Joseph W. Nichols

EPR: Evidence and fallacy.

The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) of nanoparticles in tumors has long stood as one of the fundamental principles of cancer drug delivery, holding the promise of safe, simple and effective therapy. By allowing particles preferential access to tumors by virtue of size and longevity in circulation, EPR provided a neat rationale for the trend toward nano-sized drug carriers. Following the discovery of the phenomenon by Maeda in the mid-1980s, this rationale appeared to be well justified by the flood of evidence from preclinical studies and by the clinical success of Doxil. Clinical outcomes from nano-sized drug delivery systems, however, have indicated that EPR is not as reliable as previously thought. Drug carriers generally fail to provide superior efficacy to free drug systems when tested in clinical trials. A closer look reveals that EPR-dependent drug delivery is complicated by high tumor interstitial fluid pressure (IFP), irregular vascular distribution, and poor blood flow inside tumors. Furthermore, the animal tumor models used to study EPR differ from clinical tumors in several key aspects that seem to make EPR more pronounced than in human patients. On the basis of this evidence, we believe that EPR should only be invoked on a case-by-case basis, when clinical evidence suggests the tumor type is susceptible.

Mind the gap: a survey of how cancer drug carriers are susceptible to the gap between research and practice

With countless research papers using preclinical models and showing the superiority of nanoparticle design over current drug therapies used to treat cancers, it is surprising how deficient the translation of these nano-sized drug carriers into the clinical setting is. This review article seeks to compare the preclinical and clinical results for Doxil®, PK1, Abraxane®, Genexol-PM®, Xyotax™, NC-6004, Mylotarg®, PK2, and CALAA-01. While not comprehensive, it covers nano-sized drug carriers designed to improve the efficacy of common drugs used in chemotherapy. While not always available or comparable, effort was made to compare the pharmacokinetics, toxicity, and efficacy between the animal and human studies. Discussion is provided to suggest what might be causing the gap. Finally, suggestions and encouragement are dispensed for the potential that nano-sized drug carriers hold.

Nano-sized drug carriers: Extravasation, intratumoral distribution, and their modeling

ABSTRACT Navigating intratumoral drug distribution has proven to be one of the most challenging aspects of drug delivery. The barriers are significant and varied; increased diffusional distances, elevated interstitial fluid pressure, regions of dense extracellular matrix and high cell density, and overall heterogeneity. Such a long list imposes significant requirements on nano‐sized carriers. Unfortunately, other capabilities are eclipsed by the distribution requirements. A drug can do no good until it reaches its target. Numerous strategies to improve drug distribution have been developed, taking account of various unique characteristics of solid tumors, including some mechanisms that are still not fully understood. Most of these strategies were from small animal tumor models which are our primary tool for understanding cancer physiology. The small animal tumor model is the most versatile and effective means of understanding tumor transport, but its prevalence belies some of its weaknesses. Tumors grown under lab conditions are developed much more quickly than naturally developed cancers, potentially impacting tumor heterogeneity, blood vessel development, extracellular matrix organization, cell diversity, and many other features of structure and physiology that may impact transport. These problems come in addition to the difficulties of making precise measurements within a living tumor. Resolving these problems is best done by improving our analysis methods, and by finding complementary models that can clarify and expound the details. In this review, we will first discuss some of the strategies employed to improve transport and then highlight some of the new models that have recently been developed in the Bae lab and how they may aid in the study of tumor transport in the future. Graphical abstract Figure. No caption available.

Nanotechnology for Cancer Treatment: Possibilities and Limitations

Drug delivery to solid tumors is one of the seminal challenges to developing more effective cancer therapies. A well-designed drug delivery system can potentially improve the efficacy of a treatment by enhancing drug accumulation in the tumor and combining synergistic effects into a single package. It may also reduce negative side effects by limiting drug access to sensitive noncancerous tissue. The most common drug delivery design is to package small molecule drugs with a nanoparticle. Nanotechnology provides a versatile platform onto which many functions can be added. Nanoparticles are widely considered to have superior biodistribution and efficacy when compared to free drug particles, but this expectation has not matched clinical results. One reason for the disappointing clinical outcomes of nano-sized drug carriers is the numerous barriers to drug delivery encountered by the nanoparticle on route from the administration site to tumor interior. These barriers are encountered along the entire delivery pathway and can severely limit the total effective amount of drug in the tumor.

Uterine perfusion model for analyzing barriers to transport in fibroids.

This project uses an ex vivo human perfusion model for studying transport in benign, fibrous tumors. The uterine arteries were cannulated to perfuse the organ with a buffer solution containing blood vessel stain and methylene blue to analyze intratumoral transport. Gross examination revealed tissue expansion effects and a visual lack of methylene blue in the fibroids. Some fibroids exhibited regions with partial methylene blue penetration into the tumor environment. Histological analysis comparing representative sections of fibroids and normal myometrium showed a smaller number of vessels with decreased diameters within the fibroid. Imaging of fluorescently stained vessels exposed a stark contrast between fluorescence within the myometrium and relatively little within the fibroid tissues. Imaging at higher magnification revealed that fibroid blood vessels were indeed perfused and stained with the lipophilic membrane dye; however, the vessels were only the size of small capillaries and the blood vessel coverage was only 12% that of the normal myometrium. The majority of sampled fibroids had a strong negative correlation (Pearsons r=-0.68 or beyond) between collagen and methylene blue staining. As methylene blue was able to passively diffuse into fibroid tissue, the true barrier to transport in these fibroids is likely high interstitial fluid pressure, correlating with high collagen content and solid stress observed in the fibroid tissue. Fibroids had an average elevated interstitial fluid pressure of 4mmHg compared to -1mmHg in normal myometrium. Our findings signify relationships between drug distribution in fibroids and between vasculature characteristics, collagen levels, and interstitial fluid pressure. Understanding these barriers to transport can lead to developments in drug delivery for the treatment of uterine fibroids and tumors of similar composition.

Targeted drug delivery for cancer therapy

Abstract: With a long history and long list of researchers investing their efforts, there have been a plethora of targeted drug delivery designs for treating cancer. Our understanding of cancer is becoming more comprehensive and the strategies for therapy are increasing in sophistication. However, despite these advancements, cancer is still resisting the best targeted drug delivery therapies that we can develop. Only a very small fraction of designs, that may show promise in preclinical trials, successfully transition through all clinical trials to market approval. This chapter will discuss the following areas that can affect the outcome of targeted drug delivery: the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, tumor microenvironment, intratumoral distribution, tumor heterogeneity, and multidrug resistance. Understanding some of the weaknesses in the current paradigm can lead to a revolution of cancer therapeutics towards a true breakthrough in treating cancer.