Introduction

Despite remarkable progress in our understanding of the biological background of cancer and the continuous improvement of cancer therapies, cancer remains one of the leading causes of death. Conventional therapies have improved patient survival but suffer from several limitations. For instance, anti-cancer drugs frequently fail because of their poor tumor selectivity and high toxicity in healthy tissue. Even when the treatment is initially effective, development of drug resistance is a common threat for long-term survival and cure [1, 2].

Nanomedicine is a novel and rapidly evolving field that might overcome many of the limitations of current anti-cancer drugs. Its nanosize, material and ability for surface modification provide unique features that can dramatically improve pharmacokinetics of incorporated therapeutic agents. Modifications can improve solubility, prolong circulation time, avoid clearance by the immune system or allow for controlled drug release. The nanosize allows drug accumulation in tumor tissue by passive targeting, which relies on the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect. Active targeting on the other hand, comprises functionalized nanoparticles that specifically target molecules expressed on cancer cells, as this specific targeting has shown promise to increase the drug concentration at the site of action while limiting side effects.

The possibility for specific targeting also lends itself to individualized therapies. Tumor heterogeneity between patients is one of the main challenges in the development of effective drugs, and has prompted the emergence of personalized cancer medicine. Recent advances in nanomedicine have the potential to develop into effective and personalized anti-cancer therapies.

Over the past years, various nanoparticles have been developed for drug delivery to the tumor, including viruses, lipid based and polymeric nanoparticles [3]. This has led to a large variation in shape (e.g., spherical or rod-like), size, surface coating and material (e.g., lipid layer or polymer aggregate). These physicochemical properties can influence pharmacokinetic and biological parameters such as functionalization, toxicity, drug release, etc. (Table 1). Several modifications of nanoparticle physicochemical properties aimed at improving pharmacokinetics and targeting, or at reducing immunogenicity and toxicity have been reported (reviewed in [4, 5]).

The possibility of modifying nanoparticle properties to circumvent limitations of current cancer drugs stimulated rapid progress to clinical use. Several therapeutic nanoparticles are approved for clinical use (Table 2) or are currently investigated in clinical trials. Most clinically approved nanomedicines consist of liposomes as drug carriers including Doxil, DaunoXome, and the more recent VYXEOS (Table 2). Other types of nanoplatforms that are approved for clinical use involve chemotherapeutics bound to proteins and drug-loaded polymers such as Eligard, which has been used to treat prostate cancer since 2002. Although most approved nanomedicine rely on passive targeting, targeted drug delivery gained attention to increase drug specificity. For instance, the antibody-drug conjugate Polivy has recently been approved to treat relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Nevertheless, new nanoparticle platforms and approaches are emerging rapidly. Promising results have been obtained with new strategies such as small interfering RNA (siRNA) delivery to silence genes, targeted photoimmunotherapy (PIT), and synthetic dendritic cells to induce immune responses [6–8].

Nanomedicine might seem the most appropriate approach in the fight against cancer, and could possibly even lead to the cure in the future. Yet, many challenges lie ahead, ranging from difficulties in design to limitations in clinical translation. And although promising, only a limited number of nanotechnology-based therapies has so far reached the clinic and still many nanomedicines fail to show benefits compared to conventional treatments [18, 19]. Often this is due to lack of thorough experimental approaches that should evaluate the effects of nanomedicine on basic biological processes in cells and tissues. This review highlights recent advances that exploit unique promising features of polymeric nanoparticles and elaborates on remaining challenges (Figure 1).

Display full size

Figure 1. 

Schematic summary of promising aspects and remaining challenges of nanomedicine in cancer therapy

Nanoparticle uptake and drug delivery

Liposomes were the first nanoparticles that were approved for therapeutic use in the clinic. They have been used to increase the circulation time and specific uptake of the cytostatic drug doxorubicin [20, 21]. Free doxorubicin is an effective chemotherapeutic for several cancer types. However, the severe side effects due to cardiotoxicity limits the administered dose, resulting in low therapeutic efficacy [22]. Incorporation of doxorubicin in liposomes enhances uptake in tumor cells and results in a more gradual drug release, thereby preventing cardiotoxic effects [11, 23–25]. Nevertheless, liposomal doxorubicin has failed to increase overall survival [26–28], which is likely attributed to the inefficient cargo release due to lack of triggered release after entering tumor tissue. This emphasizes the need for controlled release systems such as biodegradable drug carriers or modifications that allow drug release upon triggers from the tumor environment.

Nanoparticles have also attracted widespread interest as delivery vehicles for nucleic acids. siRNA is widely used to silence gene expression, but therapeutic application of free siRNA is limited due to its low stability in vivo [29]. Cationic polymers such as lipoplexes and polyplexes are commonly used as delivery vehicles, and are taken up by endocytotic pathways [30]. Encapsulation of siRNA in these nanoparticles increases stability, permeability, and cellular uptake [29, 31, 32]. Therefore, many studies aimed to investigate the effects and mechanisms of siRNA nanoparticle delivery. Internalization of siRNA can occur through different mechanisms that are dependent on many properties of the polymeric vehicle, such as charge, size and conjugation of cell penetrating peptides, antibodies, or aptamers [33].

Knowledge on the mechanism of nanoparticle uptake is critical to aid development of siRNA release systems. The majority of nanoparticles are taken up by endocytosis due to their ability to interact with the cell membrane through properties such as receptor targeting ligands or a positive charge. The rapid acidification of endolysosomes causes siRNA degradation, and thus necessitates early endosomal release of siRNA. This has led to the development of nanoparticles functionalized with amines that are protonated at acidic pH, causing osmotic swelling and endosomal lysis [33]. This is also known as the proton sponge effect and although widely accepted, a small endosomal size and low membrane leakiness may be pivotal for sufficient build-up of osmotic pressure to allow proton sponge-based rupture [34]. Based on the comparison of four distinct cell types, endosomal rupture occurred less frequently in cells with smaller endosomes. Moreover, exposure to high polyplex concentrations increased endosomal leakiness, preventing endosomal rupture. In addition, Rejman et al. [35] reported caveolae-mediated endocytosis of polyplexes that may not involve endosomal acidification, indicating other release mechanisms than the proton sponge effect. Caveolae-mediated endocytosis was shown to be the main route for larger particles (> 200 nm), whereas smaller particles were exclusively internalized by clathrin-mediated endocytosis [35]. Alternative to the proton sponge effect, endosomal siRNA escape has been proposed to occur through pore formation by using endosomolytic peptides. Although studies report increased siRNA endosomal escape after incorporation of amines or endosomolytic peptides [36, 37], internalization pathways and siRNA release mechanisms have been poorly addressed.

Live cell imaging has confirmed the association between cytosolic siRNA release and knockdown of targeted genes [38]. However, the release efficiency of nucleic acids from endosomes is considerably low with only a limited number of particles that release siRNA [30]. In addition, both lipoplexes and polyplexes do not rupture completely. Lipoplexes exhibited a more gradual release of siRNA in the cytosol, which could indicate endosomal release through pore formation. Nevertheless, siRNA nanoparticles were able to silence cancer associated genes in several tumor mouse models, leading to a significant decrease in tumor growth [39, 40]. siRNA treatment has also particularly attracted interest to treat triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) that lack molecular features. Conventional drugs are ineffective because of the inability to target and the highly aggressive nature of TNBC. siRNA nanoparticles were able to silence different oncogenic genes in TNBC mice models [41].

Since escape from the endo-lysosomal system is a rate-limiting step for efficient drug delivery, modification of nanoparticles to bypass this system has gained interest [42, 43]. As described above, nanoparticle size has important implications for uptake mechanisms and could be used to direct uptake to caveolae-mediated endocytosis and thereby prevent cargo degradation in lysosomes. Hence, it could improve nanoparticle cargo release [35, 42]. Other strategies to mediate uptake by the caveolae pathway consist of modifying surface characteristics and shape [42]. Xin. et al. [44] developed nanoparticles that were able to bypass the endo-lysomal pathway by coating rod-like pure drug nanoparticles (PNPs) with hyaluronic acid (HA). These HAPNPs were loaded with caspase 3 to assess protein delivery. The nanoparticles were able to enter cancer cells through binding to the CD44 receptor and uptake by the caveolar pathway. Levels of functional caspase-3 increased by 7-fold in human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cell line, indicating efficient release. HA coating increased tumor accumulation in vivo, but the caveolae-mediated endocytosis was attributed to the rod-like shape [44, 45].

Overcoming drug resistance

A major problem in conventional cancer therapies is the development of drug resistance. Nanoparticles can prevent drug resistance by delivery of multiple drugs or siRNAs. Delivery of different siRNAs has potential to silence multiple genes simultaneously, including drug resistance genes. Nanoparticles that targeted the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) on cancer cells, were successfully used for co-delivery of doxorubicin and siRNA to silence the drug resistance gene Bcl-2. After co-delivery, lung tumors in mice were more than twice smaller than those treated with doxorubicin or siRNA alone, indicating more effective suppression [6].

Multidrug resistance (MDR) is often caused by increased drug efflux or reduced uptake as a consequence of overexpressed transmembrane transporters. Aptamers, small single stranded DNA sequences, have shown potential to circumvent this resistance mechanism in cancer cells [46]. Liu et al. [47] developed a self-assembling DNA based nanostructure in which an aptamer was used to target nucleolin, a protein that is often upregulated in cancer cells. This was effectively used to deliver and retain doxorubicin in drug-resistant MCF-7 breast cancer cells. In vivo results demonstrated a tumor inhibition by 88% compared to an inhibition rate of 22% after administration of free doxorubicin [48]. The increased efficacy of nanomedicine in MDR is suggested to be a consequence of its different uptake mechanism. Unlike free drugs, targeted nanoparticles are taken up by endocytosis, which improves cellular uptake and circumvents drug efflux transporters.

Besides acquired MDR through increased drug efflux, intrinsic mechanisms including altered apoptosis signalling, play a major role in MDR [49]. Mitochondria have long been hypothesised to be involved in intrinsic MDR because of their role in energy metabolism and apoptosis. Studies have confirmed that an increase in oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) in mitochondria is an important driver for chemoresistance [50–52]. This has stimulated the development of mitochondrial targeting nanoparticles to promote cell apoptosis by selective drug accumulation. Jiang et al. [53] generated paclitaxel containing liposomes that could successfully target cancer cells by the incorporation of 2, 3-dimethylmaleic anhydride (DMA), an amide bond that is cleaved in the acidic tumor microenvironment. Cleavage of DMA reverses nanoparticle charge, which promotes cellular uptake. Mitochondrial uptake was facilitated by the incorporation of the mitochondrial targeting peptide lysine-leucine-alanine and subsequently caused apoptosis in MDR lung cancer cells and in MDR lung cancer cell xenografted mice.

A recent study also demonstrated improved therapeutic outcomes in MDR tumors after mitochondrial drug accumulation [54]. Dendrigraft poly-L-lysine (DGL) nanoparticles, devised as carriers for doxorubicin, contained aptamers to target nucleolin on tumor cells and cytochrome c in mitochondria. Another aptamer allowed drug release that was triggered by the high concentrations of ATP in mitochondria. Mitochondrial drug release induced apoptosis in vitro and in vivo, indicating successful circumvention of acquired and intrinsic MDR by DGL nanoparticles.

Another mechanism of MDR involves the regulation of ceramide content in the cell membrane [55]. Ceramides are membrane lipids and regulate several cellular signalling pathways, including cell differentiation, proliferation, and programmed cell death. Overexpression of the enzyme glucosylceramide synthase, responsible for the conversion of the proapoptotic mediator ceramide to a nonfunctional glycosylceramide, is associated with MDR [55]. Co-administration of ceramide with the chemotherapeutic drug paclitaxel restored apoptotic signalling in MDR human ovarian cancer cells [56]. Moreover, inhibition of glucosylceramide synthase by the drug tamoxifen augmented the cytotoxic effects of paclitaxel in MDR human ovarian adenocarcinoma cells (by 10-fold) and non-MDR ovarian cancer cells (by more than 3-fold) [57]. This finding was confirmed by the increased anti-tumor efficiency after the addition of tamoxifen to paclitaxel-loaded nanoparticles in a xenograft mouse model. So in addition to specific targeting to circumvent MDR, the ability to co-deliver compounds to restore altered signalling pathways is a promising feature of nanomedicine to overcome MDR [57]. Knowledge about the particular MDR mechanism in patients is therefore crucial to decide the best nanoparticle design for the treatment of chemo-resistant tumors.

Strategies of controlled drug release

When nanoparticles are taken up in the cell, they need to release the drug to evoke therapeutic effects. The design of effective release strategies is one of the main challenges encountered in nanomedicine. Endocytosis is the major route for nanoparticle internalization but cargo release is known to be a rate-limiting step and necessitated the need for controlled drug release [58]. Specific characteristics of the tumor microenvironment and endosomes, including the acidic pH and metabolic products, have been exploited to trigger drug release. Furthermore, nanoparticles that release their cargo upon external stimuli such as exposure to ultrasound, light, temperature, or magnetic fields have shown promising as controlled drug release systems [59–64].

Nanomedicine in immunotherapy

One of the main therapeutic approaches in cancer is to provoke anti-tumor responses by stimulating the immune response. Clinical success of immunotherapy has been achieved for many cancer types, but the highly heterogeneous responses have attracted interest to image immune cell behavior [84]. An important application of nanoparticles is therefore to visualize distribution and monitor efficacy of cell based immunotherapies, for example by loading immune cells with imaging particles such as iron oxide or perfluorocarbon agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) [85]. Imaging particles have provided valuable insights about the localization and interaction of tumor infiltrating immune cells, leading to improvements in immunotherapy. Although different therapeutic approaches have led to great progress, current immunotherapies are limited by their high costs, heterogeneous responses and lack of control. These limitations have recently stimulated the design of nano-sized artificial immune cells, which will be discussed in the next paragraph. Another promising approach for controlled modulation of the immune system is local delivery of immunotherapeutic agents or immune cells by biomaterial scaffold-based drug delivery systems, such as implanted scaffold and injected hydrogels [86]. Other applications of therapeutic nanoparticles in immunotherapy are reviewed by Jia et al. [87].

Recent advances in the design of artificial antigen-presenting cells (aAPCs) are promising to stimulate anti-tumor responses and can overcome many of the limitations of current immunotherapies [8, 88]. Vaccination of natural dendritic cells (DCs) is commonly used to stimulate the immune response but lead to different responses between patients. These heterogenous responses are likely the result of differences in DC signalling and molecular expression. Synthetic variants on the other hand, have opportunities for full control over T cell activation and overcome the need to produce a customized vaccine for each patient. Synthetic DCs could therefore reduce costs by providing off-the-shell therapy in the future.

The design of aAPCs is inspired by natural dendritic cells and can stimulate T cells by incorporation of the required signals: signal 1 to activate T cell receptors, signal 2 consisting of co-stimulatory molecules and signal 3 provided by cytokines. The potential of aAPCs is shown by recent progress of nanosized filaments to stimulate T cells. These nanosized filaments, consisting of a poly (isocyano peptide) co-polymer, were functionalized to attach signalling molecules that elicited strong sustained T cell activation in vitro [8, 89] (Figure 2). Future studies will most likely be directed to unravel the mechanisms of T cell activation by aAPCs, so design can be optimized to obtain full control over T cell response.

Display full size

Figure 2. 

Artificial antigen presenting cells to activate T cells. Poly (isocyano peptide) is conjugated to an anti-CD3 antibody that activates T cell signalling upon binding T cell receptors. (1) Azide groups of poly (isocyano peptide) were coupled to bicyclononyne-functionalized streptavidin through a strain-promoted azide-alkyne click reaction (SPAAC); (2) streptavidin binds to biotinylated anti-CD3 antibodies

Another strategy in immunotherapy exploits light to kill cancer cells. Phototherapy has long been known for its cytotoxic effects, but only in the last decade the combination of light with chemicals are used to treat cancer [90]. In conventional PDT, a photosensitizing agent becomes activated on excitation by light. As it falls back to the ground state, the activated photosensitizer transfers energy to oxygen molecules. This leads to the generation of singlet and reactive oxygen species that mediate tissue damage [90].

Because PDT also evokes damage in healthy tissue, a targeted photosensitizer has been developed. In this approach, known as PIT, a monoclonal antibody is conjugated to a photosensitizer that is excited by NIR light (Figure 3). Mitsunaga et al. [7] conjugated the photosensitizer IR-700 to the HER1 receptor targeting antibody panitumumab. Upon excitation, panitumumab-IR-700 induced targeted specific cell death. In vivo injection of panitumumab-IR-700 and subsequent irradiation by NIR light, led to a significant decrease in volume of HER1 positive tumors [7].

Display full size

Figure 3. 

Difference between PDT and PIT. In PDT, a photosensitizer induces widespread tissue damage upon excitation by NIR light (left). In PIT, the photosensitizer is attached to a monoclonal antibody that specifically targets molecules expressed on cancer cells. Upon excitation, the photosensitizer only induces cell death when bound to the cell membrane (right)

Since the first success of PIT, also other targets have been used, including EGFR, mesothelin (hYP218) and prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) [91–94]. These studies also showed positive results with decreased tumor size and prolonged survival in vivo. A phase 2 clinical trial on the EGFR targeting cetuximab-IR-700 conjugate (RM-1929) is currently ongoing in the USA to determine efficacy in head and neck cancer [95].

A recent study indicates that the effect of PIT largely depends on induction of anti-tumor immunity. PIT rapidly caused damage that led to disposal of antigens and immunogenic signals, which was followed by maturation of dendritic cells [96]. This order of events is known to be associated with an anti-tumor response. However, no direct evidence was provided for the role of the host immune system in the effectivity of PIT. Studies in immunodeficient mice might elucidate the exact contribution of the host immune system in the effect of PIT [97]. Since immune escape mechanisms are an important hallmark of cancer, the application of nanoparticles to stimulate host immunity to cancer may lead to high therapeutic response.

Remaining challenges

Debates about the hype or hope of nanomedicine are ongoing and represent the controversy in the field. Nanomedicine might have suffered from high expectations, causing skepticism after lagging results. Yet, we cannot deny the first promising results. The ability to improve pharmacokinetics and modify properties has potential to increase drug efficacy, while limiting side effects in patients. Some nanomedicines have already shown clinical success, but the application in daily practice is still in its infancy. Despite the emergence of a tremendous number of designs for nanoparticle-based drug delivery, only a few are approved for clinical use. It is essential to understand the underlying reasons for this poor clinical translation to address remaining challenges.

Optimizing the EPR effect

The accumulation of nanoparticles in tumor tissue is attributed to the EPR effect, but disappointing clinical results have questioned the significance of this effect. The EPR effect is often exaggerated in animal models because of induced tumor growth and substantial differences from human cancer [105] (Figure 4). The extent of the EPR effect in human, is in fact highly heterogeneous between patients and cancer types [106]. For instance, hepatocellular carcinoma generally has a high EPR effect, whereas this effect is limited in pancreatic and prostate cancer because of low vascular density that leads to hypoxic areas. Furthermore, a high tumor tissue density leads to compression of blood vessels, which increases the interstitial fluid pressure which acts as a counter pressure in the extravasation of nanomedicine.

Display full size

Figure 4. 

Obstacles and strategies in drug delivery to tumor tissue. Five factors in the human tumor microenvironment that limit nanomedicine delivery to tumor tissue (left). These five features are distinct from murine tumors and might therefore explain the lower drug delivery efficiency in humans when compared to animal models. Strategies to enhance the EPR effect by modulating the tumor microenvironment (upper right). Drug delivery can also be improved by modifying nanoparticles to increase cellular uptake and drug release at the target (lower right). ACE: angiotensin-converting enzyme; NO: nitric oxide; TGF: transforming growth factor

Modulating the tumor microenvironment to enhance the EPR effect is promising (Figure 4) [107]. Induction of tumor cell apoptosis or extracellular matrix (ECM) degradation in high density tumor tissues could lead to a decreased interstitial fluid pressure by vessel decompression. The cytotoxic drug paclitaxel has shown to increase the EPR effect in pre-clinical and clinical studies [108–110]. Induction of tumor cell apoptosis led to blood vessel decompression in vivo and also demonstrated decreased interstitial fluid pressure in breast cancer patients. The EPR effect can also be enhanced by increasing the vessel permeability. Agents that generate NO mediate vascular permeability and release local NO in hypoxic areas, resulting in and enhanced drug delivery by 2 to 3-fold [111]. Another strategy to increase vascular permeability is by targeting the pericyte coverage of tumor endothelium. TGF-β inhibitors increase vessel leakiness by inhibition of pericyte recruitment to tumor vessels and improved both delivery of 100 nm nanoparticles and anti-tumor activity [112].

The improved delivery by enhancing the EPR effect suggests that nanomotors might also have potential to facilitate accumulation in tumor tissue. However, for selective accumulation it is essential that these nanomotors move towards a specific tumor substrate. Non-specific uptake in healthy tissues is a common problem of nanoparticles in general, and often evokes toxicity. This is especially a concern in healthy tissues that also possess the EPR effect such as liver and spleen. To limit toxicity, nanoparticles and their biodegradation products should consist of biocompatible non-toxic materials. Toxicological assessments and research on their fate is important for safety analysis and can elucidate mechanisms of toxicity.

Conclusions

Taken together, research has indicated the difficulty to achieve targeted, effective, safe, and at the same time, easy to produce nanomedicine. Many challenges lie ahead, but the promising results indicate great potential in personalized cancer treatment. Before nanomedicine can actually lead to a revolution in cancer therapy, a multidisciplinary approach should be adopted by combining knowledge from different disciplines including cell biology, tumor pathophysiology and chemistry. Besides in cancer therapy, nanomedicine tools have been developed for the treatment of several autoimmune and inflammatory diseases (reviewed in [120–122]). The lessons learned for the development of nanomedicine-based delivery strategies of immunomodulatory agents and anti-inflammatory molecules will certainly benefit the field of cancer and vice versa.

While this review mostly focused on polymeric nanoparticles, it is worth mentioning the development of prodrug based nanomedicines, which can controllably release drugs at specific sites under specific stimulation (see [123] for in-depth review). The so-called prodrug (i.e. the drug conjugated to a pre carrier) is an inactive compound that can be locally and controllably cleaved or degraded into the real bioactive drug directly in vivo [123]. Numerous prodrug-based nanomedicines with different chemical modifications have been developed that are responsive to both endogenous stimuli [124, 125] and exogenous environmental stimuli [126], thus expanding the repertoire of nanomedicines available to treat cancer.

Progress in nanomedicine would require a better understanding of nanoparticle behavior in biological environments, a more careful characterization to facilitate reproducibility, and increased focus on clinical application. Expanding our knowledge will facilitate improvements in design, ultimately leading to more efficient and less toxic drugs. Nanomedicine might then live up to its promise and substantially improve patient outcomes in the future.