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Wolska-Washer, A.; Robak, P.; Smolewski, P.; Robak, T. Emerging antibody-drug conjugates for treating lymphoid malignancies. Expert Opin. Emerg. Drugs 2017, 22, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Ma, X.; Xiong, Y.; Lee, L.T.O. Application of Nanoparticles for Targeting G Protein-Coupled Receptors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Wang, B.; Lv, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Wu, L.; Fang, X.; Xu, Q.; Xin, H. Nanoparticles functionalized with Pep-1 as potential glioma targeting delivery system via interleukin 13 receptor alpha2-mediated endocytosis. Biomaterials 2014, 35, 5897–5907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Showalter, S.L.; Huang, Y.H.; Witkiewicz, A.; Costantino, C.L.; Yeo, C.J.; Green, J.J.; Langer, R.; Anderson, D.G.; Sawicki, J.A.; Brody, J.R. Nanoparticulate delivery of diphtheria toxin DNA effectively kills Mesothelin expressing pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2008, 7, 1584–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Pastan, I.; Hassan, R. Discovery of mesothelin and exploiting it as a target for immunotherapy. Cancer Res. 2014, 74, 2907–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Barve, A.; Jin, W.; Cheng, K. Prostate cancer relevant antigens and enzymes for targeted drug delivery. J. Controll. Release 2014, 187, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  209. DiPippo, V.A.; Olson, W.C.; Nguyen, H.M.; Brown, L.G.; Vessella, R.L.; Corey, E. Efficacy studies of an antibody-drug conjugate PSMA-ADC in patient-derived prostate cancer xenografts. Prostate 2015, 75, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Duffy, C.V.; David, L.; Crouzier, T. Covalently-crosslinked mucin biopolymer hydrogels for sustained drug delivery. Acta Biomater. 2015, 20, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Nabavinia, M.S.; Gholoobi, A.; Charbgoo, F.; Nabavinia, M.; Ramezani, M.; Abnous, K. Anti-MUC1 aptamer: A potential opportunity for cancer treatment. Med. Res. Rev. 2017, 37, 1518–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  212. De Oliveira Figueiroa, E.; Albuquerque da Cunha, C.R.; Albuquerque, P.B.S.; de Paula, R.A.; Aranda-Souza, M.A.; Alves, M.S.; Zagmignan, A.; Carneiro-da-Cunha, M.G.; Nascimento da Silva, L.C.; Dos Santos Correia, M.T. Lectin-Carbohydrate Interactions: Implications for the Development of New Anticancer Agents. Curr. Med. Chem. 2017, 24, 3667–3680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Belli, C.; Trapani, D.; Viale, G.; D’Amico, P.; Duso, B.A.; Della Vigna, P.; Orsi, F.; Curigliano, G. Targeting the microenvironment in solid tumors. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2018, 65, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Von Hoff, D.D.; Ervin, T.; Arena, F.P.; Chiorean, E.G.; Infante, J.; Moore, M.; Seay, T.; Tjulandin, S.A.; Ma, W.W.; Saleh, M.N.; et al. Increased Survival in Pancreatic Cancer with nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 1691–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  215. Morris, J.C.; Tan, A.R.; Olencki, T.E.; Shapiro, G.I.; Dezube, B.J.; Reiss, M.; Hsu, F.J.; Berzofsky, J.A.; Lawrence, D.P. Phase I study of GC1008 (fresolimumab): A human anti-transforming growth factor-beta (TGFbeta) monoclonal antibody in patients with advanced malignant melanoma or renal cell carcinoma. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e90353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Cassier, P.A.; Italiano, A.; Gomez-Roca, C.A.; Le Tourneau, C.; Toulmonde, M.; Cannarile, M.A.; Ries, C.; Brillouet, A.; Muller, C.; Jegg, A.M.; et al. CSF1R inhibition with emactuzumab in locally advanced diffuse-type tenosynovial giant cell tumours of the soft tissue: A dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1 study. Lancet. Oncol. 2015, 16, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Bennouna, J.; Sastre, J.; Arnold, D.; Osterlund, P.; Greil, R.; Van Cutsem, E.; von Moos, R.; Vieitez, J.M.; Bouche, O.; Borg, C.; et al. Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): A randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. Oncol. 2013, 14, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Van Cutsem, E.; Tabernero, J.; Lakomy, R.; Prenen, H.; Prausova, J.; Macarulla, T.; Ruff, P.; van Hazel, G.A.; Moiseyenko, V.; Ferry, D.; et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 3499–3506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Egorova, A.; Shubina, A.; Sokolov, D.; Selkov, S.; Baranov, V.; Kiselev, A. CXCR4-targeted modular peptide carriers for efficient anti-VEGF siRNA delivery. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 515, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Topalian, S.L. Targeting Immune Checkpoints in Cancer Therapy. JAMA 2017, 318, 1647–1648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Khawar, I.A.; Kim, J.H.; Kuh, H.J. Improving drug delivery to solid tumors: Priming the tumor microenvironment. J. Controll. Release 2015, 201, 78–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Yang, S.; Gao, H. Nanoparticles for modulating tumor microenvironment to improve drug delivery and tumor therapy. Pharmacol. Res. 2017, 126, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  223. Fu, X.; Yang, Y.; Li, X.; Lai, H.; Huang, Y.; He, L.; Zheng, W.; Chen, T. RGD peptide-conjugated selenium nanoparticles: Antiangiogenesis by suppressing VEGF-VEGFR2-ERK/AKT pathway. Nanomedicine 2016, 12, 1627–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Li, X.; Wu, M.; Pan, L.; Shi, J. Tumor vascular-targeted co-delivery of anti-angiogenesis and chemotherapeutic agents by mesoporous silica nanoparticle-based drug delivery system for synergetic therapy of tumor. Int. J. Nanomed. 2016, 11, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Overington, J.P.; Al-Lazikani, B.; Hopkins, A.L. How many drug targets are there? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2006, 5, 993–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Vhora, I.; Patil, S.; Bhatt, P.; Gandhi, R.; Baradia, D.; Misra, A. Receptor-targeted drug delivery: Current perspective and challenges. Ther. Deliv. 2014, 5, 1007–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Deyev, S.M.; Lebedenko, E.N. Modern Technologies for Creating Synthetic Antibodies for Clinical application. Acta Nat. 2009, 1, 32–50. [Google Scholar]
  228. Pietersz, G.A.; Wang, X.; Yap, M.L.; Lim, B.; Peter, K. Therapeutic targeting in nanomedicine: The future lies in recombinant antibodies. Nanomedicine 2017, 12, 1873–1889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Hurwitz, E.; Maron, R.; Arnon, R.; Sela, M. Fab dimers of antitumor immunoglobulins as covalent carriers of daunomycin. Cancer Biochem. Biophys. 1976, 1, 197–202. [Google Scholar]
  230. Bird, R.E.; Hardman, K.D.; Jacobson, J.W.; Johnson, S.; Kaufman, B.M.; Lee, S.M.; Lee, T.; Pope, S.H.; Riordan, G.S.; Whitlow, M. Single-chain antigen-binding proteins. Science 1988, 242, 423–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Huston, J.S.; Levinson, D.; Mudgett-Hunter, M.; Tai, M.S.; Novotny, J.; Margolies, M.N.; Ridge, R.J.; Bruccoleri, R.E.; Haber, E.; Crea, R.; et al. Protein engineering of antibody binding sites: Recovery of specific activity in an anti-digoxin single-chain Fv analogue produced in Escherichia coli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1988, 85, 5879–5883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Brinkmann, U.; Reiter, Y.; Jung, S.H.; Lee, B.; Pastan, I. A recombinant immunotoxin containing a disulfide-stabilized Fv fragment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1993, 90, 7538–7542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Reiter, Y.; Pastan, I. Antibody engineering of recombinant Fv immunotoxins for improved targeting of cancer: Disulfide-stabilized Fv immunotoxins. Clin. Cancer Res. 1996, 2, 245–252. [Google Scholar]
  234. Hamers-Casterman, C.; Atarhouch, T.; Muyldermans, S.; Robinson, G.; Hamers, C.; Songa, E.B.; Bendahman, N.; Hamers, R. Naturally occurring antibodies devoid of light chains. Nature 1993, 363, 446–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Nelson, A.L. Antibody fragments: Hope and hype. mAbs 2010, 2, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  236. Shan, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, P. Recombinant Immunotoxin Therapy of Solid Tumors: Challenges and Strategies. J. Basic Clin. Med. 2013, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  237. Alibakhshi, A.; Abarghooi Kahaki, F.; Ahangarzadeh, S.; Yaghoobi, H.; Yarian, F.; Arezumand, R.; Ranjbari, J.; Mokhtarzadeh, A.; de la Guardia, M. Targeted cancer therapy through antibody fragments-decorated nanomedicines. J. Controll. Release 2017, 268, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Amoury, M.; Kolberg, K.; Pham, A.T.; Hristodorov, D.; Mladenov, R.; Di Fiore, S.; Helfrich, W.; Kiessling, F.; Fischer, R.; Pardo, A.; et al. Granzyme B-based cytolytic fusion protein targeting EpCAM specifically kills triple negative breast cancer cells in vitro and inhibits tumor growth in a subcutaneous mouse tumor model. Cancer Lett. 2016, 372, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  239. Kreitman, R.J.; Stetler-Stevenson, M.; Margulies, I.; Noel, P.; Fitzgerald, D.J.; Wilson, W.H.; Pastan, I. Phase II trial of recombinant immunotoxin RFB4(dsFv)-PE38 (BL22) in patients with hairy cell leukemia. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 2983–2990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  240. Hollevoet, K.; Mason-Osann, E.; Liu, X.F.; Imhof-Jung, S.; Niederfellner, G.; Pastan, I. In vitro and in vivo activity of the low-immunogenic antimesothelin immunotoxin RG7787 in pancreatic cancer. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2014, 13, 2040–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Yu, Y.; Li, J.; Zhu, X.; Tang, X.; Bao, Y.; Sun, X.; Huang, Y.; Tian, F.; Liu, X.; Yang, L. Humanized CD7 nanobody-based immunotoxins exhibit promising anti-T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia potential. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 1969–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  242. D’Hollander, A.; Jans, H.; Velde, G.V.; Verstraete, C.; Massa, S.; Devoogdt, N.; Stakenborg, T.; Muyldermans, S.; Lagae, L.; Himmelreich, U. Limiting the protein corona: A successful strategy for in vivo active targeting of anti-HER2 nanobody-functionalized nanostars. Biomaterials 2017, 123, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. Petrovskaia, L.E.; Shingarova, L.N.; Dolgikh, D.A.; Kirpichnikov, M.P. [Alternative scaffold proteins]. Bioorg. Khim. 2011, 37, 581–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  244. Vazquez-Lombardi, R.; Phan, T.G.; Zimmermann, C.; Lowe, D.; Jermutus, L.; Christ, D. Challenges and opportunities for non-antibody scaffold drugs. Drug Discov. Today 2015, 20, 1271–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  245. Bedford, R.; Tiede, C.; Hughes, R.; Curd, A.; McPherson, M.J.; Peckham, M.; Tomlinson, D.C. Alternative reagents to antibodies in imaging applications. Biophys. Rev. 2017, 9, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  246. Simeon, R.; Chen, Z. In vitro-engineered non-antibody protein therapeutics. Protein Cell 2018, 9, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Tolcher, A.W.; Sweeney, C.J.; Papadopoulos, K.; Patnaik, A.; Chiorean, E.G.; Mita, A.C.; Sankhala, K.; Furfine, E.; Gokemeijer, J.; Iacono, L.; et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of CT-322 (BMS-844203), a targeted Adnectin inhibitor of VEGFR-2 based on a domain of human fibronectin. Clin. Cancer Res. 2011, 17, 363–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Graf, N.; Mokhtari, T.E.; Papayannopoulos, I.A.; Lippard, S.J. Platinum (IV)-chlorotoxin (CTX) conjugates for targeting cancer cells. J. Inorg. Biochem. 2012, 110, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Cox, N.; Kintzing, J.R.; Smith, M.; Grant, G.A.; Cochran, J.R. Integrin-Targeting Knottin Peptide-Drug Conjugates Are Potent Inhibitors of Tumor Cell Proliferation. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016, 55, 9894–9897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Wuellner, U.; Klupsch, K.; Buller, F.; Attinger-Toller, I.; Santimaria, R.; Zbinden, I.; Henne, P.; Grabulovski, D.; Bertschinger, J.; Brack, S. Bispecific CD3/HER2 Targeting FynomAb Induces Redirected T Cell-Mediated Cytolysis with High Potency and Enhanced Tumor Selectivity. Antibodies 2015, 4, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  251. Klupsch, K.; Baeriswyl, V.; Scholz, R.; Dannenberg, J.; Santimaria, R.; Senn, D.; Kage, E.; Zumsteg, A.; Attinger-Toller, I.; von der Bey, U.; et al. COVA4231, a potent CD3/CD33 bispecific FynomAb with IgG-like pharmacokinetics for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  252. Albrecht, V.; Richter, A.; Pfeiffer, S.; Gebauer, M.; Lindner, S.; Gieser, E.; Schuller, U.; Schichor, C.; Gildehaus, F.J.; Bartenstein, P.; et al. Anticalins directed against the fibronectin extra domain B as diagnostic tracers for glioblastomas. Int. J. Cancer 2016, 138, 1269–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  253. De Souza, J.G.; Morais, K.L.; Angles-Cano, E.; Boufleur, P.; de Mello, E.S.; Maria, D.A.; Origassa, C.S.; de Campos Zampolli, H.; Camara, N.O.; Berra, C.M.; et al. Promising pharmacological profile of a Kunitz-type inhibitor in murine renal cell carcinoma model. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 62255–62266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  254. Singh, Y.; Durga Rao Viswanadham, K.K.; Kumar Jajoriya, A.; Meher, J.G.; Raval, K.; Jaiswal, S.; Dewangan, J.; Bora, H.K.; Rath, S.K.; Lal, J.; et al. Click Biotinylation of PLGA Template for Biotin Receptor Oriented Delivery of Doxorubicin Hydrochloride in 4T1 Cell-Induced Breast Cancer. Mol. Pharm. 2017, 14, 2749–2765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Dixit, S.; Novak, T.; Miller, K.; Zhu, Y.; Kenney, M.E.; Broome, A.M. Transferrin receptor-targeted theranostic gold nanoparticles for photosensitizer delivery in brain tumors. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 1782–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  256. Wang, F.; Li, Y.; Shen, Y.; Wang, A.; Wang, S.; Xie, T. The functions and applications of RGD in tumor therapy and tissue engineering. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 13447–13462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  257. Pierschbacher, M.D.; Ruoslahti, E. Cell attachment activity of fibronectin can be duplicated by small synthetic fragments of the molecule. Nature 1984, 309, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  258. Bogdanowich-Knipp, S.J.; Chakrabarti, S.; Williams, T.D.; Dillman, R.K.; Siahaan, T.J. Solution stability of linear vs. cyclic RGD peptides. J. Pept. Res. 1999, 53, 530–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  259. Roxin, A.; Zheng, G. Flexible or fixed: A comparative review of linear and cyclic cancer-targeting peptides. Future Med. Chem. 2012, 4, 1601–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  260. Liu, X.; Jiang, J.; Ji, Y.; Lu, J.; Chan, R.; Meng, H. Targeted drug delivery using iRGD peptide for solid cancer treatment. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. 2017, 2, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  261. Sugahara, K.N.; Teesalu, T.; Karmali, P.P.; Kotamraju, V.R.; Agemy, L.; Girard, O.M.; Hanahan, D.; Mattrey, R.F.; Ruoslahti, E. Tissue-penetrating delivery of compounds and nanoparticles into tumors. Cancer Cell 2009, 16, 510–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  262. Zhang, J.; Hu, J.; Chan, H.F.; Skibba, M.; Liang, G.; Chen, M. iRGD decorated lipid-polymer hybrid nanoparticles for targeted co-delivery of doxorubicin and sorafenib to enhance anti-hepatocellular carcinoma efficacy. Nanomedicine 2016, 12, 1303–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Zuo, H.D.; Yao, W.W.; Chen, T.W.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, J.J.; Pu, Y.; Liu, G.; Zhang, X.M. The effect of superparamagnetic iron oxide with iRGD peptide on the labeling of pancreatic cancer cells in vitro: A preliminary study. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 852352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. DeBin, J.A.; Maggio, J.E.; Strichartz, G.R. Purification and characterization of chlorotoxin, a chloride channel ligand from the venom of the scorpion. Am. J. Physiol. 1993, 264, C361–C369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  265. Soroceanu, L.; Gillespie, Y.; Khazaeli, M.B.; Sontheimer, H. Use of chlorotoxin for targeting of primary brain tumors. Cancer Res. 1998, 58, 4871–4879. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  266. Arzamasov, A.A.; Vassilevski, A.A.; Grishin, E.V. Chlorotoxin and related peptides: Short insect toxins from scorpion venom. Russ. J. Bioorg. Chem. 2014, 40, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Ojeda, P.G.; Wang, C.K.; Craik, D.J. Chlorotoxin: Structure, activity, and potential uses in cancer therapy. Biopolymers 2016, 106, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  268. Gautam, A.; Kapoor, P.; Chaudhary, K.; Kumar, R.; Raghava, G.P. Tumor homing peptides as molecular probes for cancer therapeutics, diagnostics and theranostics. Curr. Med. Chem. 2014, 21, 2367–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  269. Tashima, T. Effective cancer therapy based on selective drug delivery into cells across their membrane using receptor-mediated endocytosis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2018, 28, 3015–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Copolovici, D.M.; Langel, K.; Eriste, E.; Langel, U. Cell-penetrating peptides: Design, synthesis, and applications. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 1972–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  271. Wang, W.; Abbad, S.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, S.; Zhou, J.; Lv, H. Cell-penetrating Peptides for Cancer-targeting Therapy and Imaging. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 2015, 15, 337–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  272. Penon, O.; Marin, M.J.; Russell, D.A.; Perez-Garcia, L. Water soluble, multifunctional antibody-porphyrin gold nanoparticles for targeted photodynamic therapy. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2017, 496, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  273. Obaid, G.; Chambrier, I.; Cook, M.J.; Russell, D.A. Cancer targeting with biomolecules: A comparative study of photodynamic therapy efficacy using antibody or lectin conjugated phthalocyanine-PEG gold nanoparticles. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2015, 14, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  274. Basel, M.T.; Shrestha, T.B.; Bossmann, S.H.; Troyer, D.L. Cells as delivery vehicles for cancer therapeutics. Ther. Deliv. 2014, 5, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  275. Huang, B.; Abraham, W.D.; Zheng, Y.; Bustamante Lopez, S.C.; Luo, S.S.; Irvine, D.J. Active targeting of chemotherapy to disseminated tumors using nanoparticle-carrying T cells. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015, 7, 291ra294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  276. Stephan, M.T.; Moon, J.J.; Um, S.H.; Bershteyn, A.; Irvine, D.J. Therapeutic cell engineering with surface-conjugated synthetic nanoparticles. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 1035–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  277. De Palma, M.; Mazzieri, R.; Politi, L.S.; Pucci, F.; Zonari, E.; Sitia, G.; Mazzoleni, S.; Moi, D.; Venneri, M.A.; Indraccolo, S.; et al. Tumor-targeted interferon-alpha delivery by Tie2-expressing monocytes inhibits tumor growth and metastasis. Cancer Cell 2008, 14, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  278. Basel, M.T.; Balivada, S.; Wang, H.; Shrestha, T.B.; Seo, G.M.; Pyle, M.; Abayaweera, G.; Dani, R.; Koper, O.B.; Tamura, M.; et al. Cell-delivered magnetic nanoparticles caused hyperthermia-mediated increased survival in a murine pancreatic cancer model. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012, 7, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  279. Xue, J.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, L.; Xue, L.; Shen, S.; Wen, Y.; Wei, Z.; Wang, L.; Kong, L.; Sun, H.; et al. Neutrophil-mediated anticancer drug delivery for suppression of postoperative malignant glioma recurrence. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2017, 12, 692–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Matsui, M.; Shimizu, Y.; Kodera, Y.; Kondo, E.; Ikehara, Y.; Nakanishi, H. Targeted delivery of oligomannose-coated liposome to the omental micrometastasis by peritoneal macrophages from patients with gastric cancer. Cancer Sci. 2010, 101, 1670–1677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  281. Choi, J.; Kim, H.Y.; Ju, E.J.; Jung, J.; Park, J.; Chung, H.K.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, J.S.; Park, H.J.; Song, S.Y.; et al. Use of macrophages to deliver therapeutic and imaging contrast agents to tumors. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 4195–4203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  282. Roger, M.; Clavreul, A.; Venier-Julienne, M.C.; Passirani, C.; Sindji, L.; Schiller, P.; Montero-Menei, C.; Menei, P. Mesenchymal stem cells as cellular vehicles for delivery of nanoparticles to brain tumors. Biomaterials 2010, 31, 8393–8401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  283. Sadhukha, T.; O’Brien, T.D.; Prabha, S. Nano-engineered mesenchymal stem cells as targeted therapeutic carriers. J. Controll. Release 2014, 196, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  284. Aboody, K.S.; Brown, A.; Rainov, N.G.; Bower, K.A.; Liu, S.; Yang, W.; Small, J.E.; Herrlinger, U.; Ourednik, V.; Black, P.M.; et al. Neural stem cells display extensive tropism for pathology in adult brain: Evidence from intracranial gliomas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 12846–12851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  285. Schnarr, K.; Mooney, R.; Weng, Y.; Zhao, D.; Garcia, E.; Armstrong, B.; Annala, A.J.; Kim, S.U.; Aboody, K.S.; Berlin, J.M. Gold nanoparticle-loaded neural stem cells for photothermal ablation of cancer. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2013, 2, 976–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Studeny, M.; Marini, F.C.; Champlin, R.E.; Zompetta, C.; Fidler, I.J.; Andreeff, M. Bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells as vehicles for interferon-beta delivery into tumors. Cancer Res. 2002, 62, 3603–3608. [Google Scholar]
  287. Komarova, S.; Kawakami, Y.; Stoff-Khalili, M.A.; Curiel, D.T.; Pereboeva, L. Mesenchymal progenitor cells as cellular vehicles for delivery of oncolytic adenoviruses. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2006, 5, 755–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  288. Roger, M.; Clavreul, A.; Venier-Julienne, M.C.; Passirani, C.; Montero-Menei, C.; Menei, P. The potential of combinations of drug-loaded nanoparticle systems and adult stem cells for glioma therapy. Biomaterials 2011, 32, 2106–2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Riviere, I.; Sadelain, M. Chimeric Antigen Receptors: A Cell and Gene Therapy Perspective. Mol. Ther. 2017, 25, 1117–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  290. Agrahari, V.; Agrahari, V.; Mitra, A.K. Next generation drug delivery: Circulatory cells-mediated nanotherapeutic approaches. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2017, 14, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Jokerst, J.V.; Lobovkina, T.; Zare, R.N.; Gambhir, S.S. Nanoparticle PEGylation for imaging and therapy. Nanomedicine 2011, 6, 715–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  292. Knop, K.; Hoogenboom, R.; Fischer, D.; Schubert, U.S. Poly (ethylene glycol) in Drug Delivery: Pros and Cons as Well as Potential Alternatives. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2010, 49, 6288–6308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  293. Verhoef, J.J.F.; Anchordoquy, T.J. Questioning the Use of PEGylation for Drug Delivery. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 2013, 3, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  294. Zhang, P.; Sun, F.; Liu, S.; Jiang, S. Anti-PEG antibodies in the clinic: Current issues and beyond PEGylation. J. Controll. Release 2016, 244, 184–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  295. Muller, J.; Bauer, K.N.; Prozeller, D.; Simon, J.; Mailander, V.; Wurm, F.R.; Winzen, S.; Landfester, K. Coating nanoparticles with tunable surfactants facilitates control over the protein corona. Biomaterials 2017, 115, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  296. Safavi-Sohi, R.; Maghari, S.; Raoufi, M.; Jalali, S.A.; Hajipour, M.J.; Ghassempour, A.; Mahmoudi, M. Bypassing Protein Corona Issue on Active Targeting: Zwitterionic Coatings Dictate Specific Interactions of Targeting Moieties and Cell Receptors. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 22808–22818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Oh, J.Y.; Kim, H.S.; Palanikumar, L.; Go, E.M.; Jana, B.; Park, S.A.; Kim, H.Y.; Kim, K.; Seo, J.K.; Kwak, S.K.; et al. Cloaking nanoparticles with protein corona shield for targeted drug delivery. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Mailänder, V.; Simon, J.; Müller, L.K.; Kokkinopoulou, M.; Lieberwirth, I.; Morsbach, S.; Landfester, K. Exploiting the biomolecular corona: Pre-coating of nanoparticles enables controlled cellular interactions. Nanoscale 2018, 10, 10731–10739. [Google Scholar]
  299. Jain, R.K. Normalization of Tumor Vasculature: An Emerging Concept in Antiangiogenic Therapy. Science 2005, 307, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Goel, S.; Duda, D.G.; Xu, L.; Munn, L.L.; Boucher, Y.; Fukumura, D.; Jain, R.K. Normalization of the vasculature for treatment of cancer and other diseases. Physiol. Rev. 2011, 91, 1071–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Minchinton, A.I.; Tannock, I.F. Drug penetration in solid tumours. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2006, 6, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  302. Beyer, I.; van Rensburg, R.; Strauss, R.; Li, Z.; Wang, H.; Persson, J.; Yumul, R.; Feng, Q.; Song, H.; Bartek, J.; et al. Epithelial junction opener JO-1 improves monoclonal antibody therapy of cancer. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 7080–7090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  303. Yumul, R.; Richter, M.; Lu, Z.Z.; Saydaminova, K.; Wang, H.; Wang, C.H.; Carter, D.; Lieber, A. Epithelial Junction Opener Improves Oncolytic Adenovirus Therapy in Mouse Tumor Models. Hum. Gene Ther. 2016, 27, 325–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  304. Wang, C.E.; Yumul, R.C.; Lin, J.; Cheng, Y.; Lieber, A.; Pun, S.H. Junction opener protein increases nanoparticle accumulation in solid tumors. J. Controll. Release 2018, 272, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 11 00068 g001 550
Figure 1. Scheme illustrating the principle of passive drug delivery to the tumor. EPR effect: Permeability and Retention effect; UCNP: upconversion nanoparticles. The extravasation and penetration of nanoscale agents into the tumor is due to the disordered structure of the tumor vessels, their discontinuous endothelial lining and the disrupted integrity of the basement membrane. Irregular diameter and leakage of the walls of the newly formed lymphatic vessels impede the outflow of fluid and the removal of nano-sized agents from the tumor. Insets I and II indicate examples of passive drug delivery in vivo. I—Polymer particles based on water-soluble polymer brushes (polyimide-graft-polymethacrylic acid) are used to deliver photodynamic dye (tetra(4-fluorophenyl)tetracyano porphyrazine). The image was obtained by whole-body imaging 24 h after intravenous injection of a dye to BALB/c mouse with CT26 allograft (murine colorectal carcinoma) in the left thigh. The position of the tumor is indicated by an arrow. The fluorescence intensity of the dye is presented in the gradient red to yellow scale, where yellow corresponds to the maximum signal. II—Passive delivery of upconversion nanoparticles (UCNP) of composition, NaY:Yb:Tm:F4/NaYF4 covered with alternating copolymer of maleic anhydride and 1-octadecene (PMAO). Tumor and muscle tissue images were obtained ex vivo by confocal fluorescence microscopy 3 h after intravenous injection of UCNP-PMAO to a BALB/c mouse with SK-BR-3 xenograft (human breast adenocarcinoma). Purple signal corresponds to the UCNP photoluminescence. Scale bar 20 μm.
Figure 1. Scheme illustrating the principle of passive drug delivery to the tumor. EPR effect: Permeability and Retention effect; UCNP: upconversion nanoparticles. The extravasation and penetration of nanoscale agents into the tumor is due to the disordered structure of the tumor vessels, their discontinuous endothelial lining and the disrupted integrity of the basement membrane. Irregular diameter and leakage of the walls of the newly formed lymphatic vessels impede the outflow of fluid and the removal of nano-sized agents from the tumor. Insets I and II indicate examples of passive drug delivery in vivo. I—Polymer particles based on water-soluble polymer brushes (polyimide-graft-polymethacrylic acid) are used to deliver photodynamic dye (tetra(4-fluorophenyl)tetracyano porphyrazine). The image was obtained by whole-body imaging 24 h after intravenous injection of a dye to BALB/c mouse with CT26 allograft (murine colorectal carcinoma) in the left thigh. The position of the tumor is indicated by an arrow. The fluorescence intensity of the dye is presented in the gradient red to yellow scale, where yellow corresponds to the maximum signal. II—Passive delivery of upconversion nanoparticles (UCNP) of composition, NaY:Yb:Tm:F4/NaYF4 covered with alternating copolymer of maleic anhydride and 1-octadecene (PMAO). Tumor and muscle tissue images were obtained ex vivo by confocal fluorescence microscopy 3 h after intravenous injection of UCNP-PMAO to a BALB/c mouse with SK-BR-3 xenograft (human breast adenocarcinoma). Purple signal corresponds to the UCNP photoluminescence. Scale bar 20 μm.
Cancers 11 00068 g001
Cancers 11 00068 g002 550
Figure 2. Scheme illustrating the principle of active drug delivery to the tumor. QD: quantum dots; scFv: single chain fragment variable. Active delivery implies covalent or non-covalent binding of the delivered agent to the moiety, which determines its selective interaction with specific molecules on the surface of target cells. This moiety can be attached directly to the delivered drug or to a nano-sized container loaded with a therapeutic drug. Insets I and II indicate examples of active drug delivery in vivo. I—Active delivery of NIR fluorescent quantum dots (QD) bound with anti-HER2 scFv (4D5scFv). Image of tumor tissue was obtained by confocal fluorescence microscopy 21 h after intravenous injection of QD-4D5scFv to BALB/c nude mice with SK-BR-3 xenograft (human breast adenocarcinoma). The red signal corresponds to QD photoluminescence. Scale bar 10 μm. II—Active delivery of upconversion nanoparticles (UCNP) of NaY:Yb:Tm:F4/NaYF4 composition bound with HER2-specific protein DARPin. The image was obtained by whole-body imaging 2 h after the intravenous (tail vein) injection of the nanocomplex BALB/c mouse with SK-BR-3 xenograft (human breast adenocarcinoma). The position of the tumor is indicated by an arrow. The red signal corresponds to the photoluminescence of the UCNP.
Figure 2. Scheme illustrating the principle of active drug delivery to the tumor. QD: quantum dots; scFv: single chain fragment variable. Active delivery implies covalent or non-covalent binding of the delivered agent to the moiety, which determines its selective interaction with specific molecules on the surface of target cells. This moiety can be attached directly to the delivered drug or to a nano-sized container loaded with a therapeutic drug. Insets I and II indicate examples of active drug delivery in vivo. I—Active delivery of NIR fluorescent quantum dots (QD) bound with anti-HER2 scFv (4D5scFv). Image of tumor tissue was obtained by confocal fluorescence microscopy 21 h after intravenous injection of QD-4D5scFv to BALB/c nude mice with SK-BR-3 xenograft (human breast adenocarcinoma). The red signal corresponds to QD photoluminescence. Scale bar 10 μm. II—Active delivery of upconversion nanoparticles (UCNP) of NaY:Yb:Tm:F4/NaYF4 composition bound with HER2-specific protein DARPin. The image was obtained by whole-body imaging 2 h after the intravenous (tail vein) injection of the nanocomplex BALB/c mouse with SK-BR-3 xenograft (human breast adenocarcinoma). The position of the tumor is indicated by an arrow. The red signal corresponds to the photoluminescence of the UCNP.
Cancers 11 00068 g002
Cancers 11 00068 g003 550
Figure 3. Scheme illustrating the principle of cell-mediated tumor targeting. Drug carriers may be tumor tropic cells: naive T-lymphocytes, primed T-lymphocytes, monocytes, neutrophilic granulocytes, macrophages, mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, neural stem cells, and some other cell types. This approach involves the collection of autologous or donor material, loading/activation of the cells under ex vivo conditions, expansion to necessary quantities and introducing them back into the body. Cells can be successfully used to deliver low-molecular compounds, proteins, genetic material, nanoparticles and oncolytic viruses.
Figure 3. Scheme illustrating the principle of cell-mediated tumor targeting. Drug carriers may be tumor tropic cells: naive T-lymphocytes, primed T-lymphocytes, monocytes, neutrophilic granulocytes, macrophages, mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, neural stem cells, and some other cell types. This approach involves the collection of autologous or donor material, loading/activation of the cells under ex vivo conditions, expansion to necessary quantities and introducing them back into the body. Cells can be successfully used to deliver low-molecular compounds, proteins, genetic material, nanoparticles and oncolytic viruses.
Cancers 11 00068 g003
Table
Table 1. Preclinical and clinical examples of tumor-targeted imaging and drug delivery.
Table 1. Preclinical and clinical examples of tumor-targeted imaging and drug delivery.
TargetDesignationTargeting AgentAgentPatients Group/Animal ModelReference
EGFREpidermal growth factor receptorCetuximab
(Erbitux®, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New York, NY, USA)		Cetuximab-labeled liposomes loaded with chemotherapy drug OxaliplatinHuman colorectal cancer xenograft[126]
Cetuximab
(Erbitux®)		Cetuximab conjugated with chemotherapy drug DocetaxelHuman epidermoid carcinoma (A431) xenograft[127]
scFv 425425scFv fused with Pseudomonas exotoxin A fragment
(recombinant immunotoxin 425scFv-ETA)		Human epidermoid carcinoma (A431) xenograft[128]
Nanobody 8B699mTc-labeled 8B6 nanobody for SPECT tumor visualizationHuman epidermoid carcinoma (A431) xenograft[129]
Nanobody D1099mTc-labeled D10 nanobody for SPECT tumor visualizationHuman mammary (MDA-MB-468) and epidermoid (A431) carcinoma xenografts[130]
EGFEGF fused with toxin gelonin
(recombinant targeted toxin EGF/rGel)		Human epidermoid carcinoma (A431) xenograft[131]
HER2Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2DARPin (HE)3-G3111In-labeled (HE)3-G3 DARPin for SPECT/CT tumor visualization
(111In-(He)3-G3)		Human breast carcinoma (BT-474) xenograft[132]
Nanobody 2Rs15d99mTc-labeled 2Rs15d for SPECT tumor visualizationHuman ovarian carcinoma (SKOV-3) xenograft[133]
scFv 4D5Qdot 705 ITK-labeled 4D5scFv for optical tumor visualization
(QD-4D5scFv)		Human breast carcinoma (SKBR-3) xenograft[101]
scFv 4D54D5scFv fused with Pseudomonas exotoxin A fragment
(recombinant immunotoxin 4D5scFv-PE40)		Human ovarian carcinoma (SKOV-kat) xenograft[134,135]
scFv 4D54D5scFv fused with toxin gelonin
(recombinant immunotoxin rGel/4D5)		Human ovarian carcinoma (SKOV3) xenograft[136]
DARPin9.29DARPin9.29 fused with Pseudomonas exotoxin A fragment
(targeted toxin DARPin-PE40)		Human breast carcinoma (SKBR-3) xenograft[137]
Affibody ABY-025111In-labeled ABY-025, 68Ga-labeled ABY-025Phase I/II study in patients with breast cancer metastases[138]
DARPin9.2990Y-dopped upconversion nanoparticles (UCNP) coupled to targeted toxin DARPin-PE40
(UCNP-R-T)		Human breast carcinoma (SKBR-3) xenograft[139]
Trastuzumab (Herceptin®, Genetech, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA)Trastuzumab conjugated with cytotoxic agent emtansine (DM1)
(Trastuzumab emtansine, or T-DM1)		FDA approved for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer (Kadcyla®, Genetech, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA)
Phase II study in patients with previously treated HER2-overexpressing metastatic non-small cell lung cancer[140]
HER3Human epidermal growth factor receptor-3Affibody
HEHEHE-z08698-NOTA		68Ga-labeled affibody HEHEHE-Z08698-NOTA for PET imagingHuman breast (BT-474) and pancreas (BxPC) carcinoma xenografts[141]
PDGFR βPlatelet-derived growth factor receptor betaTargeting peptides (PDGF, yITLPPPRPFFK)PDGF-labeled micelles loaded with drug temozolomide (TMZ)Human glioblastoma (U87) xenograft[142]
IGF-1RInsulin-like growth factor 1 receptorAffibody ZIGFR:4551-GGGC99mTc-ZIGFR:4551-GGGCHuman prostate (Du-145) and breast (MCF-7) carcinoma xenografts[143]
mAb IGF-IROxidized single-wall carbon nanohorns with incorporated drug vincristine and wrapped with mAb IGF-IR
(VCR@oxSWNHs-PEG-mAb)		Mouse hepatoma (H22) syngraft[144]
TfRTransferrin receptorTransferrinTransferrin-labeled liposome–DNA for systemic p53 gene therapy
(LipT– pSVb)		Human squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (JSQ-3) xenograft[145]
PSMAProstate-specific membrane antigenNanobody
JVZ-007		111In-labeled JVZ007 nanobody for SPECT/CT imaging
(111In-JVZ007-c-myc-his, 111In-JVZ007-cys)		Human prostate carcinoma (PC-310) xenograft[146]
Carbohydrate moietiesOligosaccharides associated with cell membrane lipids, proteins or peptide glycansLectin (Bauhinia purprea agglutinin, BPA)BPA-labeled PEGylated liposomes encapsulating drug Doxorubicin
(BPA-PEG-LPDOX)		Human prostate carcinoma (Du-145) xenografts[147]
MesothelinMesothelindsFv SS1SS1dsFv fused with Pseudomonas exotoxin A fragment
(recombinant immunotoxin SS1(dsFv)PE38)		Phase I study in patients with pleural mesothelioma[148]
IL-13Rα2Interleukin 13 receptor α2Linear peptide
(CGEMGWVRC, or Pep-1)		Pep-1-labeled PEGylated nanoparticles loaded with drug Paclitaxel
(Pep-NP-PTX)		Intracranial rat glioma (C6) xenograft[149]
FRαFolate receptor αmAb M9346AM9346A mAb conjugated with cytotoxic agent maytansinoid DM4
(Mirvetuximab soravtansine, or IMGN853)		Phase I study in patients with advanced, FRα-positive solid tumors (epithelial serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal cancer, fallopian tube cancer, serous or endometrioid endometrial cancer, non-small-cell lung carcinoma, and renal cell cancer)[150]
FolateFolate-labeled HEA-b-EHA polymer micelles loaded with drug Orlistat
(Fol-HEA-EHA-orlistat NPs)		Human triple negative breast cancer (MDA-MB-231) xenograft[151]
Sugar CarriersMembrane carriers of sugarsGlucose moietiesD-glucose-labeled fullerene for PDT
(C(60)-(Glc)1)		Human melanoma xenograft[152]
FSHRFollicle-stimulating hormone receptorPolypeptide of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSHP)shRNA-loaded FSHP-labeled nanoparticles for blocking growth-regulated oncogene α (gro-α)Human ovarian carcinoma (HEY) xenograft[153]
CD3Cluster of differentiation 3Anti-CD3 scFvsTwo scFvs fused with diphtheria toxin fragment
(A-dmDT390-bisFv, or UCHT1)		Patients with cutaneous T cell lymphoma[154]
CD19Cluster of differentiation 19, or B-Lymphocyte Surface Antigen B4mAb huB4huB4 mAb conjugated with cytotoxic agent maytansinoid DM4
(Coltuximab ravtansine, or SAR3419)		Phase II study in patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia[155]
CD22Cluster of differentiation 22InotuzumabInotuzumab conjugated with cytotoxic agent calicheamicin (Inotuzumab Ozogamicin)FDA approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Besponsa®, Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA)
Phase I study in patients with relapsed/refractory CD22+ B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)[156]
anti-CD22 Fvanti-CD22 Fv fused with Pseudomonas exotoxin A fragment
(recombinant immunotoxin Moxetumomab pasudotox)		FDA approved for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia (Lumoxiti®, AstraZeneca PLC, Cambridge, UK)
Phase 1 study in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia[157]
CD25Cluster of differentiation 25, or Interleukin-2 receptor alpha chainanti-CD25 scFvanti-CD25 scFv fused with Pseudomonas exotoxin A fragment
(anti-Tac(Fv-PE38), or LMB-2)		Phase II study patients with adult T-cell leukemia[158]
CD30Cluster of differentiation 30, or TNF receptor superfamily member 8BrentuximabBrentuximab conjugated with antimitotic agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE)
(Brentuximab vedotin)		FDA approved for the treatment of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (Adcetris®, Seattle Genetics, Inc., Bothell, WA, USA)
Phase I study in patients with mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma[159]
CD46Cluster of differentiation 46, or Membrane cofactor proteinmAb 23AG223AG2 mAb conjugated with cytotoxin agent monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF)Human multiple myeloma disseminated xenograft (RPMI8226)[160]
CD56Cluster of differentiation 56, or Neural cell adhesion moleculeLorvotuzumabLorvotuzumab conjugated with maytansinoid cytotoxic agent (DM1)
(Lorvotuzumab mertansine, or IMGN901)		Phase I study in patients with CD56-positive relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma[161]
CD70Cluster of differentiation 70, or TNF ligand superfamily member 7mAb h1F6h1F6 mAb conjugated with dimeric pyrrolobenzodiazepine
(h1F6239C-PBD)		Renal cell carcinoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma xenografts[162]
CD74Cluster of differentiation 74, or HLA class II histocompatibility antigen gamma chainmAb hLL1hLL1 mAb conjugated with drug Doxorubicin
(IMMU-110)		Human multiple myeloma (MC-CAR) xenograft[163]
BCMAB-cell maturation antigenmAb J6M0J6M0 mAb conjugated with cytotoxin agent monomethyl auristatin F (MMAF)
(J6M0-mcMMAF)		Human multiple myeloma subcutaneous xenografts (H929 and OPM2) and orthotopic disseminated xenografts (MM1S)[164]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kutova, O.M.; Guryev, E.L.; Sokolova, E.A.; Alzeibak, R.; Balalaeva, I.V. Targeted Delivery to Tumors: Multidirectional Strategies to Improve Treatment Efficiency. Cancers 2019, 11, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11010068

AMA Style

Kutova OM, Guryev EL, Sokolova EA, Alzeibak R, Balalaeva IV. Targeted Delivery to Tumors: Multidirectional Strategies to Improve Treatment Efficiency. Cancers. 2019; 11(1):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11010068

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kutova, Olga M., Evgenii L. Guryev, Evgeniya A. Sokolova, Razan Alzeibak, and Irina V. Balalaeva. 2019. "Targeted Delivery to Tumors: Multidirectional Strategies to Improve Treatment Efficiency" Cancers 11, no. 1: 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11010068

APA Style

Kutova, O. M., Guryev, E. L., Sokolova, E. A., Alzeibak, R., & Balalaeva, I. V. (2019). Targeted Delivery to Tumors: Multidirectional Strategies to Improve Treatment Efficiency. Cancers, 11(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11010068

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop