Global cancer prevalence has continuously increased in the last decades despite substantial progress achieved for patient care. Cancer is no longer recognized as a singular disease but as a plurality of different ones, leading to the important choice of the drug administration route and promoting the development of novel drug-delivery systems (DDS). Due to their structural diversity, therapeutic cancer drugs present specific challenges in physicochemical properties that can adversely affect their efficacy and toxicity profile. These challenges are addressed by innovative DDS to improve bioavailability, pharmacokinetics and biodistribution profiles. Here, we define the drug delivery challenges related to oral, intravenous, subcutaneous or alternative routes of administration, and review innovative DDS, marketed or in development, that answer those challenges.

Graphical abstract

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. World Health Organization website. Health Topics – Cancer – Overview. www.who.int/cancer/en/
Google Scholar
2. Center Watch. FDA approved drugs for oncology. www.centerwatch.com/drug-information/fda-approved-drugs/therapeutic-area/12/oncology
Google Scholar
3. National Cancer Institute training module. Cancer Registration & Surveillance Modules – Cancer Treatment. https://training.seer.cancer.gov/treatment/
Google Scholar
4. Subklewe M, Von Bergwelt-Baildon M, Humpe A. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells: a race to revolutionize cancer therapy. Transfus. Med. Hemotherapy 46(1), 15–24 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Lewis AL, Richard J. Challenges in the delivery of peptide drugs: an industry perspective. Ther. Deliv. 6(2), 149–163 (2015).
CASGoogle Scholar
6. Richard J. Parenteral Biologics Delivery: recent progresses, key challenges and perspectives. Eur. J. Parenter. Pharm. Sci. 17(3), 94–109 (2012).
Google Scholar
7. Collins DS, Sánchez-Félix M, Badkar AV, Mrsny R. Accelerating the development of novel technologies and tools for the subcutaneous delivery of biotherapeutics. J. Control. Rel. 321, 475–482 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Thanki K, Gangwal RP, Sangamwar AT, Jain S. Oral delivery of anticancer drugs: challenges and opportunities. J. Control. Rel. 170(1), 15–40 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
9. Junyaprasert VB, Morakul B. Nanocrystals for enhancement of oral bioavailability of poorly water-soluble drugs. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 10(1), 13–23 (2015).
Google Scholar
10. Rabinow BE. Nanosuspensions in drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3(9), 785–796 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. Junghanns JUAH, Müller RH. Nanocrystal technology, drug delivery and clinical applications. Int. J. Nanomedicine 3, 295–309 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
12. Wu Y, Loper A, Landis E et al. The role of biopharmaceutics in the development of a clinical nanoparticle formulation of MK-0869: a Beagle dog model predicts improved bioavailability and diminished food effect on absorption in human. Int. J. Pharm. 285(1–2), 135–146 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Porter CJH, Trevaskis NL, Charman WN. Lipids and lipid-based formulations: optimizing the oral delivery of lipophilic drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6(3), 231–248 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
14. Jannin V, Musakhanian J, Marchaud D. Approaches for the development of solid and semi-solid lipid-based formulations. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 60(6), 734–746 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Griesser J, Hetényi G, Moser M, Demarne F, Jannin V, Bernkop-Schnürch A. Hydrophobic ion pairing: key to highly payloaded self-emulsifying peptide drug delivery systems. Int. J. Pharm. 520(1–2), 267–274 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
16. Aungst BJ. Intestinal permeation enhancers. J. Pharm. Sci. 89(4), 429–442 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Maher S, Mrsny RJ, Brayden DJ. Intestinal permeation enhancers for oral peptide delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 106, 277–319 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Clinical trials. Octreotide capsules. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03252353
Google Scholar
19. Twarog C, Fattah S, Heade J, Maher S, Fattal E, Brayden DJ. Intestinal permeation enhancers for oral delivery of macromolecules: a comparison between salcaprozate sodium (SNAC) and sodium caprate (c10). Pharmaceutics 11(2), 1–21 (2019). • Recent review comparing two strategies for the delivery of biologics with permeation enhancers. This DDS is widely explored currently in clinical phases.
Google Scholar
20. Davies M, Pieber TR, Hartoft-Nielsen ML, Hansen OKH, Jabbour S, Rosenstock J. Effect of oral semaglutide compared with placebo and subcutaneous semaglutide on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes a randomized clinical trial. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 318(15), 1460–1470 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
21. Richard J. Challenges in oral peptide delivery: lessons learnt from the clinic and fututre prospects. Ther. Deliv. 7(2), 117–138 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Date AA, Hanes J, Ensign LM. Nanoparticles for oral delivery: design, evaluation and state-of-the-art. J. Control. Rel. 240, 504–526 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Duncan R. Polymer conjugates as anticancer nanomedicines. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6(9), 688–701 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Benny O, Fainaru O, Adini A et al. An orally delivered small-molecule formulation with antiangiogenic and anticancer activity. 46(2), 220–231 (2010).
Google Scholar
25. Khafagy ES, Morishita M. Oral biodrug delivery using cell-penetrating peptide. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 64(6), 531–539 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
26. Khafagy ES, Morishita M, Ida N, Nishio R, Isowa K, Takayama K. Structural requirements of penetratin absorption enhancement efficiency for insulin delivery. J. Control. Rel. 143(3), 302–310 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Nielsen EJB, Yoshida S, Kamei N et al. In vivo proof of concept of oral insulin delivery based on a co-administration strategy with the cell-penetrating peptide penetratin. J. Control. Rel. 189, 19–24 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. Kamei N, Kikuchi S, Takeda-Morishita M et al. Determination of the optimal cell-penetrating peptide sequence for intestinal insulin delivery based on molecular orbital analysis with self-organizing maps. J. Pharm. Sci. 102(2), 469–479 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Couvreur P, Stella B, Harivardhan Reddy L et al. Squalenoyl nanomedicines as potential therapeutics. Nano Lett. 6(11), 2544–2548 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Kotelevets L, Chastre E, Caron J et al. A squalene-based nanomedicine for oral treatment of colon cancer. Cancer Res. 77(11), 2964–2975 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Ensign LM, Cone R, Hanes J. Oral drug delivery with polymeric nanoparticles: the gastrointestinal mucus barriers. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 64(6), 557–570 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Lai SK, Wang YY, Hanes J. Mucus-penetrating nanoparticles for drug and gene delivery to mucosal tissues. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61(2), 158–171 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Lollo G, Gonzalez-Paredes A, Garcia-Fuentes M, Calvo P, Torres D, Alonso MJ. Polyarginine nanocapsules as a potential oral peptide delivery carrier. J. Pharm. Sci. 106(2), 611–618 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
34. Rapamycin Holdings I DBA EB. NCT04375813: trial of encapsulated rapamycin (eRAPA) for bladder cancer prevention. Clinical Trials.gouv https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04375813
Google Scholar
35. Bohan PMK, Cindass JL, Chick RC et al. Results of a Phase Ib trial of encapsulated rapamycin in prostate cancer patients under active surveillance to prevent progression. J. Clin. Oncol. 38(Suppl. 5), 34–34 (2020).
Google Scholar
36. Imran M. A novel approach to the oral delivery of biologics, peptides and antibodies. (2016). www.ondrugdelivery.com
Google Scholar
37. RaniTherapeutics. RaniPill – first in human. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03798912?term=ranipill&draw=2&rank=1
Google Scholar
38. Abramson A, Caffarel-salvador E, Khang M et al. An ingestible self-orienting system for oral delivery of macromolecules. Science 363, 611–615 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Lopes CM, Bettencourt C, Rossi A, Buttini F, Barata P. Overview on gastroretentive drug delivery systems for improving drug bioavailability. Int. J. Pharm. 510(1), 144–158 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
40. Bellinger AM, Jafari M, Grant TM et al. Oral, ultra–long-lasting drug delivery: application toward malaria elimination goals. Sci. Transl. Med. 8(365), 365ra157–365ra157 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Liu J, Pang Y, Zhang S et al. Triggerable tough hydrogels for gastric resident dosage forms. Nat. Commun. 8(1), 1–9 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
42. Liu L, Yao WD, Rao YF, Lu XY, Gao JQ. pH-responsive carriers for oral drug delivery: challenges and opportunities of current platforms. Drug Deliv. 24(1), 569–581 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
43. Thakral S, Thakral NK, Majumdar DK. Eudragit^®: a technology evaluation. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 10(1), 131–149 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Trevaskis NL, Kaminskas LM, Porter CJH. From sewer to saviour-targeting the lymphatic system to promote drug exposure and activity. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14(11), 781–803 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
45. Chaudhary S, Garg T, Murthy RSR, Rath G, Goyal AK. Recent approaches of lipid-based delivery system for lymphatic targeting via oral route. J. Drug Target. 22(10), 871–882 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Banerjee A, Pathak S, Subramanium VD, Dharanivasan G, Murugesan R, Verma RS. Strategies for targeted drug delivery in treatment of colon cancer: current trends and future perspectives. Drug Discov. Today 22(8), 1224–1232 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Esseku F, Adeyeye MC. Bacteria and pH-sensitive polysaccharide-polymer films for colon targeted delivery. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carr. Syst. 28(5), 395–445 (2012).
Google Scholar
48. Sinha VR, Mittal BR, Bhutani KK, Kumria R. Colonic drug delivery of 5-fluorouracil: an in vitro evaluation. Int. J. Pharm. 269(1), 101–108 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Soppimath KS, Kulkarni AR, Aminabhavi TM. Controlled release of antihypertensive drug from the interpenetrating network poly(vinyl alcohol)–guar gum hydrogel microspheres. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 11(1), 27–43 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Palo M, Holländer J, Suominen J, Yliruusi J, Sandler N. 3D printed drug delivery devices: perspectives and technical challenges. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 14(9), 685–696 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
51. US FDA. Spritam. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/207958Orig1s000TOC.cfm
Google Scholar
52. Becker D, Zhang J, Heimbach T et al. Novel orally swallowable IntelliCap^® device to quantify regional drug absorption in human GI tract using diltiazem as model drug. AAPS PharmSciTech 15(6), 1490–1497 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53. Mazzaferro S, Bouchemal K, Ponchel G. Oral delivery of anticancer drugs I: general considerations. Drug Discov. Today 18(1–2), 25–34 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
54. Brayden DJ, Hill TA, Fairlie DP, Maher S, Mrsny RJ. Systemic delivery of peptides by the oral route: formulation and medicinal chemistry approaches. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2020.05.007 (2020) (Epub ahead of print).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. O’neill VJ, Twelves CJ. Oral cancer treatment: developments in chemotherapy and beyond. Br. J. Cancer 87(9), 933–937 (2002).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
56. Huda S, Alam A, Sharma PK. Smart nanocarriers-based drug delivery for cancer therapy: an innovative and developing strategy. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 60, 102018 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
57. Shi J, Kantoff PW, Wooster R, Farokhzad OC. Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer 17, 20–37 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
58. Gref R, Minamitake Y, Peracchia MT, Trubetskoy V, Torchilin V, Langer R. Biodegradable long-circulating polymeric nanospheres. Science 263(5153), 1600–1603 (1994).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
59. Klibanov AL, Maruyama K, Torchilin VP, Huang L. Amphipathic polyethyleneglycols effectively prolong the circulation time of liposomes. FEBS Lett. 268(1), 235–237 (1990).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
60. Barenholz Y. Doxil - The first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J. Control. Rel. 160(2), 117–134 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
61. Zhang P, Sun F, Liu S, Jiang S. Anti-PEG antibodies in the clinic: current issues and beyond PEGylation. J. Control. Rel. 244, 184–193 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
62. Yang Q, Jacobs TM, McCallen JD et al. Analysis of pre-existing IgG and IgM antibodies against polyethylene glycol (PEG) in the general population. Anal. Chem. 88(23), 11804–11812 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
63. Knop K, Hoogenboom R, Fischer D, Schubert US. Poly(ethylene glycol) in drug delivery: pros and cons as well as potential alternatives. Angew. Chemie – Int. Ed. 49(36), 6288–6308 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
64. Shiraishi K, Yokoyama M. Toxicity and immunogenicity concerns related to PEGylated-micelle carrier systems: a review. Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 20(1), 324–336 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
65. McSweeney MD, Versfeld ZC, Carpenter DM, Lai SK. Physician awareness of immune responses to polyethylene glycol-drug conjugates. Clin. Transl. Sci. 11(2), 162–165 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
66. Anchordoquy TJ, Simberg D. Watching the gorilla and questioning delivery dogma. J. Control. Rel. 262, 87–90 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
67. Deng Y, Saucier-Sawyer JK, Hoimes CJ et al. The effect of hyperbranched polyglycerol coatings on drug delivery using degradable polymer nanoparticles. Biomaterials 35(24), 6595–6602 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
68. Zhang T, She Z, Huang Z, Li J, Luo X, Deng Y. Application of sialic acid/polysialic acid in the drug delivery systems. Asian J. Pharm. Sci. 9(2), 75–81 (2014).
Google Scholar
69. Metselaar JM, Bruin P, De Boer LWT et al. A novel family of L-amino acid-based biodegradable polymer-lipid conjugates for the development of long-circulating liposomes with effective drug-targeting capacity. Bioconjug. Chem. 14(6), 1156–1164 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
70. Thi TTH, Pilkington EH, Nguyen DH, Lee JS, Park KD, Truong NP. The importance of poly (ethylene glycol) alternatives for overcoming PEG immunogenicity in drug. Polymers (Basel). 12(298), (2020). www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/12/2/298#cite •• Despite the efficiency of PEG to provide stealth properties to nanoparticles, this paper highlights the need to find alternatives with better safety profile.
Google Scholar
71. Bertrand N, Wu J, Xu X, Kamaly N, Farokhzad OC. Cancer nanotechnology: the impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 66, 2–25 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
72. Maeda H. The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect in tumor vasculature: the key role of tumor-selective macromolecular drug targeting. Adv. Enzyme Regul. 41(1), 189–207 (2001).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
73. Kratz F. Albumin as a drug carrier: design of prodrugs, drug conjugates and nanoparticles. J. Control. Rel. 132(3), 171–183 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
74. 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. 91, 3–6 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
75. Miller MA, Gadde S, Pfirschke C et al. Predicting therapeutic nanoparticle efficacy using a companion MR imaging nanoparticle. Sci. Transl. Med. 7(314), 314ra183 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
76. Arrieta O, Medina LA, Estrada-Lobato E, Ramírez-Tirado LA, Mendoza-García VO, De La Garza-Salazar J. High liposomal doxorubicin tumour tissue distribution, as determined by radiopharmaceutical labelling with 99mTc-LD, is associated with the response and survival of patients with unresectable pleural mesothelioma treated with a combination of liposomal do. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 74(1), 211–215 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
77. Yokoi K, Tanei T, Godin B et al. Serum biomarkers for personalization of nanotherapeutics-based therapy in different tumor and organ microenvironments. Cancer Lett. 345(1), 48–55 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
78. Vaz J, Ansari D, Sasor A, Andersson R. SPARC: a potential prognostic and therapeutic target in pancreatic cancer. Pancreas 44(7), 1024–1035 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
79. Giordano G, Pancione M, Olivieri N et al. Nano albumin bound-paclitaxel in pancreatic cancer: current evidences and future directions. World J. Gastroenterol. 23(32), 5875–5886 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
80. Munsell EV, Ross NL, Sullivan MO. Journey to the center of the cell: current nanocarrier design strategies targeting biopharmaceuticals to the cytoplasm and nucleus. Curr. Pharm. Des. 22(9), 1227–1244 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
81. Heath TD, Fraley RT, Papahadjopoulos D. Antibody targeting of liposomes: cell specificity obtained by conjugation of F(ab′)2 to vesicle surface. Science (80-.). 210(4469), 539–541 (1980).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
82. Von Hoff DD, Mita MM, Ramanathan RK et al. Phase I study of PSMA-targeted docetaxel-containing nanoparticle BIND-014 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin. Cancer Res. 22(13), 3157–3163 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
83. Autio KA, Dreicer R, Anderson J et al. Safety and efficacy of BIND-014, a docetaxel nanoparticle targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a Phase II clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 4(10), 1344–1351 (2018). • Good example of an innovative nanotechnology system for the targeted delivery of anticancer drug, currently in clinical phase.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
84. Xu L, Tang W-H, Huang C-C et al. Systemic p53 gene therapy of cancer with immunolipoplexes targeted by anti-transferrin receptor scFv. Mol. Med. 7(10), 723–734 (2018).
Google Scholar
85. Pardridge WM. The blood-brain barrier: bottleneck in brain drug development. NeuroRx 2(1), 3–14 (2005).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
86. Rautio J, Laine K, Gynther M, Savolainen J. Prodrug approaches for CNS delivery. AAPS J. 10(1), 92–102 (2008).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
87. Gao H, Pang Z, Jiang X. Targeted delivery of nano-therapeutics for major disorders of the central nervous system. Pharm. Res. 30(10), 2485–2498 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
88. Zhou Y, Peng Z, Seven ES, Leblanc RM. Crossing the blood-brain barrier with nanoparticles. J. Control. Rel. 270, 290–303 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
89. Chithrani BD, Ghazani AA, Chan WCW. Determining the size and shape dependence of gold nanoparticle uptake into mammalian cells. Nano Lett. 6(4), 662–668 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
90. De Jong WH, Hagens WI, Krystek P, Burger MC, Sips AJ A M, Geertsma RE. Particle size-dependent organ distribution of gold nanoparticles after intravenous administration. Biomaterials 29(12), 1912–1919 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
91. Hsiao PF, Tsai HC, Peng S et al. Transdermal delivery of poly(ethylene glycol)-co-oleylamine modified gold nanoparticles: effect of size and shape. Mater. Chem. Phys. 224, 22–28 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
92. Lalegani Z, Seyyed Ebrahimi SA. Optimization of synthesis for shape and size controlled silver nanoparticles using response surface methodology. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 595, 124647 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
93. Murugan K, Choonara YE, Kumar P, du Toit LC, Pillay V. Cellular internalisation kinetics and cytotoxic properties of statistically designed and optimised neo-geometric copper nanocrystals. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 78, 376–388 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
94. Zhang Z, Liu C, Li C, Wu W, Jiang X. Shape effects of cylindrical versus spherical unimolecular polymer nanomaterials on in vitro and in vivo behaviors. Research 2019, 1–13 (2019).
Google Scholar
95. Visaveliya NR, Köhler JM. Single-step in situ assembling routes for the shape control of polymer nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules 19(3), 1047–1064 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
96. Gratton SEA, Pohlhaus PD, Lee J, Guo J, Cho MJ, DeSimone JM. Nanofabricated particles for engineered drug therapies: a preliminary biodistribution study of PRINT™ nanoparticles. J. Control. Rel. 121(1–2), 10–18 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
97. Merkel TJ, Chen K, Jones SW et al. The effect of particle size on the biodistribution of low-modulus hydrogel PRINT particles. J. Control. Rel. 162(1), 37–44 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
98. Dumont EF, Oliver AJ, Ioannou C et al. A novel inhaled dry-powder formulation of ribavirin allows for efficient lung delivery in healthy participants and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a Phase I study. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 64(5), 1–15 (2020).
Google Scholar
99. Xiao Y, Shi K, Qu Y, Chu B, Qian Z. Engineering nanoparticles for targeted delivery of nucleic acid therapeutics in tumor. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 12, 1–18 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
100. Kullberg M, Mccarthy R, Anchordoquy TJ. Systemic tumor-specific gene delivery. J. Control. Rel. 172, 730–736 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
101. Shirley JL, De Jong YP, Terhorst C, Herzog RW. Immune responses to viral gene therapy vectors. Mol. Ther. 28(3), 709–722 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
102. Hinderer C, Katz N, Buza EL et al. Severe toxicity in nonhuman primates and piglets following high-dose intravenous administration of an adeno-associated virus vector expressing human SMN. 29(3), 285–298 (2018).
Google Scholar
103. Wong KR, Menendez E, Craik CS, Kavanaugh WM, Vasiljeva O. In vivo imaging of protease activity by probody therapeutic activation. Biochimie 122, 62–67 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
104. Polu KR, Lowman HB. Probody therapeutics for targeting antibodies to diseased tissue. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 14(8), 1049–1053 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
105. Lin J, Sagert J. Innovations for next-generation antibody-drug conjugates. In: Cancer Drug Discovery and Development 281–298 (2018).
Google Scholar
106. Mura S, Nicolas J, Couvreur P. Stimuli-responsive nanocarriers for drug delivery. Nat. Mater. 12(11), 991–1003 (2013). •• Describes the opportunities in preclinical and clinical stage for the targeted delivery using stimuli-responsive drug delivery systems.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
107. Clinical trials. Thermodox. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00617981
Google Scholar
108. Lyon PC, Griffiths LF, Lee J et al. Clinical trial protocol for TARDOX: a Phase I study to investigate the feasibility of targeted release of lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin (ThermoDox^®) using focused ultrasound in patients with liver tumours. J. Ther. Ultrasound 5(1), 1–8 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
109. Poon C, McMahon D, Hynynen K. Noninvasive and targeted delivery of therapeutics to the brain using focused ultrasound. Neuropharmacology 120, 20–37 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
110. Lammers PT, Gremse F, Lammers T et al. Theranostic USPIO-loaded microbubbles for mediating and monitoring blood-brain barrier permeation. Adv. Funct. Mater. 25(1), 36–43 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
111. Huang HY, Liu HL, Hsu PH et al. A multitheragnostic nanobubble system to induce blood-brain barrier disruption with magnetically guided focused ultrasound. Adv. Mater. 27(4), 655–661 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
112. McMahon D, Hynynen K. Acute inflammatory response following increased blood-brain barrier permeability induced by focused ultrasound is dependent on microbubble dose. Theranostics 7(16), 3989–4000 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
113. Tsai HC, Tsai CH, Chen WS, Inserra C, Wei KC, Liu HL. Safety evaluation of frequent application of microbubble-enhanced focused ultrasound blood-brain-barrier opening. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1–13 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
114. Zhang RX, Wong HL, Xue HY, Eoh JY, Wu XY. Nanomedicine of synergistic drug combinations for cancer therapy – strategies and perspectives. J. Control. Rel. 240, 489–503 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
115. Cortes JE, Goldberg SL, Feldman EJ et al. Phase II, multicenter, randomized trial of CPX-351 (cytarabine:daunorubicin) liposome injection versus intensive salvage therapy in adults with first relapse AML. Cancer2 121(2), 234–242 (15AD).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
116. Fani M, Nicolas GP, Wild D. Somatostatin receptor antagonists for imaging and therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 58(Suppl. 2), S61–S66 (2017).
Google Scholar
117. US FDA. Luthatera. www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm594043.htm.
Google Scholar
118. Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E et al. Phase III trial of 177 Lu-dotatate for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. N. Engl. J. Med. 376(2), 125–135 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
119. Li Y, Lin TY, Luo Y et al. A smart and versatile theranostic nanomedicine platform based on nanoporphyrin. Nat. Commun. 5(4712), (2014).
Google Scholar
120. Paliwal R, Babu RJ, Palakurthi S. Nanomedicine scale-up technologies: feasibilities and challenges. AAPS PharmSciTech 15(6), 1527–1534 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
121. Tyner K, Sadrieh N. Considerations when submitting nanotherapeutics to FDA/CDER for regulatory review. Methods Mol. Biol. 697, 17–31 (2011). •• Very useful overview of the complex regulatory environment in the nanotechnology field.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
122. Collins DS, Kourtis LC, Thyagarajapuram NR et al. Optimizing the bioavailability of subcutaneously administered biotherapeutics through mechanochemical drivers. Pharm. Res. 34(10), 2000–2011 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
123. Kinnunen HM, Sharma V, Contreras-Rojas LR et al. A novel in vitro method to model the fate of subcutaneously administered biopharmaceuticals and associated formulation components. J. Control. Rel. 214, 94–102 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
124. Richter WF, Jacobsen B. Subcutaneous absorption of biotherapeutics: knowns and unknowns. Drug Metab. Dispos. 42(11), 1890–1905 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
125. Dias C, Abosaleem B, Crispino C, Gao B, Shaywitz A. Tolerability of high-volume subcutaneous injections of a viscous placebo buffer: a randomized, crossover study in healthy subjects. AAPS PharmSciTech 16(5), 1101–1107 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
126. Mathaes R, Koulov A, Joerg S, Mahler HC. Subcutaneous injection volume of biopharmaceuticals—pushing the boundaries. J. Pharm. Sci. 105(8), 2255–2259 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
127. Leveque D. Subcutaneous administration of anticancer agents. Anticancer Res. 34(4), 1579–1586 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
128. Clinical trials. Octreotide. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02299089
Google Scholar
129. US FDA. Eligard. www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2016/021343Orig1s033.pdf
Google Scholar
130. Sartor O. Eligard: leuprolide acetate in a novel sustained-release delivery system. Urology 61(Suppl. 2), 25–31 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
131. Yang MX, Shenoy B, Disttler M et al. Crystalline monoclonal antibodies for subcutaneous delivery. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100(12), 6934–6939 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
132. Johnson HR, Lenhoff AM. Characterization and suitability of therapeutic antibody dense phases for subcutaneous delivery. Mol. Pharm. 10(10), 3582–3591 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
133. Chan LJ, Bulitta JB, Ascher DB et al. PEGylation does not significantly change the initial intravenous or subcutaneous pharmacokinetics or lymphatic exposure of trastuzumab in rats but increases plasma clearance after subcutaneous administration. Mol. Pharm. 12(3), 794–809 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
134. Trainer PJ, Drake WiM, Katznelson L et al. Treatment of acromegaly with the growth hormone recpetor antagonist pagvisomant. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1171–1177 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
135. Wolin EM, Manon A, Chassaing C et al. Lanreotide depot: an antineoplastic treatment of carcinoid or neuroendocrine tumors. J. Gastrointest. Cancer 47(4), 366–374 (2016). •• Demonstrates a highly concentrated subcutaneous formulation by simple peptide autoassembly, enabling the prolonged release of the drug.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
136. Urquhart J, Fara JW, Willis KL. Rate-controlled delivery systems in drug and hormone research. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 24(1), 199–236 (1984).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
137. Redding TW, Schally AV, Tice TR, Meyers WE. Long-acting delivery systems for peptides: inhibition of rat prostate tumors by controlled release of [D-Trp6]luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone from injectable microcapsules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81(18 I), 5845–5848 (1984).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
138. Hirota K, Doty AC, Ackermann R et al. Characterizing release mechanisms of leuprolide acetate-loaded PLGA microspheres for IVIVC development I: in vitro evaluation. J. Control. Rel. 244, 302–313 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
139. Zhu S, Li X, Lansakara-P DSP, Kumar A, Cui Z. A nanoparticle depot formulation of 4-(N)-stearoyl gemcitabine shows a strong anti-tumour activity. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 65(2), 236–242 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
140. Sprogøe K, Rau H. TransCon Technology – Ascendis Pharma. https://ascendispharma.com/wp-content/uploads/2018-09-24-Boulder-Presentation-Final.pdf
Google Scholar
141. Chatelain P, Malievskiy O, Radziuk K et al. Randomized Phase II study of long-acting transcon GH vs daily GH in childhood GH deficiency. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 102(5), 1673–1682 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
142. Barz M, Luxenhofer R, Zentel R, Vicent MJ. Overcoming the PEG-addiction: well-defined alternatives to PEG, from structure-property relationships to better defined therapeutics. Polym. Chem. 2(9), 1900–1918 (2011).
CASGoogle Scholar
143. Podust VN, Balan S, Sim BC et al. Extension of in vivo half-life of biologically active molecules by XTEN protein polymers. J. Control. Rel. 240, 52–66 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
144. Moreadith RW, Viegas TX, Bentley MD et al. Clinical development of a poly(2-oxazoline) (POZ) polymer therapeutic for the treatment of Parkinson’s disease – proof of concept of POZ as a versatile polymer platform for drug development in multiple therapeutic indications. Eur. Polym. J. 88, 524–552 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
145. Harris JM, Bentley MD, Moreadith RW et al. Tuning drug release from polyoxazoline-drug conjugates. Eur. Polym. J. 120, 109241 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
146. Ahmed KK, Tamer MA, Ghareeb MM, Salem AK. Recent advances in polymeric implants. AAPS PharmSciTech 20(300), (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
147. US FDA. Zoladex. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/019726s050s051s052lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
148. US FDA. Lupron. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/020517s036_019732s041lbl.pdf
Google Scholar
149. Sutradhar KB, Sumi CD. Implantable microchip: the futuristic controlled drug delivery system. Drug Deliv. 23(1), 1–11 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
150. Lee SH, Kim BH, Park CG, Lee C, Lim BY, Choy YB. Implantable small device enabled with magnetic actuation for on-demand and pulsatile drug delivery. J. Control. Rel. 286, 224–230 (2018). • Describes the possibility to deliver drugs on-demand using implantable device, very promising and innovative strategy.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
151. Prescott JH, Lipka S, Baldwin S et al. Chronic, programmed polypeptide delivery from an implanted, multireservoir microchip device. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(4), 437–438 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
152. Farra R, Sheppard NF, McCabe L et al. First-in-human testing of a wirelessly controlled drug delivery microchip. Sci. Transl. Med. 4(122), 122ra21–122ra21 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
153. Sinha VR, Trehan A. Biodegradable microspheres for protein delivery. J. Control. Rel. 90(3), 261–280 (2003).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
154. Otterson GA, Villalona-Calero MA, Hicks W et al. Phase I/II study of inhaled doxorubicin combined with platinum-based therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 16(8), 2466–2473 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
155. Wittgen BPH, Kunst PWA, Van Der Born K et al. Phase I study of aerosolized SLIT cisplatin in the treatment of patients with carcinoma of the lung. Clin. Cancer Res. 13(8), 2414–2421 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
156. Zarogoulidis P, Eleftheriadou E, Sapardanis I et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of inhaled carboplatin in NSCLC patients. Invest. New Drugs 30(4), 1628–1640 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
157. Kadota K, Imanaka A, Shimazaki M et al. Effects of inhalation procedure on particle behavior and deposition in the airways analyzed by numerical simulation. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 90, 44–50 (2018).
CASGoogle Scholar
158. Asgharian B, Miller FJ, Price O et al. Modeling particle deposition in the pig respiratory tract. J. Aerosol Sci. 99, 107–124 (2016).
CASGoogle Scholar
159. Harush-Frenkel O, Bivas-Benita M, Nassar T et al. A safety and tolerability study of differently-charged nanoparticles for local pulmonary drug delivery. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 246(1–2), 83–90 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
160. Zhang T, Chen Y, Ge Y, Hu Y, Li M, Jin Y. Inhalation treatment of primary lung cancer using liposomal curcumin dry powder inhalers. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 8(3), 440–448 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
161. Rosière R, Van Woensel M, Gelbcke M et al. New folate-grafted chitosan derivative to improve delivery of paclitaxel-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles for lung tumor therapy by inhalation. Mol. Pharm. 15(3), 899–910 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
162. Miglierini P, Bouchekoua M, Rousseau B, Dam Hieu P, Malhaire JP, Pradier O. Impact of the per-operatory application of GLIADEL wafers (BCNU, carmustine) in combination with temozolomide and radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma multiforme: efficacy and toxicity. Clin. Neurol. Neurosurg. 114(9), 1222–1225 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
163. Fleming AB, Saltzman WM. Pharmacokinetics of the carmustine implant. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 41(6), 403–419 (2002).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
164. Menei P, Capelle L, Guyotat J et al. Local and sustained delivery of 5-fluorouracil from biodegradable microspheres for the radiosensitization of malignant glioma: a randomized Phase II trial. Neurosurgery 56(2), 242–247 (2005).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
165. Bobo RH, Laske DW, Akbasak A, Morrison PF, Dedrick RL, Oldfield EH. Convection-enhanced delivery of macromolecules in the brain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91(6), 2076–2080 (1994).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
166. Song E, Gaudin A, King AR et al. Surface chemistry governs cellular tropism of nanoparticles in the brain. Nat. Commun. 8(May), 1–14 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
167. Conry RM, LoBuglio AF, Wright M et al. Characterization of a messenger RNA polynucleotide vaccine vector. Cancer Res. 55(7), 1397–1400 (1995).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
168. Johanning FW, Conry RM, Lobuglio AF et al. A sindbis virus mRNA polynucleotide vector achieves prolonged and high level heterologous gene expression in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res. 23(9), 1495–1501 (1995).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
169. Da Silva CG, Camps MGM, Li TMWY, Chan AB, Ossendorp F, Cruz LJ. Co-delivery of immunomodulators in biodegradable nanoparticles improves therapeutic efficacy of cancer vaccines. Biomaterials 220, 119417 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
170. Liang F, Lindgren G, Lin A et al. Efficient targeting and activation of antigen-presenting cells in vivo after modified mRNA vaccine administration in Rhesus Macaques. Mol. Ther. 25(12), 2635–2647 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
171. Clinical trials. mRNA-4157. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03897881?term=mRNA-4157&rank=1
Google Scholar
172. Grabbe S, Haas H, Diken M, Kranz LM, Langguth P, Sahin U. Translating nanoparticulate-personalized cancer vaccines into clinical applications: case study with RNA-lipoplexes for the treatment of melanoma. Nanomedicine 11(20), 2723–2734 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
173. Kowalski PS, Rudra A, Miao L, Anderson DG. Delivering the messenger: advances in technologies for therapeutic mRNA delivery. Mol. Ther. 27(4), 710–728 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar

Vol. 12, No. 1

Metrics

Downloaded 10,190 times

History

Received 25 June 2020

Accepted 27 November 2020

Published online 14 December 2020

Published in print January 2021

Information

Keywords

Financial & competing interests disclosure

All the authors are or were employees of Ipsen, a pharmaceutical company that markets oncology products at the time of paper writing. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download

Challenges and opportunities in the delivery of cancer therapeutics: update on recent progress

Abstract

Graphical abstract

References