Emerging Nanotherapeutic Approaches to Overcome Drug Resistance in Cancers with Update on Clinical Trials.

1. Introduction

In spite of recent technical and pharmacological advances, cancer continues to be one of the top causes of human death globally, accounting for around 13% of all fatalities each year aldehyde dehydrogenase [ 1 ]. Approximately 21 million more cases and a 13 million increase in cancer-related deaths are projected by 2030, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). A 50% rise in diagnosed cases and a 60% increase in cancer-related fatalities by 2030 is predicted compared to 2012, when there were only 14 million cases and 8.2 million deaths [ 2 ]. For many decades, surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy were the most popular cancer treatment options. The fact that these therapeutic procedures are still regularly utilized in conjunction with other specialist strategies for the treatment of cancer should be noted. Surgery is particularly beneficial for solid tumors and for cancers that have not spread to other parts of the body. After surgical excision of solid tumors, radio- and/or chemoradiotherapy is used to overcome the constraints of surgery [ 3 ]. For the majority of cancer patients, both radiation and chemotherapy are used as a primary therapeutic option.

Conventional chemotherapy remains a powerful tool and curative measure in eliminating malignant cancer, yet there is a pertinent need for development of alternative treatment modalities due to certain limitations [ 4 ]. These limitations include tumor heterogeneity, clonal evolution, transcriptional mutations, multi-drug resistance (MDR), and systemic toxicities which limits the efficacy of several drugs in clinical settings which showed proven antitumor properties in preclinical studies [ 5 ]. In order to overcome these limitations, various modified therapeutic approaches such as palliative care, use of targeted biological agents and other approaches were employed to optimize the effect of conventional therapies [ 6 ]. However, a steep increase in overall cancer burden limits the therapeutic modalities especially due to cancer drug resistance or non-responsive characteristics towards therapy [ 7 ]. Moreover, emergence of multi-drug resistance (MDR) an insurmountable hindrance in chemotherapy and ultimately compromise the cancer therapy [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Some of the ways that cancer is resistant to drugs are caused by changes in the tumor microenvironment, the number of different types of cancer cells in a given area, the ability of cancer cells to take up the drugs, and the ability to get rid of drugs that are not taking them out of their bodies [ 12 ]. Cancer stem cells CSCs) were considered as important sources of drug resistance in the past few years owing to its intrinsic unique properties [ 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. CSCs are usually in quiescent phase and escapes the chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments which further develops drug resistance [ 6 ]. The unique and specific properties of CSCs include self-renewal ability, cell proliferation and differentiation ability, molecular plasticity, expression of specific surface markers, DNA repairability, hypoxic stability, increased expression of ATP binding cassette (ABC) transporters, and antiapoptotic protein overexpression, contributing to drug resistance [ 16 , 17 ]. Therefore, there is a pressing need for development of improved therapeutic regimens for cancer therapy in order to overcome cancer drug resistance. In the past few years, multiple treatment strategies such as anti-angiogenesis therapy, immunotherapy, target therapy, nanotherapy, signal modification therapy, apoptosis regulations, nucleic acid-based therapies, and other therapies have escalated much attention for regulating immune function, inhibition of cell proliferation, limiting angiogenesis and metastasis, induction of apoptosis and reversal of MDR [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Among all these treatment approaches, nanotherapeutics-based approaches hold great potential for overcoming the limitations of conventional therapies for cancer therapeutics and diagnosis due to their multifunctional potential. Moreover, cancer nanotherapeutics are swiftly progressing and perhaps it is most explored therapeutic option. The unique physicochemical properties of nanotherapeutics allow them to overcome some of the drawbacks of traditional medicines, such as short half-life, poor water solubility, poor oral bioavailability, and non-specific biodistribution. Better bioavailability, increased pharmacokinetics and improved targeted drug delivery and tumor penetration are some of the many advantages that nanoparticle-based drug carriers provide in cancer therapy. They also have fewer side effects and may be used to treat a wide range of cancers [ 24 ]. The plasticity of nanoparticle composition and surface chemistry promotes a wide range of design options. As a result, a nano-drug-based delivery system not only delivers targeted drug administration to overcome drug resistance, but also specificity to cancer cells and diagnostics. Nanotherapeutics approaches using different kinds of nanocarriers for overcoming drug resistance are shown in Figure 1 .

Nanocarriers provide extraordinary specificity in terms of targeted delivery through both active and passive targeting mechanisms, as shown in Figure 2 [ 25 ]. In passive targeting, nanocarriers employs enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect which is promoted by abnormal leaky vasculature and lack of lymphatic drainage in tumor microenvironment. As a result, extravasation within tumor tissues and increased accumulation of therapeutic agents at tumoral site are facilitated [ 26 ]. However, specific targeting inside the tumor site is challenging using passive targeting approach as heathy tissues can get affected too with this approach and compromises the drug biotherapeutic window. In active targeting, nanocarriers are conjugated with tumor specific ligands that can interact with overexpressed surface receptors on target cells with reduced toxicity. The biocompatible targeting ligands used in active targeting include antibodies, aptamers, peptides which are specific to receptors, or antigens at the tumor site [ 27 , 28 ].

Overall, this approach provides a plethora of advantages, including targeted specific delivery, increased biodistribution and therapeutic window, reduced non-specific toxicities, less immunogenicity, and systemic circulation [ 29 , 30 ]. Furthermore, active targeting may utilize combination therapy by taking advantage of the synergistic effects of different drugs/therapeutic agents for delivery of multiple therapeutic agents, such as imaging and/or theranostic agent for multimodal functions [ 31 ].

Recent advancements in nanotherapeutics fueled the development and exploration of various nano-based vehicles for efficient drug/therapeutic agents’ delivery. Some of the commonly utilized nano vehicles include lipid- and micelle-based nanoparticles, polymeric/non-polymeric nanoparticles, nanoconjugates, carbon nanotubes, nanogels, nano capsules, dendrimers, polymer micelles, and quantum dots for the enhancement of the efficacy of therapeutic interventions by conveying vast payload without toxicity [ 12 , 33 , 34 ]. In the past few years, numerous nanoformulations were widely investigated and used for cancer imaging and diagnosis. However, in order to realize the cancer nanotherapeutic potential, nanoparticle-based delivery systems must overcome a number of obstacles and biological barriers before reaching the target tumor location [ 35 ].

Currently, advancements in materials science and protein engineering paved the way for the design and development of newer and innovative nanoscale targeting strategies for cancer therapy. To attempt this, various nanoformulations-based platforms, such as albumin nanoparticles and liposomes, were approved for clinical use [ 36 ]. Several other nanotechnologies-based therapeutic modalities are under clinical investigation [ 37 ]. The FDA-approved nanoparticles-based delivery systems, including Aroplatin Abraxane ® , doxorubicin-loaded liposomes, paclitaxel-bound albumin, OSI-211, and Oncaspar ® , have significant anticancer activity [ 38 ]. Additionally, many nanomaterials-based systems, such as Aurimune, CRLX101/Camptothecin, Lipoplatin, AuroShell, nd 30 plus nanoconjugates, still remain to be tested through different clinical trials [ 39 ].

In this review, an overview of cancer nanotherapeutics and its advancements is provided. Herein, I highlight the current chemotherapeutics open challenge, cancer drug resistance, its mechanisms, and need for cancer nanotherapeutics. Furthermore, I specifically review different emerging and innovative nanotherapeutics-based strategies for cancer therapy, namely, strategies for targeting tumor microenvironment (TME) and its components, noncoding RNA-based targeting (siRNA and miRNA-based delivery systems), exosomes-based targeting strategies, self-assembly prodrug-based strategies, and advanced delivery systems for cancer stem cells (CSCs) and integrin targeting followed by detailed update on clinical trials status. Finally, I discuss the current challenges and future prospective of cancer nanotherapeutics.

2. Drug Resistance in Cancers and Its Mechanisms

Chemotherapy represents one of the principal modes for treatment of cancer. However, the development of MDR has become a major problem in oncology and limits the effectiveness of chemotherapy for the treatment of different metastatic cancers. Multi-drug resistance highlights the resistance to multiple different drugs which are structurally and functionally distinct from the original drug. Accumulating evidence indicate resistance to cancer therapeutics is a complex and challenging process and requires considerable and immediate attention along with rigorous understanding of the underlying mechanisms [ 40 ]. As per available findings, drug resistance could be defined into either intrinsic resistance or extrinsic resistance based on the factors associated with it. According to the cancer type, drug resistance might be inherited or acquired. These two types of medication resistance (extrinsic vs. intrinsic and inherited vs acquired) cause the doctors a significant therapeutic problem. This type of resistance emerges as a result of the existence of resistance-mediating elements in cancer cells and their environment. Extrinsic or acquired drug resistance, on the other hand, may emerge during the treatment of tumors that were previously responsive to cytotoxic medicines. Extrinsic resistance would compensate for the therapeutic effects of previously used drugs, and this could occur as a result of a variety of adaptive responses, including the modulation of signaling pathways, activation of alternative signaling pathways, and increased expression of the therapeutic target [ 41 ]. Moreover, the modulation of signaling pathways is responsible for the regulation and reprogramming of different metabolic and cellular physiological pathways, tumor microenvironment, stemness, and cancer resistance. Among other factors, proinflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) play vital roles in the modulation of different signaling pathways. Overall, different factors, causes, and mechanisms which are associated with the drug resistance in different types of cancers (combining both extrinsic and intrinsic resistance) include change in tumor microenvironment, tumor heterogeneity due to cellular changes, reduced drug uptake, inactivation of drug, alteration of drug targets, drug efflux, cell death inhibition, alternation in DNA repair process, epigenetics, inhibition in apoptotic pathways and autophagy, epithelial to mesenchymal transition, metastasis, and many more as discussed in [ 17 , 42 , 43 ]. Therefore, it is pertinent to understand cancer resistance phenomenon and the cardinal signaling mechanisms arising from various exogenous and endogenous factors towards development of future therapeutic interventions or combination therapy for different cancers. A list of different factors which induce drug resistance in cancer are presented in Figure 3 and Table 1 .

In following sections, we discuss some major causes/factors leading to drug resistance in cancer chemotherapy. Tumor microenvironment (TME) is considered one of the vital factors for development of drug resistance during cancer treatment in some cancers as a result of interactions between the cancer cells and adjacent TME components [ 57 ]. The tumor microenvironment comprises of cellular and non-cellular components and their interactions induces cancer drug resistance and putting therapeutic pressures in clinical settings. The cellular components of TME include cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), myeloid, lymphoid, endothelial, and stromal cells, while non-cellular components comprise of soluble factors such as cytokines, chemokines, various growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), platelet-derived growth factor (PGDF), B-cell activating factors, and others. For example, the development of anti-VEGF/VEGFR drugs resistance in renal cell carcinoma treatment is caused by the production of pro-angiogenic factors, such as FGFs, PDGFs, etc. [ 58 ]. In another report, disease progression and drug resistance in metastatic colon cancer was reported to be due to up-regulation of the growth factor IGF-I [ 59 ]. Other non-cellular TME components—apart from soluble molecules and growth factors—include acidic environment (relatively low pH), hypoxic conditions, augmented reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels due to hypoxic conditions, extracellular matrix (ECM), etc. All these cellular and non-cellular TME components are essential for the survival and growth of the tumor and promotes angiogenesis, metastasis, tumor invasiveness, and increase in MDR proteins, thus contributing towards drug resistance development and reduced chemotherapeutics efficacy [ 60 ], therefore, in order to improve the efficacy of chemotherapeutics and reducing the drug resistance-appropriate targeting of cellular and non-cellular components of TME for rectification.

Another important factor that leads to cancer drug resistance is the high degree of tumor heterogeneity. Tumor cells heterogeneity is depicted by the presence of different cellular morphology, phenotypes, gene expression, epigenetics, metabolic, and transcriptomic features which are distinct from normal cells [ 61 ]. Tumor heterogeneity may be of two types: intertumoral and intratumoral. Intertumoral heterogeneity refers to the heterogeneity which occurs between different tumor patients with the same histology, but differences in somatic mutation, genetic variation, and environmental factors. In contrast, the intratumoral heterogeneity which occurs within the tumor contributes majorly to metastasis, drug resistance, and subsequent therapeutic failures [ 61 ]. The intratumoral heterogeneity may be derived from either heritable or non-heritable sources. The non-heritable sources of intratumoral heterogeneity include CSCs and phenotypes plasticity. CSCs represents the resistant minor population of cells which was originally present in the tumor population that promotes cancer initiation and progression and plays a significant role in cancer resistance development [ 62 ]. CSCs exhibit the abilities of self-renewal, cancer-initiation, differentiation, and metastasis due to their various unique features including overexpression of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter proteins, anti-apoptotic proteins, DNA damage repair activity, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) activity, and activation of key pro-survival signaling molecules such as Notch and NF-kB. These properties enhance the mediated cancer drug resistance development of CSCs. In this regard, CSC-targeted therapy is expected to be a core for the development of effective anticancer therapeutics. This CSCs targeting-based strategy using multifunctional noncomplex to overcome drug resistance represents a promising novel therapeutic approach for the treatment of resistant cancer.

The other drug resistance mechanism might occur due to the inactivation of the drug or lack of activation. Inactivation of the drug involves complex mechanisms due to changes in enzymatic conditions during cancer disease progression. As a result of these enzymatic changes, drugs and other proteins interact with each other—or partially degrade or modify—which leads to drug inactivation, and thus, drug resistance [ 63 ]. The inactivation of drug and cancer drug resistance is quite common in some drugs such as platinum-based drugs, 5-flouro uracil (5-FU), methotrexate (MTX), tomudex, and irinotecan. Platinum-based drugs inactivation occurs through thiol glutathione (GSH) mediated by enzymes γ-glutamylcysteine synthetase and γ-glutamyl transferase, which synthesize GSH [ 49 ]. The inactivation of irinotecan is mediated by cytochrome P450 enzymes such as UGT1A1, which is highly expressed in the liver and colon [ 64 ]. Some metabolites, such as 5-flouro uracil (5-FU), methotrexate (MTX), and tomudex, do not activate in vivo and provide anticancer effects due to the absence of specific cellular activity [ 41 , 65 ]. Whenever these metabolites are active, they show cytotoxic effects and lead to cancer cell death. Taken together, the activation and inactivation of the drugs are mediated by different sets of enzymes.

The other significant factors responsible for the development of cancer drug resistance include the increased activity of the drug efflux pump inside the tumor cells. The overexpression of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters, especially P-glycoprotein (P-gp), distinguishes between different chemotherapeutic agents and their increased efflux activity is consistently reported as one of the major causes of multi-drug resistance development in both in vitro and in vivo conditions [ 66 , 67 ]. Despite various strategies being utilized for overcoming drug resistance arising from different extrinsic and intrinsic factors, many of these anti-drug resistance approaches were unsuccessful in their clinical trials due to either unpredicted adverse effects or further genetic mutations [ 35 , 64 ]. As a result, clinical trials are ongoing to explore innovative techniques for combating drug resistance development without producing side effects.

3. Nanotherapeutics in Cancer Therapy

Chemotherapy serves as one of the most common treatment modalities for cancer. However, chemotherapeutic treatments are also associated with untoward toxicity to healthy tissues, due to the non-specific targeting and accumulation of drugs in the body. Other reasons for the failure of chemotherapy include the inadequate solubility of hydrophobic drugs, poor oral bioavailability, high toxicity, difficulty in penetrating biological barriers such as the blood–brain barrier, transport limitations, and low therapeutic index. [ 68 , 69 ]. The low bioavailability of drugs and hydrophobic nature of most drugs results in insufficient drug accumulation in tumors and limits their therapeutic outcomes. Conventional chemotherapeutic treatment faces the most difficult issue of MDR in patients receiving chemotherapy at the start of or following a treatment period [ 12 ]. The reasons for drug resistance include tumor heterogeneity, tumor microenvironment, drug inactivation, overexpression of drug efflux pumps, bypass of apoptosis process, genomic instability, epithelial to mesenchymal transition, and modulation of signaling pathways. Cancer drug resistance greatly impacts patients’ quality of life and poses a huge healthcare burden in terms of increased hospitalization and high costs related to healthcare. In order to overcome the several limitations faced by the conventional chemotherapeutic approaches, in last few decades, rapidly emerging nanotherapeutics-based strategies were explored for cancer therapy.

The nanotechnology-based approach involves the creation and manipulation of nanoscale size materials (1–1000 nm) that can interact with cell membrane and biomolecules present inside cells [ 70 ]. Several forms of nanomaterials (most commonly nanoparticles) were extensively utilized for targeted drug delivery for various diseases, including cancer. The cancer nanotherapeutics-based approach offers various advantages over conventional chemotherapy such as improved drug stability and solubility, prolonged half-lives of drugs in blood plasma, specific targeting of tumors with improved absorption, enhanced concentration of drugs at target site, ability to encapsulate a range of drugs, therapeutic payloads into the blood stream via targeted drug delivery with minimum systemic toxicities [ 71 ]. This nanotherapeutics-based approach for cancer therapy would improve the current cancer treatment potential, along with the management of drug resistance induced by CSCs. Nanoparticles-based platforms allow both the passive and active targeting of tumors. Solid tumors are generally hypervascular due to the upregulation of proangiogenic signaling pathways. However, the newly formed vessels indicate an abnormal architecture with the hyperpermeability tumor cells. The tumor mass also demonstrates poor lymphatic drainage, which allows the accumulation of macromolecules of a size of >40 kDa within the tumor microenvironment [ 72 , 73 ]. Thus, defective tumor vessels and impaired lymphatics in the tumor tissue allow the preferential accumulation of nanoparticles (NPs) in tumor vasculature and interstitial space by enhancing the permeability of the abnormal tumor microvasculature while suppressing the lymphatic drainage. The EPR effect is a fundamental prerequisite for nanoparticles-based targeted delivery to tumors. In order to benefit from the EPR effect, the optimal particle size should be in the range of 10 to 200 nm. If particles are too small, they will be cleared through the kidney and will not accumulate into the tumor site. In contrast, particles that are too large would not be able to penetrate tumor vasculature and interstitial space [ 74 ]. There is a substantial variation in EPR between patients and tumor types and sometimes even within the same patients or tumor type with time. Various researchers have demonstrated the stratification of cancer patients’ subpopulations based on the nanoparticle’s accumulation though EPR during preliminary clinical studies [ 75 , 76 ]. These reports indicate that EPR is a predictive marker and may have vital role cancer nanotherapies-related clinical success.

Cancer nanotherapeutics were extensively employed for the targeted delivery of drugs to tumors using different nanoformulations [ 77 , 78 ] ( Figure 4 ). Despite their success and efforts to develop various non-invasive administration routes (oral, nasal, and transdermal) for nanoparticles, most cancer nanotherapeutics utilize the intravenous delivery route for systemic delivery to tumors [ 79 ]. In order to increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and other cancer treatments such as CSCs targeting, several preclinical studies demonstrated the utilization of nanotherapies. After the last few decades, various nanoparticulate systems were developed and their drug delivery capacity was explored, aiming to overcome multi-drug resistance via targeting CSCs, overcoming efflux pumps, reducing some CSCs biomarkers, and inhibiting tumor growth. Moreover, nanoparticles-based therapeutics indicated promising results in terms of their low toxicity and biocompatibility; however, there are still concerns regarding their in vivo usage. In different strategies such as molecular targeting, magnetic hyperthermia, and photothermal and photodynamic therapy, the combination of metallic or polymeric nanoparticles and immunological approach was demonstrated successfully in specific tumor targeting.

Currently, numerous unique nanomedicines or structurally varied nanoformulations such as polymer conjugates, liposomal nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, polymer micelles, organic nanoparticles, inorganic nanoparticles, metal nanoparticles, magnetic nanoparticles, nanogels, nanocrystals, dendrimers, carbon nanotubes, and hybrid nanoparticles, are being developed and employed extensively to reverse cancer drug resistance in various pre-clinical studies. Among these nanocarriers, liposomes, polymeric micelles, and polymeric nanoparticles have already reached clinical trials and also received FDA approval [ 12 , 34 , 69 ]. This can be seen in doxil, the first anticancer nanomedicine approved for clinical trials. Doxil is a liposome encapsulated doxorubicin which demonstrated an improved half-life compared to doxorubicin and with reduced cardiotoxicity [ 80 ]. Similarly, Abraxane, comprising of paclitaxel encapsulated within the albumin nanoparticles, indicated improved paclitaxel water solubility and a 28% reduction in death risk in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients when employed in a combination therapy with gemcitabine during phase III clinical trials [ 81 ]. Cancer nanotherapies using folate and transferrin receptor mediated nanotherapeutics also allow targeted delivery to tumor cells with significantly reduced damage to nearby cells which were otherwise damaged due to nontargeted conventional chemotherapy [ 82 ]. The different nanostructures employed in cancer therapeutics set forth therapeutic and/or theranostic properties with the ability to accommodate small/biomacromolecular therapeutic agents, contrast/imaging agents, and other therapeutic agents for therapy, as well as diagnosis. Moreover, the development of multimodal combination therapy utilizing multifunctional nanoparticulate systems to co-deliver combinations of different therapeutic cargos represents an attractive treatment option to surmount MDR.

In an earlier report, Wang et al. demonstrated an effective targeting and eradication of cervical CSCs [ 83 ]. In another report, sialic acid modified chitosan and poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based nanoparticles loaded with curcumin inhibited the proliferation of glioblastoma cells and brain CSCs through targeting using the antibody against aldehyde dehydrogenase [ 84 ]. Several other reports also utilized similar strategies using different nanomaterials using co-delivery of drugs and indicated promising results in targeting hepatocellular carcinoma and liver CSCs [ 85 , 86 ], breast cancer tumor cells [ 87 ], ovarian CSCs [ 88 ], osteosarcoma cells [ 89 ], gastric CSCs [ 90 ], laryngeal stem cells [ 91 ], and glioma stem cells [ 92 , 93 ]. Furthermore, various nanotherapeutics-based approaches were employed to improve the treatment of glioblastoma as the prognosis is very poor with this cancer. In a preclinical study, poly (β-L-malic acid)-based nanobioconjugate was developed in order to block the expression of laminin-411 in glioblastoma cancer, which is reported to correlate with high tumor grade and overexpression of CD133 and notch signaling pathway (putative markers of CSCs) [ 94 ]. The developed nanoconjugate had the capability to cross the blood–brain barrier without showing any toxicity and indicated a significant survival of glioblastoma mice by inhibiting CSCs markers and the modulation of the notch signaling pathway. In a different approach, nanoparticles-based strategies were directed to target mitochondrial metabolism [ 95 ]. In a recent report, chitosan-gold nanoparticles were evaluated for their action on the acute T lymphoid leukemia cell line and chronic myeloid leukemia cell line. Herein, nanoparticles induced ROS production in both cell lines leading to mitochondrial impairment by loss of mitochondrial membrane potential without causing any detrimental effect on healthy immune cells [ 96 ]. Furthermore, enhanced sensitivity to some chemotherapeutics was observed using gold nanoparticles that inhibited cell proliferation and metastasis [ 97 ]. Nanoparticles were shown to have the potential to be a delivery vehicle for different anticancer therapeutic agents beyond their usual role as carriers for chemotherapeutics. The anticancer therapeutic agents incorporated in nanomaterials for cancer therapy include antisense oligonucleotides [ 98 ], DNA inhibitor oligonucleotides [ 99 ], small interfering RNA (siRNA) [ 100 , 101 ], molecularly targeted agents [ 102 ], and mRNA [ 103 ]. Furthermore, exosomes were also employed for anticancer payloads and targeting of tumors, owing to their endogenous origin [ 104 ]. In the past few years, nanotherapeutics-based strategies have already demonstrated in-depth innovation in cancer therapy. In this context, single nanoformulations integrated with both therapeutic and diagnostic functions present a promising approach for studying the disease progression, therapeutics accumulation and monitoring of pharmacokinetics in preclinical and clinical studies [ 105 , 106 , 107 ]. Multifunctional nanoparticles provide insight into the tumor heterogeneity within patients and allows for the development of potential personalized patient specific therapy [ 108 ]. Several therapeutic nanoparticle (NP) platforms, such as liposomes, polymeric micelles, and albumin nanoparticles are FDA-approved for cancer treatment. Numerous nanotechnology-enabled therapeutic modalities are being investigated in clinical trials, including improved chemotherapy, radiation treatment, photo thermal therapy (PTT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), magnetic hyperthermia, RNA interference (RNAi) therapy, and immunotherapy [ 37 ]. Currently, nanomedicines have taken superiority as a treatment option for overcoming cancer drug resistance. However, due to the rapid development and widespread usage of nanomaterials, limited evaluation of their safety and efficacy data related to nanomedicines are available regarding clinical applications. This further substantiates the need for high quality clinical trials for better understanding their use and safety. Taken together, cancer nanotherapy presents an attractive alternative strategy in combination with other treatments to conventional chemotherapy, particularly that against CSCs. Despite its success and the approval of a few other nanotherapeutics approaches for cancer therapy, still there is long way to go before these reach clinics and more studies are required to manifest their safety for human use in cancer treatment.

4. Emerging and Innovative Nanotherapeutics-Based Strategies against Drug-Resistant Cancers

Nanotherapeutics serve not so much to overcome the chemotherapeutic treatment, but rather to overcome the chemoresistance of cancers, improve pharmacokinetics of the drugs, and decrease or eliminate their systemic toxicity, etc. The foremost objective of the nanotherapeutics-based approach is to target specific cancer cells and their microenvironment with minimal toxicity by delivering chemotherapeutic agents efficiently to the target site. Moreover, the development of nanotherapeutics in the past few years indicates its considerable potential in the cancer therapeutic domain. Aside from cancer therapies, nanotechnology-based medicines have significant potential implications in the diagnostic imaging of many drug-resistant cancers. Nanoscale delivery systems for cancer-specific targeting have demonstrated enormous potential in the past few years with the development of strategies for specifically targeting specific cells, particularly CSCs, the tumor microenvironment, and various tumor components, using a variety of emerging and innovative approaches. The innovative approaches include the nano-therapies based approach to target specific components of the tumor environment (cellular and non-cellular component), employment of RNA interference technique (siRNA and miRNA based specific delivery), self-assembly based prodrug-based approach, exosome-based delivery, stimuli responsive delivery, advanced delivery systems for targeting the CSCs and integrin, and others for specific cancer therapy [ 17 , 34 , 43 ]. In this section, various emerging and innovative strategies currently ongoing for specific targeting of tumor cells and microenvironment were reviewed and discussed in detail along with their advantages and associated challenges.

4.1. Nanotherapeutis-Based Approaches for Targeting Tumor Microenvironment (TME)

Tumor microenvironment (TME) plays a vital role in imparting tumor heterogeneity and disease progression. The heterogeneity of TME and its components, such as cells, interstitial fluid, and ECM, act as physical barriers and do not allow drugs to permeate the tumor tissue. As a result, there are marked gradients of cell proliferation and drug concentrations which influence the tumor sensitivity towards drug treatment [ 109 ]. This condition induces anticancer drug resistance. MDR presents major unresolved challenges in cancer chemotherapeutics and about 50% of patients face tumor relapse problems due to MDR. TME and its components induce drug resistance through a variety of processes, including cell–cell and cell–ECM interactions, crosstalk between distinct cells, phenotypic changes, mechanosensing variation, and protective dormancy. Furthermore, additional factors—including the overexpression of efflux pumps such as ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters and P-glycoprotein (P-gp)—found on certain cancer cells contribute to drug efflux and resistance [ 110 ]. TME allows tumor cells to avoid the harm produced by traditional clinical cancer therapies such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

The local microenvironments of tumor cells and crosstalk between specific cancer cells plays a crucial role in tumor progression was elucidated more than a century ago according to Stephen Paget’s seed and soil hypothesis [ 111 ]. However, the role of non-neoplastic cells of TME in tumor development and metastasis was uncovered only in the last three decades [ 112 ]. TME comprises both cellular and non-cellular components that play critical roles in the development of drug resistance. The cellular component of TME includes cancer associated fibroblasts, cancer associated vascular endothelial cells, cancer associated pericytes, cancer associated immune cells, lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs), and CSCs. The cellular components of TME by different nano-drugs systems are highlighted in Figure 5 . Non-cellular component characteristics of TME include hypoxia, an acidic environment, the extracellular matrix, cytokines, growth factors, and vascular networks [ 113 ]. TME’s non-cellular components create a favorable and permissive environment for cancer cell proliferation. TME exhibit characteristics that separate them from normal tissue include their leaky vasculature, inadequate vascular perfusion, an acidic environment, changed pH dynamics, altered enzyme expression, altered metabolism, and hypoxic circumstances [ 114 ]. All these regions provide therapeutic opportunities which are exploited by nanocarrier-based drug delivery systems. In order to design chemotherapeutic and chemo preventive strategies to overcome drug-resistant cancers, in-depth knowledge of tumor biology is pertinent. Consequently, the targeting of both cancer cells and tumor microenvironment is necessary to achieve superior therapeutic efficacy. Therefore, in order to develop improved and efficient drug delivery systems, TME modification is a prerequisite through the better understanding of both TME stromal components functioning and its morphological features [ 24 ].

In the last two decades, various other cellular components of TME, such as CSCs, endothelial cells, and stromal cells, were identified and their role in tumor growth is established. All these cellular components vary greatly in terms of size, morphology, and expression of surface receptors, paving the way for us to target these cells individually in order to produce synergistic therapeutic effects [ 115 ]. The advancement of TME-enabled nanotherapy in the past few years demonstrated promising strategies and approaches for the modulation and targeting of TME in combating drug-resistant cancers by limiting disease progression [ 116 ]. Furthermore, a number of novel smart nanoparticles with transformational properties exhibited improved spatiotemporal control over particular tumor microenvironmental targeting. Because of their customizable size, surface coating, and capacity to include a vast number of therapeutic drugs, nanoparticles (NPs) have emerged as a viable platform for TME targeting. Emerging nanocarriers are being utilized for targeting TME and its components include nanoparticles (polymer- and lipid-based), liposomes, polymeric micelles, magnetic nanoparticles, polymer drug and nanoconjugates. A variety of nanocarriers are employed for targeting TME in order to overcome multi-drug resistance ( Figure 6 ).

TME modulation and targeting using nanocarriers can be achieved either through passive targeting or active targeting. In the passive approach, tumor targeting is carried out by diffusion process and EPR effect is considered as crucial factor. In passive targeting, accumulation of nanocarriers is supported by abnormal leaky vasculature of tumor compartment. Nanocarriers are generally functionalized with specific ligands such as folic acid, transferrin, and aptamers in active targeting that could interact with overexpressed folate and transferrin specific receptors present on targeted cells. In active targeting, different ligands not only target cellular components of TME, but also non-cellular components such as hypoxic conditions and acidic environment. Physiological hypoxic conditions in tumor microenvironment contributes primarily to the tumor growth and cancer drug resistance ( Figure 7 ).

In cancer nanotherapeutics targeting TME, monotherapy sometimes fail to produce the desired therapeutic effect. Thus, other strategies such as multifunctional nanomedicine and combination therapy were employed for enhancing the effectiveness of cancer therapy. Multifunctional nanomedicine utilizes encapsulation of various therapeutic cargos such as chemotherapeutic drugs, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) nucleotides or RNA interference (RNAi) [ 117 , 118 ]. Thereafter, nanoparticles can migrate to target tumor sites to release therapeutic agents in a controlled manner through local or systemic administration.

Various nanoparticle-mediated approaches were reported to target TME in the past few years by creating nutrient deprived conditions for cancer cells together with exposure to various destructive mechanisms. Nanotherapeutics-based strategies are not only limited to improving chemotherapy, but also incorporate gene therapy and its applications for diagnostic and theragnostic domain. Consequently, nanoparticle-based approaches are reported to utilize either of the two mechanisms and expanded the nanotherapeutics in both directions. Currently, there are only a few clinically approved nano pharmaceuticals available in the market to treat cancer, namely, doxil ® , Abraxane ® , and Genexol ® . A list of the nanoparticles-based approaches for targeting cellular and non-cellular components of TME is presented in Table 2 and Table 3 .

Nanotechnology-based products have shown promising outcomes in targeting TME and a few products are now clinically approved; however, their applications remain limited in treating certain types of cancers (although not all) [ 169 ]. TME provides conflicting attributes because, on the, it allows improved nanoparticles accumulation due to its leaky vasculature, and on the other hand, it also acts as a barrier for nanoparticles extravasation [ 161 ]. The TME barriers’ contributions toward nanoparticles extravasation include high interstitial fluid pressure (HIFP), pericytes coverage, basement membrane, and composition of ECM. The interstitial fluid of the tumor environment is similar to blood plasma and comprises 50–60% of plasma proteins and electrolytes composition; however, the interstitial fluid pressure varies. The tumor IFP is elevated (5–40 mm Hg) compared to normal IFP (range of −3 to 3 mm Hg). The pressure increases as the tumor growth progresses due to various factors such as rapid cell proliferation, presence of highly crosslinked collagen, modulated extracellular matrix, increased contractions of stromal cells, lack of pericyte coverage, high vascular permeability, lack of lymphatic drainage, and increased secretion of angiogenic factors and growth factors [ 24 ]. High tumor IFP exerts mechanical forces on cells and stimulates the proliferation tumor cell proliferation [ 170 ]. Pericytes coverage presents another barrier for nanoparticles-mediated drug delivery. An earlier report indicated that pericytes dysfunction leads to loss of vascular coverage and plays an important role in disease progression [ 171 ]. Basement membrane represents another barrier of TME which performs the function of a sieve to modulate the nanoparticle extravasation from blood capillaries to the TME. Although the basement membrane does not induce the elevation of IFP, its structural complexity and thickness restricts the entry of nanoparticles or therapeutic agents’ migration to TME [ 169 ]. Furthermore, ECM composition, and structural and componential complexity restrict the extravasation of nanoparticles. Apart from the ECM composition, nanoparticle distribution is influenced by the alignment and orientation of collagen fiber network. In addition to tumor cell growth, stromal cell density contributes to the solid stress by compressing the matrix into a disordered network and restricting nanoparticle penetration, both of which limit nanoparticle penetration. A general decrease in nanoparticles that extravasates from neighboring micro vessels compromises the ability of stromal cells to internalize therapeutic NP in cancer cells. Taken together, TME barriers such as the presence of stromal cells coverage, extensively cross-linked collagen networks, and interstitial fluid pressure, among others, restrict the entry of chemotherapeutic agents from reaching the target cell. This restriction ultimately reduces the therapeutic benefits in patients. Therefore, the remodeling of cellular and non-cellular components of TME is pertinent in order to improve drug delivery by facilitating the extravasation of nanoparticles to TME. The four main strategies employed for the enhancement of nanoparticles extravasation include the vascular normalization strategy, stress alleviation strategy, and stromal/tumor matrix normalization strategy [ 24 , 172 ]. The normalization of the vascular system, mediated, for example, by the metronomic dosage of some conventional chemotherapy (such as docetaxel), may enhance blood flow inside the tumor, but it also closes the pores in the capillary walls, which are typical of solid tumors and required for the EPR effect. As a result, vascular normalization may even limit the growth of nanosized systems within malignancies. All three strategies employ different nanoformulations such as nanoparticles and polymer micelles to enhance extravasation. The priming mechanisms of stromal normalization strategies include the degradation of ECM, modification of ECM, reduction of collagen content, and reduction of IFP. In the context of the vascular normalization strategy, blocking of VEGF receptors, vessel diameter reduction, inhibition of tubulin, and stromal cells present main priming mechanisms. Furthermore, the prime mechanisms of the stress alleviation strategy involve the inhibition of tubulin, depletion of stromal cells, and reduction of IFP. In the past few years, TME-responsive cancer nanotherapeutics showed fast development, with the design and development of various theranostic strategies for combating drug-resistant cancers. Although few nanoparticles formulations are currently in clinical trials, the multitude of pre-clinical testing being far more than for clinical testing presents an obvious barrier for translation into clinical settings. Although TME-enabled nanotherapy showed high performance outcomes for further clinical translation, still a number of challenges must be overcome to ensure the better feasibility of these targeted systems [ 37 ]. In order to enhance the clinical translatability of nanoparticles platforms, safety profile, formulation scalability, targeting efficiency, and selection of pre-clinical models act as major determining factors.

4.2. Nanotherapeutic Strategies for Targeting Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs)

Tumor heterogeneity represents major obstacle in cancer therapy as bulk of tumor harbors various cell types with differential sensitivity to chemotherapy [ 61 ]. One of the crucial factors responsible for tumor heterogeneity is considered as CSCs, which regulates the tumor microenvironment and exhibits self-renewal ability, invasiveness and high tumorigenicity [ 173 , 174 ]. CSCs are small group of cancerous cells responsible for tumor initiation, progression, relapse, and poor prognosis, highly influencing the available therapeutic processes; see [ 175 ]. CSCs are able to resist conventional therapies such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy owing to their intrinsic characteristics such as phenotypic plasticity capacity, maintenance of a slow dividing state, drug efflux transporters, overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins, highly efficient DNA repair system, detoxifying enzymes epithelial to mesenchymal transition, and sustained stemness features [ 176 , 177 , 178 ]. Additionally, CSCs’ persistence in a hypoxic tumor microenvironment confers additional resistance to anticancer therapy [ 17 ]. Moreover, CSCs represents an important source responsible for resistance to traditional chemo and radiotherapy. Therefore, the development of efficient anticancer strategies which would specifically kill both tumor cells and CSCs would form the core of cancer therapeutics.

In the past few decades, several researchers studied CSCs properties and emphasized finding different ways to specially targeting the CSCs population for improving conventional chemotherapeutic approaches [ 14 , 15 , 179 ]. In order to attempt this, nanotherapeutic-based approaches using nanoparticles were developed for specific targeting of CSCs to reduce the chances of cancer recurrence and provide better palliative care. The potential nanotherapeutic approaches utilized for targeting CSCs in the past few years include crucial factors required for the survival of CSCs in the tumor microenvironment, such as specific surface biomarkers (CD44, CD133, EpCAM, aldehyde dehydrogenases), drug efflux pumps (ABC transporters) expression, different metabolic pathways, and signaling pathways (Wnt/β-catenin, Notch and Hedgehog) [ 178 , 179 ].

Recent research efforts in understanding the properties and different mechanisms of targeting CSCs paved way for the development of innovative nanotherapeutics for targeting CSCs. One of the most important overexpressed markers on the surface of CSCs is the cluster of differentiation-44 (CD44). Rao et al. developed polymer nanoparticles with chitosan coating and loaded with chemotherapy agent for targeting CD44. The results demonstrated increased therapeutic efficiency in mammary tumor spheroids model as nanoparticles delivered to tumor microenvironment specifically targeted CD44 overexpressing CSCs due to the high affinity between CD44 receptors and chitosan [ 180 ]. Furthermore, CSCs targeted nanotherapeutics gained much attention and other important biomarker CD133 was also utilized for specifically targeting CSCs. However, a pertinent issue related with the utilization of CD44 and CD133 lies in selective removal of a subset of CSCs only and may promote phenotypic shift and differentiation in tumor unintentionally. This leads to the compensatory high proliferation of cells and ultimately promotes chemotherapeutic resistance [ 181 ]. Therefore, the utilization of a more ubiquitous marker that can better target the large population of CSCs would be a more feasible approach. Thereafter, researchers utilized riboflavin loaded intracellular vesicles with coating of ATP binding cassette subfamily G member 2 (ABCG2) for targeting CSCs specifically and they observed a higher accumulation of riboflavin within cytoplasm due to specific recognition properties [ 182 ]. In another study, a pH responsive/hypoxia responsive riboflavin linked three-pronged nanoparticles were utilized for targeting both tumor cells and CSCs [ 183 ]. Herein, nanoparticles are loaded with three drugs, namely, irinotecan, cyclopamine, and erlotinib, which are able to kill undifferentiated CSCs, differentiated breast cancer specific MCF-7 cells and vascular niches in tumor microenvironment, respectively. Similarly, irinotecan conjugated riboflavin displayed exceptional anticancer efficacy with increased accumulation inside cancer cells. Wang et al. moved on to use salinomycin-loaded nanoparticles to selectively target and kill cervical CSCs [ 83 ]. In another study, chitosan poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid)-based nanoparticles loaded with curcumin and modified with sialic acid demonstrated blood–brain barrier permeability and inhibited proliferation of glioblastoma cells and brain CSCs through targeting the aldehyde dehydrogenase of CSCs [ 84 ]. In a recent nanotherapeutic strategy, nanoparticles co-loaded with chemotherapeutic drug, camptothecin, and differentiation-inducing agent, all-trans retinoic acid, demonstrated CSCs killing within tumors via dual strategy. The dual strategy involves first the promotion of CSCs differentiation in hypoxic conditions that lead to increase of reactive oxygen species; second, the promotion of the release of camptothecin and subsequent death due to increased levels of reactive oxygen species. This strategy reduces stemness0related drug resistance, enhancement of the chemotherapeutic and prevention of post-surgical tumor relapse response with controlled drug release in breast cancer models [ 184 ].

With the recent advancements in cancer nanotherapeutics, various emerging and innovative strategies have shown immense potential in targeting CSCs using photothermal therapy, magnetic hyperthermia, photodynamic therapy, and molecular targeting. The photo thermal therapy (PTT) field has shown promising results for the CSCs targeting nanotherapeutic approach as this method stimulates hyperthermic physiological responses with the conversion of light into heat using metal nanoparticles to eradicate CSCs [ 71 ]. Tian et al. utilized gold nanospheres functionalized as a surface biomarker for osteosarcoma stem cells, CD271 for targeted PTT, and reported the inhibition of cells and targeted death in osteosarcoma treatment [ 185 ]. Another promising strategy utilized a biocompatible polymeric micelles-based nanocarrier co-loaded with gold nanorods and Adriamycin for killing CSCs under laser ablation via targeting an important CSCs surface marker, EpCAM [ 186 ]. In another study, a nanoparticle system based on electrospun polycaprolactone nanofibers encapsulating all-trans retinoic acid and hydroxylated multi-walled carbon nanotubes for targeting and killing glioma stem cells was presented. Herein, stem cells inhibition was displayed by increasing the local temperature under near-infrared illumination, which further suggests its increased sensitivity towards heat treatment [ 187 ]. In another strategy used to overcome the resistance of CSCs, Wu et al. employed nanoparticles coated with the membrane of melanoma cells for simultaneously targeting chemotherapy, photothermal therapy, and photoacoustic imaging. The results reported this strategy’s enhanced targeting ability, along with excellent tumor ablation rate, and antitumor efficiency [ 188 ]. Another potential light-triggered minimal invasive cancer therapy for targeting CSCs includes photodynamic therapy (PDT) [ 189 ]. PDT produces reactive oxygen species (ROS) and free radicals with activation of a specific wavelength of excitation light and related to photosensitive agents in tumor tissues. PTT-based treatment promotes the autophagy, apoptosis, and necrosis of tumor cells, suggesting its role in reversing chemoresistance [ 190 ]. Crous et al. employed nanobioconjugate along with the photodynamic effects and indicated the significant destruction and eradication of lung CSCs [ 191 ]. In another study, nanoparticles loaded with a bimodal metallacage and with PDT targeted CSCs by decreasing the cells mobility under laser irradiation [ 192 ]. In a similar approach, a combination chemotherapy wherein nanoparticle-based micelles were loaded with photosensitizer (mitoxantrone) and anti-EpCAM–CSCs biomarker reported better antitumor efficacy compared to either near infrared irradiation or chemotherapy alone with simultaneous chemotherapy and PDT [ 193 ]. Cao et al. utilized MnO 2 @Ce 6 nanoparticles and a PDT-based approach which revealed improvement in tumor microenvironment related therapy resistance by modulating tumor microenvironment by excess hydrogen protons and H 2 O that resulted in subsequent eradiation of CSCs [ 194 ]. Furthermore, the nanotherapeutics approach combining both PTT and PDT was utilized and showed a beneficial role in minimizing the metastasis of different cancer types by specific CSCs targeting. Another nanotherapeutic approach for targeting CSCs includes magnetic hyperthermia using magnetic nanoparticles wherein increased cancerous tissue temperature serves as an operative therapy for cancer therapeutics [ 195 ]. Magnetic nanoparticles are used for cancer therapy in this technique because of their beneficial physiochemical qualities, such as size resemblance to biomolecules, magnetic properties, appropriate combination capabilities, and targeted drug delivery capacity [ 196 ]. Su et al. utilized superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles modified with the anti-CD44 antibody and alternating magnetic field resulting in the significant inhibition of CSCs growth and subsequent death in the head and neck squamous cell carcinoma model via magnetic fluid hyperthermia [ 197 ]. In another study, a mesoporous silica nanoparticle under an alternating magnetic field demonstrated an efficient inhibition of tumor growth with the elimination of CSCs through the blockage of the hypoxia signaling pathway and hyperthermia [ 70 ].

Molecular targeting is another nanotherapeutic technique for targeting specific CSCs by changing molecular and metabolic processes. MicroRNA21 is an oncogenic gene that, when overexpressed in triple-negative breast cancer, downregulates several tumor suppressors. As a result, downregulation would improve tumor suppression and reverse resistance. To attempt this, Yin et al. employed a three-way junction motif with the utilization of nanoparticles conjugated with the inhibitor of microRNA21, RNA aptamer and CD133 receptor for CSCs targeting. This approach specifically targeted both the triple-negative breast CSCs and cancer cells and indicated reduced cancer cell migration and upregulated tumor suppressors’ expression in in vitro and in vivo studies [ 198 ]. Nanotherapeutics based on molecular targeting constitute a more effective way of targeting CSCs, resulting in tumor growth suppression and metastasis reduction via decreased CSC adhesion, migration, and number [ 199 ]. Taken together, nanotherapeutic techniques for targeting CSCs demonstrate enormous promise and may enable us to overcome cancer treatment resistance. However, further understanding and the study of novel target molecules and CSC characteristics will be necessary in the future to convert these techniques into clinical practice.

4.3. siRNA-Based Nanotherapeutic Strategies

Currently, targeting the suppression of the oncogenes’ expressions along with targeted chemotherapy shows tremendous success and represents one of the foremost strategies in cancer treatment. Earlier, different gene therapy-based approaches were utilized for their knockdown of genes associated with cancer pathophysiology; however, none of them were able to provide the complete suppression of genes [ 200 ]. Thereafter, an alternative innovative genetic approach RNA interference (RNAi) was developed for the inhibition of specific messenger RNA (mRNA) expression by controlling uncontrolled cell growth and proliferation, especially in carcinoma cells [ 201 ]. The RNAi approach triggers a homology-dependent degradation of targeted mRNA and reversible specific gene silencing capability through the delivery of non-coding double stranded RNA (dsRNA) to cancer cells [ 202 ]. In RNAi, the non-coding short double stranded RNAs include short interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and micro RNAs (miRNAs), which show broad potential as therapeutics by silencing sequence-specific genes. In this section, we discuss siRNA delivery-based strategies for cancer therapy; miRNA-based delivery is discussed in the subsequent section.

The basic strategy involved with siRNA delivery-based gene silencing involves the rational design of siRNA-based delivery systems and identification of targeted genes for the selective knockdown of susceptible oncogene expression. Free siRNA is anionic and hydrophilic dsRNA, with an average diameter of <10 nm, which prevents them from readily crossing cell membranes. The physicochemical and pharmacokinetics properties of siRNA such as short half-life, toxicity, reduced cellular uptake, and degradation vulnerability by serum nucleases, limit the in vivo systemic administration of naked siRNA. Nevertheless, naked siRNAs are rapidly cleared by cells through opsonization and phagocytosis processes by the mononuclear phagocytic system as a part of routine immune system-mediated clearance of foreign substances [ 203 ]. Furthermore, siRNA delivery into the targeted tissues is impeded by the presence of different biological barriers that ultimately hinder its effectiveness in vivo. Therefore, different delivery vehicles are required for transporting siRNA to the site of action in order to achieve the clinical potential.

With advancements in the domain of nanotechnology, nanoparticles with remarkable physicochemical features serve as the vehicle of choice for siRNA targeted delivery [ 25 ]. Nano-encapsulated siRNAs modifies its pharmacokinetic properties by improving the solubility, oral bioavailability, serum stability, and renal and hepatic elimination owing to their diminutive size. Moreover, encapsulating siRNA into nanoparticles improves cellular internalization and intracellular drug release while decreasing cancer cell resistance to siRNA employing stimuli-mediated nano-therapeutics [ 204 ]. Clinical application of siRNA-based nanotherapies siRNA-based nanotherapeutics for cancer therapy offers several advantages over chemotherapeutic anticancer drugs, especially the undruggable targets in cancer treatment. The first and foremost advantage is the high degree of safety. Second, siRNA acts at the post-translational stage of gene expression; therefore, there is no interaction with DNA. As a result, risks of mutation and teratogenic risks that are more common with conventional gene therapy are negligible. Third, siRNA is highly efficacious and preferentially target any genes with minimal off-target effects and immunogenicity [ 205 ]. Fourth, siRNA-based delivery systems can be easily fabricated and modified [ 206 ]. Fifth, siRNA therapeutics exhibit a promising antiproliferative and tumor growth suppression effect through different signaling pathways [ 207 ]. Sixth, they can cause angiogenesis suppression by inhibiting VEGFs and VEGFR-1 receptors [ 208 ]. Seventh, the inhibition of tumor invasion and metastasis is conducted through the utilization of different chemokines CXCL8 and CXCL11 [ 209 ]. Eight, unrestricted choice of specificity and targets compared to other antibody-based drugs or small molecule drugs are advantageous.

To date, there are several reports demonstrating its role in tumor treatment using nanoparticles-encapsulated siRNA-based delivery system. There are three main types of siRNA-based delivery systems in cancer chemotherapeutics, namely, lipid-based systems, polymers-based systems, and siRNA conjugates. In the lipid-based system, in order to form lipoplexes different cationic lipids, such as 1,2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium propane (DOTAP), N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA), and N-[1-(2,3-dioleoyloxy) Propyl]-N, N, were utilized along with neutral lip‘ids, such as cholesterol (Chol), 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoethanolamine (DSPE), dioleoyl phosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE), and 1,2-dioleyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DOPC). In lipoplexes, the incorporation of siRNAs into positively charged liposomes is carried out by electrostatic interactions [ 210 ]. In the polymer-based siRNA delivery system polyethyleneimine (PEI), poly-L-lysine (PLL) chitosan, cyclodextrin, hyaluronic acid, and poly ethylene glycol (PEG)-based nanocarriers were extensively utilized [ 211 ]. In the siRNA conjugate system, antibodies, aptamers, peptides, and dendrimers were utilized. Among these abovementioned siRNA delivery systems, lipid-based delivery system attracted much attention in cancer therapy, and a few are already in clinical trials. A variety of domains such as cell proliferation and cell cycle progression, tumor microenvironment, angiogenesis, tumor invasion, metastasis, and chemotherapeutic resistance are targeted by siRNA-based nanotherapeutics in the preclinical studies listed in Table 4 .

Since the last few decades, researchers and pharmaceutical industries focused on clinical studies using siRNA-based nanotherapies which were initiated in 2010 and several synthetic siRNA-based nanotherapeutics were explored in the past few years for treating recurrent and aggressive tumors. The first clinical trial of nanoparticles-mediated siRNA delivery CALAA-01 was published in 2010 by Calando Pharmaceuticals [ 100 ]. CALAA-01 comprises different components such as cyclodextrin-based polymer (CDP), external PEG chains to improve the stability of nanoparticles in biological fluids, a human transferrin protein (TF) to target TF receptors (TFR) on cancer cells surface, and a siRNA specific for M2 subunit target of the ribonucleotide reductase protein (RRM2). Moreover, intratumoral downregulation of RRM2 leads to the induction of apoptosis in cancer cells [ 230 ]. However, this study was only preliminary as it utilized only small set of patients. Thereafter, in 2014, the phase I clinical trial of liposomal siRNA-based delivery system termed as Atu027 was published by Silence Therapeutics GmbH. The structure of Atu027 contains a neutral, fusogenic DPhyPE helperlipid, PEGylated lipid MPEG-2000-DSPE (molar ratio: 50/49/1), and a AtuFect01 for targeting protein kinase N3 [ 101 ]. The phase I clinical trial dose-escalation of Atu027 demonstrated disease stabilization for 41% of patients suffering from metastatic pancreatic cancer. The efficacy of Atu027 was tested together with gemcitabine in a clinical trial for the treatment of cancer. Another clinical study employed using the biodegradable polymer matrix loaded with KRASG12D-targeting siRNA for prolonged delivery regionally within the tumor tissue by Silenseed Ltd. A phase I/IIa clinical study was conducted using this delivery system together with gemtabicine in patients with non-operable locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The results of clinical trial demonstrated no evidence of tumor progression and disease stability [ 231 ]. Furthermore, a multinational randomized phase II clinical trial using this delivery system is currently in progress. Another clinical study using a lipid nanoparticles-based siRNA delivery system called DCR-PHXC-101 was developed by Dicerna pharmaceuticals for downregulating the expression of the transcription factor Myc. In this dose-escalation clinical study, safety, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity of DCR-MYC were explored in patients with lymphoma I, advanced solid tumors, and multiple myeloma. Among all patients receiving treatment, the majority of patients demonstrated shrinkage in tumor and sustained metabolic response [ 232 ]. The most recent anticancer siRNA-mediated nanotherapeutics clinical trial conducted was using EphA2-siRNA-DOPC. Herein, EphA2, tyrosine kinases receptors serve as the target protein. The upregulation of EphA2 was reported in several studies related to breast, prostate, lung, pancreas, and most importantly, ovarian cancer, and causes tumor invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis. Herein, EphA2-siRNA was encapsulated in liposomal nanoparticles 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospahtidylcholine (DOPC) and combinedly termed as EPHARNA (EphA2-siRNA-DOPC) for their specifically target of EphA2 expression in the tumor [ 233 ]. The simultaneous administration of EPHARNA and paclitaxel demonstrated an anti-angiogenic effect and drastic reduction in tumor growth in several in vitro and in vivo studies [ 234 ]. Other in vivo toxicological studies reported no observed adverse events and no major toxicities at a dose range of 75–225 mcg/kg after a single or double administration of DOPC nanoliposomes [ 235 ]. The phase I clinical trial of EphA2-siRNA-DOPC started in 2015, with patients suffering from advanced metastatic solid cancer receiving two weekly intravenous doses over two hours of EPHARNA, and is still continuing [ 236 ]. A list of nanoparticles encapsulated siRNA engaged in clinical trials is enumerated in Table 5 .

Although the lipid nanoparticles-mediated delivery of siRNA using ApoE coated lipid nanoparticles indicated high internalization into liver cancer cells, the siRNA-based delivery systems for other cancers are still under exploration. Despite the promising results of the improved siRNA delivery system for cancer treatment and several clinical trials, still not a single anticancer siRNA drug has been FDA approved for commercial usage [ 242 ]. This might be due to the problems associated with delivery to target tissues. As siRNA presents a huge potential for cancer treatment, in addition to the identification and utilization of internalization pathways for specific target cells, attempting to overcome the delivery problems would pave a way to the design of innovative siRNA-based delivery systems for cancer therapeutics.

4.4. MicroRNA (miRNA)-Based Nanotherapeutic Strategies

In the past few years, RNA-based therapeutics have shown immense potential in cancer nanotherapeutics. RNA-based therapeutics can be mediated either as inhibitors of target protein expression using siRNA and miRNA or as upregulators using mRNA [ 243 ]. miRNA-based cancer therapeutics have shown tremendous implications in the pathophysiological processes of cancer as emerging gene regulators. miRNAs are tiny, endogenous, noncoding RNAs that control gene expression in a variety of physiological activities, including cell growth and proliferation, differentiation, cell cycle, apoptosis, and tissue development [ 244 ]. The deregulated miRNAs affect the multiple biological pathways and leads to cellular transformation, malignancy, and cancer progression [ 245 ]. The differential expression of miRNAs in different tissues related to cancer enables them to target a multitude of transcripts related to cancer signaling pathways. The upregulation and downregulation of miRNAs leads to the suppression of tumor suppressor genes and increased expression of oncomers, respectively, which indicate their functions as both oncogenes and a tumor suppressor. For example, miR-10b, miR-125b, and miR-145 are downregulated, while miR-21 and miR-155 are upregulated in cancer development, suggesting their dual roles as tumor suppressors and oncogenes, respectively [ 246 , 247 ]. Owing to miRNAs’ functions as both tumor suppressor and oncogenic miRNAs, they can modulate multiple signaling cascades related to cancer and metastasis via the transcriptional effect. Therefore, miRNAs can be targeted in cancer therapeutics either as synthetic anti-miR sequences for an upregulated miRNAs or as miRNAs mimics for downregulated miRNAs [ 248 ]. In this context, miRNAs may be silenced to upregulate the tumor suppressor genes or degrade the anti-apoptotic genes. Taken together, the regulatory potential of miRNAs makes them a new, promising, individualized therapeutic strategy for cancer therapeutics.

In the past few decades, several miRNAs-based delivery systems were studied; however, their clinical translation was limited due to their short half-life, degradation by nucleases, very low endosomal and/or lysosomal degradation, broad functionality, and off-target effects. In order to overcome these problems, nanotechnology-integrated miRNA delivery systems were developed for the cell-specific delivery of therapeutic miRNAs/anti-miRNAs using targeted miRNA mimics. Several nanoparticles-based platforms, such as lipid-based nanostructures, polymer-based nanomaterials, inorganic nanomaterials, dendrimers, polymeric micelles, and bioinspired nano vehicles, were employed for miRNA delivery in the past few years for targeted delivery [ 243 ]. Earlier studies utilized inorganic silica-based nanoparticles as a vehicle for miRNA delivery and demonstrated the delivery of miR-34a to neuroblastoma cells and induced apoptosis in tumor cells [ 249 , 250 ]. However, these inorganic nanoparticles-based delivery systems for miRNAs reported some challenges, such as lower loading efficacy, lower endosomal escape, and lack of cargo protection. Thereafter, polymer-based, and lipid-based nanoparticles-based platforms were utilized for miRNA delivery. In a study, cationic short polyurethane and branched polyethylenimine (PU-PEI)-based nanospheres containing miR-145 demonstrated significant downregulation of tumor growth in lung adenocarcinoma cells by inhibiting epithelial-mesenchymal trans differentiation [ 122 ].

The combination of PU-PEI-miR-145, radiotherapy, and cisplatin reduced the growth of metastatic tumors, indicating its promising role in miRNA-based cancer nanotherapeutics. Later, it was reported that the high molecular weight polyethylenimine (PEI), a high degree of branching, led to non-specific toxicity. Thereafter, researchers utilized low molecular weight PEI with a smaller degree of branching for miRNA delivery and demonstrated its efficient function. In an in vivo study, miR-145 and miR-33a mimics elevated programmed cell death and reduced tumor growth in colon cancer using low molecular weight polyethylenimine and suppressed the cancer cells proliferation [ 251 ]. The smaller degree of branching in low molecular weight polyethylenimine demonstrated reduced toxicities-associated issues which were otherwise observed with high molecular weight polyethylenimine.

The first miRNA-based cancer nanotherapeutics that entered clinical trials—Mirna Therapeutics—involve liposomes’ modified tumor suppressor miRNA (miR-34), termed as MRX34. MRX34 demonstrated promising results in phase 1 and phase 2 clinical trials in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and acral melanoma. Currently, five more miRNA-based cancer nanotherapeutics are currently in clinical trials either in phase 1 or phase II stage [ 244 ]. In the past few years, a combination approach employing the codelivery of miRNA, along with small molecule anticancer drugs, have indicated a superior therapeutic benefit in cancer nanotherapeutics. This combination approach provided several advantages over conventional chemotherapeutics in inhibiting drug resistance, reversing epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT), inducing apoptosis and autophagy, suppressing tumor angiogenesis, and inhibiting overexpression of efflux transporters (P-glycoprotein) [ 252 ]. The targeted delivery of miRNAs combined with chemotherapeutic drugs sensitizes the cancer cells to chemotherapeutic drugs using an anti-miR system-based replacement or restoration of tumor genes [ 253 ]. Thus, the synergistic effect of the combinational therapy helps us to overcome drug resistance by directly targeting antiapoptotic signaling pathways and overexpressed efflux transporters. Shi et al. reported enhanced anticancer effects using lipid nanoparticles’ loaded miR-34 and paclitaxel drug compared to miRNA or paclitaxel alone [ 254 ]. Another study used polymer micelles coupled with miR-205 and gemcitabine to target markers such as OCT3/4, CD44, and Tubulin 3, showing a substantial reduction in tumor volume, implying that pancreatic cancer cells’ sensitivity to gemcitabine was restored [ 255 ]. Targeted co-delivery of miR-34a with anticancer drug in breast cancer displayed inhibition in chemoresistance, cell proliferation, and tumor invasion by modulating Notch-1 signaling pathway [ 256 ]. In a recent research work, the transfection of miR-126 mimic demonstrated an enhanced sensitivity of fourteen chemotherapy drugs (for example, trimetinib and alpelisib) through the inhibition of CDK4/6 and PIK3CA, which arrests cell cycle progression [ 257 ]. In another study, miR-1291 delivery along with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel to pancreatic cancer reported induced DNA damage, mitotic block, induced apoptosis, and significant inhibition of tumor cells growth by upregulating the AT-rich interactive domain-containing protein 3B (ARID3B) gene [ 229 ]. In another study, poly lactic acid and poly dimethylaminoethyl methacrylate conjugated with miR-21 inhibitor and doxorubicin (Dox) exhibited excellent anticancer efficacy in glioblastoma cancer cells [ 258 ]. Furthermore, research studies utilized the codelivery of miR-149 and miR-137 along with Dox to target neuroblastoma and pancreatic cancer cells and indicated restrained cell proliferation, promotion of apoptosis and sensitivity towards anticancer drug [ 259 , 260 ]. In a recent study, the injection of lipid nanoparticles conjugated with miR-634 and drug displayed induced apoptosis and reduced tumor growth in pancreatic cancer cells [ 261 ]. Although nanoparticles-mediated miRNA delivery has shown immense potential in the past few years, still, specific uptakes by cancer cells remain challenging due to the broad specificity of miRNAs. To overcome this challenge, nanoparticles are coated with either specific antibodies or ligands which are specifically expressed in cancer cells for targeted delivery. In a research study, polymeric micelles were conjugated with I-131-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) antibody and demonstrated the co-delivery of miRNA and chemotherapeutic drugs to prostate cancer cells without any adverse effects [ 262 ]. Furthermore, nanoparticles conjugated with aptamers also showed promising results in the co-delivery of miRNA and drugs with enhanced cytotoxic activity against cancer cells [ 263 , 264 ]. Taken together, the combinational strategy by co-delivering anti-tumor miRNAs with chemo drugs synergistically enhanced the therapeutic efficacy with the reduction of cancer drug resistance. These studies signify that this approach would provide a research direction and various hopeful avenues for cancer therapies.

4.5. Self-Assembly Prodrug (SAP)-Based Nanotherapeutic Strategies

Conventional chemotherapy using anticancer medicines has several limitations, including low solubility, bioavailability, and, most crucially, MDR. To address the limits of free pharmaceuticals, a strong and effective nanotherapeutic technique, the self-assembling prodrugs-based approach, has emerged as a promising treatment option for cancer. This approach offers a strong and successful nanotherapeutic technique that received much attention in the past few years for the targeted delivery of poorly soluble anti-cancer medicines. SAP nanotherapeutics (SAPNS) are a very well-designed method, with various inherent benefits over free drugs that were previously clinically unmet by traditional approaches. SAPNs have better physicochemical qualities in terms of solubility, drug loading, chemical stability, and blood circulation. Second, they have better pharmacodynamic characteristics that favorably alter PK, drug release, and tumor uptake, while minimizing adverse effects. Third, this approach reduces systemic non-specific toxicities and serves as an effective carrier for the targeted administration of poorly soluble drugs in vivo. Fourth, the greater medication accumulation at the tumor site of the targeted delivery based on the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect is a factor to consider [ 265 , 266 ]. Additionally, this SAPNs-based strategy utilizes a nanoparticle-mediated endocytosis cellular absorption mechanism, which aids in bypassing MDR-related issues. This endocytosis-mediated cellular absorption process circumvents drug efflux transporters, which are known to pump out free drugs.

After the last two decades, the self-assembling prodrugs (SAP) method has attracted considerable attention as a strong therapeutic platform for the enhancement of targeted tumor treatment [ 266 , 267 , 268 , 269 ]. SAPNs are classified into three types: lipid-drugs, polymer-drugs, and drug-drug conjugates [ 270 ]. Earlier research largely used hydrophilic polyethylene glycol (PEG) for combination with lipophilic medicines due to its ease of formulation, high hydrophilicity, and biocompatibility, which allowed for the avoidance of solubility and bioavailability difficulties associated with free drugs [ 271 , 272 ]. PEG-based prodrugs do not only self-assemble to different nanoformulations, such as polymeric micelles, but also provide synergistic anti-cancer activity by co-delivering the water-insoluble chemotherapeutics incorporated in their hydrophobic core [ 273 , 274 ]. Thereafter, another robust strategy using lipid-based modification emerged for the formulation of hard-to-formulate drugs by facilitating their self-assembly into nanoparticles of different shapes [ 275 , 276 ]. In a study, doxorubicin (DOX)-derivatized α-d-tocopherol succinate prodrug (N-DOX-TOS) and were able to form nano-assembly in aqueous solution after stabilization with TOS and demonstrated improved anticancer efficacy compared to unmodified DOX [ 277 ]. In another study, self-assembling doxorubicin prodrug PEG 2K -DOX demonstrated their effective reversal of doxorubicin related drug resistance with enhanced plasma pharmacokinetics and in vivo therapeutic efficiency against MDR xenograft tumors when compared to doxorubicin alone [ 278 ]. Yang et al. reported an improvement in the sensitivity of cisplatin to triple-negative breast cancer using platinum Pt (IV) prodrugs based on cisplatin and chemosensitizer adjudin (ADD), which havw ability to self-assemble into nanosheets. This Pt (IV)-ADD-based self-assembled prodrug nanotherapeutics indicated an improved in vivo tumor growth inhibition with 266-fold lower IC 50 value [ 279 ]. In a recent study, a synergistic Pt (IV) prodrug, Npx-pp-Pt (IV) demonstrated dual responsive behaviors for deactivating the dual drug resistance-related pathways to reverse cisplatin resistance. Herein, the in situ supramolecular self-assembly of prodrug into nanofiber structure revealed the enhanced cellular uptake of cisplatin and significant damage of the cisplatin-resistance cancer cells through cyclooxygenase-2 and nuclear factor kappa B-mediated apoptosis pathways, with a 80% tumor inhibition rate [ 269 ]. Furthermore, by exploiting the unique physicochemical properties of different drugs, amphiphilic drugs (hydrophilic drug conjugated with hydrophobic drug) can self-assemble into various nanoparticles shapes with improved pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, and antitumor efficacy [ 280 ]. In the co-delivery-based combination cancer therapy, different drugs are physically loaded in different nanocarriers. However, no physical drug loading is required with the drug–drug conjugate approach, as it already contains two distinctly pharmaceutically active agents [ 265 , 281 ]. Moreover, the self-assembled prodrug nanotherapeutics approach utilizes a drugs cocktail that alleviates the nonuniform biodistribution of anticancer agents and also ensures well-controlled targeted dual-drug delivery to reverse multi-drug resistance in cancer therapeutics.

4.6. Exosomes-Based Nanotherapeutics Strategies

Exosomes represent a subclass of heterogeneous extracellular vesicles (EVs) of endosomal origin with a diameter of 40–150 nm, which are secreted from a variety of cells present in tumor microenvironment such as cancer cells, tumor associated fibroblasts, CSCs, and tumor associated immune cells [ 282 ]. In the tumor microenvironment, exosomes-mediated constant crosstalk between tumor cells and stromal forms a large part of the communication. Exosomes are involved in various cellular and pathological conditions and, through intercellular communication, deliver their cargo to the immediate surroundings, as well as at distant organs. The cargo of exosomes comprises proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and metabolites that modulate stromal reactions, regulates immune response, promotes angiogenesis, and modify signaling pathways related to cancer in tumor microenvironment. Numerous in vitro and preclinical in vivo studies demonstrate that exosomes play a critical role in conferring drug resistance on cancer cells via intercellular interactions in a variety of cancer types, including pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, glioblastoma, kidney cancer, neuroblastoma, ovarian cancer, gastric cancer, melanoma, and osteosarcoma [ 283 , 284 ]. Exosomes’ cargo mediates chemoresistance through the regulation of drug efflux and metabolism, epithelial–mesenchymal transition, alteration of prosurvival signaling pathways, remodeling of tumor microenvironment, and increase concentration of plastic CSCs [ 285 ]. Along with their crucial involvement in establishing drug resistance in cancer, exosomes also transmit drug resistance phenotypes to other cancer cells and serve as biomarkers for monitoring drug resistance in cancer. Exosomes, by virtue of their function in chemoresistance, might also be used as a therapeutic target for overcoming drug resistance in cancer cells.

In order to enhance the effect of chemotherapy, exosome-mediated chemoresistance inhibition is prerequisite. In this context, two possible strategies are available that include exosome biogenesis and trafficking suppression, depletion of exosome uptake by cancer cells, modulation of harmful exosomal cargo, and inhibition of exosome dissemination, removal of exosomes. Exosomes depletion and removal may restore drug sensitivity to chemotherapy to some extent. However, limited knowledge regarding the specific ways how exosomes are internalized by cancer cells and deliver their cargo pave the way for alternative strategies to overcome drug resistance. Therefore, the application of exosomes as drug and gene delivery vehicles for targeted cancer nanotherapeutics is an appealing platform owing to its natural composition, low toxicity, and low immunogenicity. In cancer nanotherapeutics, different synthetic nanoparticles such as liposomes, self-assembling peptides and nanosponges were extensively utilized for targeted cancer therapy [ 286 , 287 ]. Nonetheless, various challenges such as different biological barriers due to the tumor heterogeneity still remain, with the exogenous nanomaterials being utilized for targeted drug delivery to cancer cells [ 288 ]. To overcome the limitations of synthetic nanoparticles, one emerging approach is to develop and utilize natural nanocarriers for targeted delivery. Several intrinsic features of exosomes, such as the ability to pass through lipid bilayer of cell membrane, high delivery efficiency, good stability in biological fluids, and high biocompatibility with low immunogenicity, support their potential as attractive nanocarriers for targeted drug or gene delivery [ 289 , 290 ]. Their specificity may further be improved upon by engineering exosomes with tumor-specific peptides, proteins, or antibodies for precise targeted drug delivery. The critical steps involved in utilizing exosomes as nanocarriers are the development of an efficient cargo loading method and choice of exosome-producing cells as these steps greatly impact the function, biodistribution, and immunogenicity of the exosomes. The exosomes-loading approaches include passive diffusion; electroporation, and loading the cargo to parental cells by incubation, overexpression, or transfection; and isolation of secreted exosomes through extrusion, freeze and thaw cycles, and sonication [ 291 ]. Regarding cell types, cells should be selected which are scalable and can produce large quantities of exosomes such as mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and bovine milk [ 292 , 293 ].

Exosomes loading with small molecule chemotherapeutic drugs attracted much attention in the past few decades. Researchers obtained paclitaxel-loaded exosomes from the centrifuged supernatant of chemo-resistant cells treated with paclitaxel. The supernatant contained drug loaded exosomes as the chemo-resistant cells natural tendency to flush out the drugs due to overexpression of drug efflux transporters [ 294 ]. Nevertheless, drug loading in exosomes demonstrated improved bioavailability, stability in biological fluids, and reduced off target effects. In this line, paclitaxel loaded exosomes increased the toxicity by 50-fold in drug-resistant cells by ensuring co-localization of exosomes carrier with cancer cells [ 295 ]. Despite encouraging results using exosomes as drug delivery vehicles, still a few challenges remain such as purification, large scale production, and efficient drug loading and storage. Exosomes subgroups’ heterogeneity further slowdown the quality control processes and translation into clinical settings [ 284 ]. Therefore, the development of artificial exosomes through te advancements in nanobiotechnology opens several avenues for advanced drug delivery.

The nano bioengineered artificial exosomes or exosomes mimics carrying anticancer drugs as drug delivery vehicles present the current pro-active approach in cancer nanotherapeutics. Jang et al. developed exosome mimics by mixing the doxorubicin drug with whole monocyte or macrophage cells followed by passage through filters of different pore sizes. The developed exosome mimics were compared with natural exosomes loaded with doxorubicin and indicated similar properties, but a 100-fold higher production yield [ 296 ]. Several preclinical studies utilized exosomes-based delivery approach for the targeted delivery of paclitaxel and doxorubicin to different cancer types, such as prostate, pancreatic, and lung cancer [ 293 , 297 ]. The results reported superior delivery of drugs through exosomes as compared to liposomes and free drugs. Kim et al. demonstrated exosomes-based successful delivery of paclitaxel to MDR cancer cells with overexpression of efflux transporters P-glycoprotein (P-gp). Paclitaxel loaded exosomes indicated the reversal of drug resistance by providing enhanced sensitivity towards MDR cancer cells by escaping P-gp-mediated drug efflux and inhibiting metastasis in a lung cancer xenograft model [ 295 ]. In a similar approach, gold nanoparticles’ conjugated doxorubicin was loaded into exosomes and displayed an improved antitumor effect against lung cancer cells [ 298 ]. Furthermore, exploration of exosomes content escalated a vital role in the reversal of chemoresistance as they have a direct role in the development of chemoresistance [ 299 ]. Wu et al. (2020) utilized exosomes derived from bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells loaded with miR-193a for targeting leucine rich repeat and revealed reduced cisplatin resistance in non-small cell lung cancer [ 300 ]. In another study, engineered exosomes were employed for co-delivery of miR-21 inhibitor 5-fluoro-2,4(1H,3H)-pyrimidinedione(5-FU) for the reversal of drug resistance in colon cancer via targeted chemotherapy [ 51 ]. Shtam et al. showed a reduced level of DNA damage-repair protein and induction of apoptosis levels using exosome loaded with RAD51 siRNA in fibrosarcoma and cervical adenocarcinoma cell lines [ 301 ]. In a similar approach, exosomes derived from fibroblasts loaded with kras-siRNA indicated superior delivery and blunted tumor growth in pancreatic cancer [ 302 ]. In another study, exosomes isolated from HEK-293 cells were transfected with HGF siRNA demonstrated reduced vascularization with reduction in levels of HGF and VEGF proteins in gastric cancer cells tumors compared to free siRNA [ 303 ]. Apart from siRNA, miRNA was also loaded within exomes for targeted delivery and inhibition of tumor growth. Several studies reported improved nanotherapeutics using exosomes-loaded miRNA delivery (miR-143, miR146b, and miR-122) to human osteosarcoma cells, glioma cells, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells, respectively [ 290 , 304 , 305 ]. Adipose tissue-derived MSCs (AMSCs) released exosomes transfected with miR-122 induced sorafenib chemosensitivity when co-cultured with hepatocyte carcinoma cells [ 304 ]. In a similar approach, co-culture exosomes derived from AMSCs carrying miR-199a induced chemosensitivity towards doxorubicin by downregulating mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway and [ 305 ]. Furthermore, Kim et al. reported inducted apoptosis and cisplatin chemosensitivity using exosomes loaded with CRISPR/Cas9 and si-c-Met in ovarian cancer cells and human gastric adenocarcinoma cells, respectively [ 306 , 307 ]. Oxiplatin-resistant cancer-resistant cells demonstrated chemosensitivity and decreased motility with normal intestinal FHC cell-derived exosomes loaded miR-128-3p [ 308 ]. In recent research reports, induced chemosensitivity towards trastuzumab and docetaxel were reported in breast cancer cells and tongue squamous cell carcinoma through exosomes-mediated delivery of miR-567 and miR-200c, respectively [ 309 , 310 ]. Moreover, exosomes-mediated targeted delivery holds promising strategy for reversing chemoresistance by delivering conventional drugs and various genetic materials. Overall, exosomes-based targeted delivery of drugs and genes are a new and emerging approach which holds much promise for drug resistance reversal. However, further exploration of the different sources of exosomes, side effects, and safety would be pertinent for cancer nanotherapeutics in order to attain higher delivery efficacy for anticancer molecules at lower doses without any side effects.

5. Clinical Trials and Update

Despite the potential and promising results indicated by nanoparticulate targeted systems in pre-clinical studies, only a few cancer nanotherapeutics-based strategies are translated to clinical settings. The challenges associated with targeted nanoplatform to reach clinical settings include several barriers such as efficacy, safety, scalability, regulatory issues, and lack of much resemblance of pre-clinical models with human tumors [ 115 , 311 ]. The prominent model nanosystems that either reached clinical trial stage or were approved by drug regulatory bodies include liposome, polymer nanoparticles, lipid-based nanoparticles conjugated with siRNA, miRNA, and the polymeric micellar nanoparticulate system [ 32 , 312 , 313 ]. Currently, nine nanoparticulate-based cancer therapies are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for therapeutics and about 30+ more nanomedicine-based systems in clinical trials [ 314 ]. Some of the prominent nanotherapeutics which are in various developmental stages of clinical trials or were approved by FDA are listed in Table 6 .

Currently, liposomal formulations are dominant under clinical evaluation among the nanoparticulate targeted systems currently under preclinical development or in clinical trials. The first FDA-approved nanoparticulate nanomedicine doxil R /Caelyx R (doxorubicin) in 1995 was liposomal formulations [ 37 , 315 , 316 ]. The clinical benefits so far observed with liposomes-based doxil ® include reduced toxicity, rather than improved efficacy [ 315 , 317 ]. Afterwards, other approved liposomal formulation Vyxeos R (daunorubicin/cytarabine) reported improved response rate and survival rate in phase III clinical trials of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia (t-AML) patients [ 318 ]. Furthermore, albumin nanoparticles-bound paclitaxel, Abraxane ® , is now approved in more than 40 countries for the treatment of metastatic cancers (breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and pancreatic cancer) [ 319 ]. Both doxil R and Abraxane ® were commercially successful, with a huge market over the past few years. The global market for liposomal doxorubicin was reported to be more than USD 1100 million in 2021, and is expected to grow further by the rate to reach over USD 1569 million by 2027 ( https://www.expertmarketresearch.com/reports/liposomal-doxorubicin-market ) (accessed on 15 November 2021). Likewise, the Abraxane ® market size is currently around USD 254 million in 2022 and is reported to increase with a growth rate of 2% each year for pancreatic cancer and lung cancer worldwide [ 320 ]. Apart from these abovementioned FDA approved products, some other approved products include Ontak ® (denileukin diftitox for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma treatment), Onivyde ® (liposomal irinotecan for pancreatic cancer treatment), Nanoxel M (paclitaxel for ovarian and pancreatic cancer treatment), Genexol PM (paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer and lung cancer treatment), Myocet ® (doxorubicin for metastatic breast cancer treatment), and DepoCyt ® (liposomal cytarabine for enhanced tumor targeting) represent some of the products which are FDA-approved and commercially available for clinical use in cancer patients [ 36 , 314 ].

Currently, the majority of clinically approved nanotherapeutics-based strategies utilize a passive targeting approach to deliver drugs or therapeutic agents, for example, doxil ® and DaunoXome ® employ non-targeted liposomes as their carrier [ 321 ]. However, there are limited clinical trials ongoing with the targeted delivery strategy over the last 40 years. To our knowledge, only two active nanoparticle targeted products (albumin nanosphere and liposomes-based product) are approved by the FDA and commercially available in market. One of the factors contributing to the limited success of the targeted cancer nanotherapeutics clinical settings include lack of knowledge about tumor heterogeneity, which ultimately affects the intratumoral nanoparticle penetration. Other factors include safety, efficacy, and scalability of nanoparticulate-based systems along with regulatory issues. These limitations provide better opportunities to nanotechnologists and materials scientists to further investigate the correlation between physicochemical properties of nanoparticles and their integration with tumor microenvironment components. These nanoparticles and tumor microenvironment interactions should be conducted in suitable murine or human models. In order to accelerate the clinical translation systematic investigation results should be utilized for the development of mathematical models for accurate predictions. Nevertheless, nanoparticles alone or in combination with different nucleic acids present a ray of hope for improved cancer therapy with higher survival in clinics, with a better understanding of tumor microenvironment (both cellular and non-cellular components) and tumor heterogeneity in future.

6. Challenges and Future Prospective

In the past few years, cancer nanotherapeutics present an emergence and proved to be an effective strategy for the enhancement of anticancer chemotherapeutics and minimizing toxicity for overcoming cancer drug resistance and recurrence. Nanotherapeutics-based approaches using different types of nanocarriers show great potential in the development of various targeted therapies for treating wider range of human cancers. The nanocarriers utilized in cancer nanotherapeutics include liposomal nanoparticles, metal nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, polymeric micelles, dendrimers, exosomes, nanogel and others to targeted the delivery of drugs and genes. At the preclinical and clinical stages, both new drugs and newer nanoparticulate systems-based strategies are developed for targeted delivery to tumor site. However, the cancer nanotherapeutics field is relatively new and ever-evolving wherein the exploration of different types of nanocarriers/nanoparticulate systems and their efficacy evaluation are still needed. Despite tremendous developments in cancer nanotherapeutics, there are still a number of difficulties that must be overcome before it may be used in clinical settings [ 17 , 34 ]. Currently, only nine nanoparticles-based products are in market and 30 plus in clinical trials for cancer therapy despite numerous pre-clinical trials performed or on going. The main challenges responsible for the poor clinical translation using nanomaterials-based strategies include characterization and reproducibility problems, limited bioavailability, retention in macrophages of reticuloendothelial system, toxicity/safety issues, less knowledge about tumor heterogeneity, efficacy changes from animal to human models, scale-up challenges, economic challenges, and regulatory consideration related to approval [ 37 , 39 , 311 , 344 ]. Therefore, in order to make this more efficient, cost-effective, and patient compliant, nanocarriers-mediated targeted strategies, various physiological, technological, and regulatory barriers need proactive consideration. The technical challenges include the formulation and characterization feasibilities of the nanoparticulate system, while the physiological challenges include consideration related to correlations between in vitro and in vivo findings. Considerations for the approval of nanomedicine-based tailored techniques for clinical use and other regulatory difficulties are among the hurdles. In the past few decades, both active and passive targeting methods were used for cancer therapy in order to enhance the quality of life and overall survival of patients, and some of these tactics were also adapted to clinics. Among all the FDA-approved nanoparticulate products, only two products are based on active targeting and most of them belong to the passive targeting approach. In the passive targeting strategy, EPR effect plays a vital role in targeting specific tumor site. However, there is a great variability of the EPR effect, not only with the tumor vasculature, but also with the tumor types and tumor models [ 345 ]. Thus, the prediction of clinical efficacy based on pre-clinical studies data seems tricky, as only 8% of animal studies translate into clinical trials [ 346 ]. As human physiology and biochemistry are drastically different from other small animals in various ways, the lack of efficacy poses most common challenge in translating to human system despite its promising results in different animal models viz. the patient-derived tumor explant model or genetically engineered mouse models. In order to alleviate this challenge, an evaluation of EPR activity in each specific patient using nanoparticles-based diagnostics is necessary in clinical practice. Furthermore, in order to enhance the EPR effect co-administration of agents to augment tumor vasculature or active tumor targeting may prove potential approach to overcome those shortcomings [ 345 , 347 ]. Advanced in vitro tumor models such as genetically engineered, orthotopic, and metastatic tumor models with through characterization should provide more accurate indications. These in vitro tumor models would save the time and unnecessary animals usage. These models would screen different therapeutic drugs/agents for their effectiveness determination and ultimately are verified in large animal models in a hierarchal approach that allows us to provide more authentic data for further clinical trials.

Currently, novel methodologies are being designed for drug/gene-based targeting of CSCs and specific tumor microenvironment components responsible for the tumor survival and intrinsic drug resistance, representing major directions in drug-resistant therapeutics [ 12 ]. In this approach, better tactics for modulating the tumor microenvironment cellular and non-cellular components, the pro-survival signaling pathways and expression of drug efflux transporters employing various nanocarriers and polymer-drug conjugates are practiced with enhanced efficiency. The rational design of novel effective and safer nanomaterials will necessitate a thorough knowledge of nano-biointeraction (interactions between nanoparticles and the tumor microenvironment). In the current state of cancer treatment, a variety of new and innovative strategies, such as nanotherapeutics that target cancer stem cells, siRNA-based nanotherapeutics, miRNA-based nanotherapeutics, self-assembling prodrugs, and exosomes-mediated nanotherapeutics, are being used to actively target the tumor microenvironment [ 17 , 201 , 269 , 307 ]. These nanomaterials interact with intracellular structures, biological barriers, blood components, and the cell membrane, which is why nanotechnologists and bioinformaticians are developing predictive models in silico to better understand these interactions [ 348 ]. Computational toxicology models, macromolecular pharmacokinetic model simulations, and other simulation approaches such as imaging procedures help us attain a better knowledge of nanobiointeractions. Researchers might use this knowledge to create more targeted nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery systems and make a more informed decision [ 349 , 350 ].

The instability of nanocarriers, their dysregulated accumulation within cancer cells, and the development of multi-drug resistance make it difficult to precisely target cancer cells using nanomaterials. Drug resistance in cancer treatment may be addressed by using nanomaterial-based drug carriers adorned with combinations of drugs/therapeutic agents for tumor site-specific chemotherapy and other combinations/synergistic treatments [ 351 ]. Nanoparticle drug carriers-based combination therapy needs further studies at the preclinical and clinical levels. Furthermore, multifunctional nanoparticles also offer alternative option to improve biodistribution, localization, and efficacy of drugs in order to meet precision cancer diagnosis and therapy. In the past few years, the sophisticated design of nanoparticulate system encompassing the ability to deliver multimodal therapeutic agents for providing synergistic cancer therapies with reduced dosage requirements and toxicities have escalated much attention. Improved nanomaterials design provides a multifunctionality feature for therapeutic encapsulation and specific tumor targeting. Moreover, multifunctional nanomedicines serve as therapeutic cargos for multi-drug combination therapy with the ability to co-deliver or multimodal combination therapy to surmount MDR. Advanced nanotherapies are targeting the drug-resistant CSCs using sensing therapeutic drugs capable of modulating signaling pathways, proapoptotic proteins or P–gp inhibitors which promote the mitotic-inactivation of CSCs [ 43 ].

The foremost challenge and limiting factor currently of paramount concern in cancer nanotherapeutics is the safety profile of nanoparticles for clinical translation. Metal nanoparticles were extensively utilized in cancer therapy; however, toxicity issues hinder their progress towards clinics [ 37 ]. Thus, there is an urgent need to overcome the toxicity-related effects associated with nanomaterials. To attempt this, alteration of nanoparticles physiochemical properties through polymer modifications and increased usage of ligand attachment at the pre-clinical stage of development is being carried out. Thereafter, the toxicity assessment of nanoparticles must be performed at the clinical stages (phase I, phase II, phase III, etc.) to use nanoparticles as an excipient for human use [ 314 ]. In cancer nanotherapeutics, lipid and lipid-based nanoparticles are commonly utilized for drug/gene delivery due to their non-toxicity. In the past few years, naturally derived exosomes or endogenously biocompatible lipids, such as LDL and HDL (low and high-density lipoprotein, respectively) are utilized to ensure safety and deliver the therapeutic agents to cancer cells [ 352 , 353 ]. Some of the LDL and HDL nanoparticles-based systems are already in phase I and II clinical trials without causing any toxicity issues at any dosage levels [ 352 ]. However, naturally occurring nanocarriers face scalability issues for clinical trials and require alternative strategies. In this context, naturally, biomaterials are modified for their enhancement of the stability, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacokinetic properties, but require thorough investigation. To become a good excipient for clinical trials, nanoparticles must be quickly eliminated from the system and, in the event of gene delivery with poor transfection, must be easily cleared from the system. The clearance of nanomaterials, either via the liver into the bile duct or through the kidney into the urine, should be the primary criterion before clinical translation, since their accumulation may create further problems [ 354 ]. This is further complicated by the fact that nanoparticles which promote higher cellular uptake are at greater risk of producing cytotoxicity or incomplete clearance in vivo. Therefore, synergy analysis is required in the case of combination therapies to ensure low loading requirement by the nanocarriers through optimization of therapeutics.

Rosenblum et al. discussed several other limitations related to targeted delivery of cancer nanotherapeutics which limit its clinical success translation. The limitations include tumor heterogeneity with different morphological and phenotypical tumor profiles, tumor penetrability of nanoparticles, relatively hypoxic microenvironment, and endosomal escape [ 311 ]. To overcome the endosomal escape issue, naturally derived exosomes derived from milk or stem cells or bioengineered exosomal mimics with ability to escape endosomal pathway are being employed for targeted delivery. In a recent report, transport across tumor endothelium poses a major challenge in cancer nanotherapeutics in terms of nanoparticles penetration and diffusion and further accumulation inside tumors [ 344 ]. Viscous tumor interstitium, along with permeability, nonlinear diffusion rates, tumor flux, marginal efficiency of blood vessels and unpredictable blood flow rates inside the tumor, niche put forward additional challenges [ 37 ]. Another challenge associated with cancer nanotherapeutics include economic risk as the preclinical and clinical trials using nanomaterials are expensive and time consuming. To overcome these shortcomings and uplift the country’s economy, efforts are being taken to develop an effective collaboration between different research laboratories, clinicians, public initiatives, and investors to apply risk mitigation schemes for reduction of overall coast of the projects. Furthermore, additional regulatory difficulties such as product registration and regulatory norms necessary for FDA/other-approved administering bodies’ basic criteria for preclinical laboratory evaluations must be considered.

7. Conclusions

To overcome or reverse drug resistance, cancer nanotherapeutics have shown a promising therapeutic alternative to existing cancer therapies. However, these agents require more characterization and optimization before they can be used in clinical trials. However, with the rapid development of nanotechnology and materials research, there are toxicity and efficacy issues that suggest better understanding of the tumor microenvironment, development of newer strategies (CSCs targeting, nucleic acids delivery, self-assembly prodrugs, exosomal delivery), and clinical trials using nanoparticulate-based systems. In addition, nanomedicine formulations with increased efficacy and lower toxicity should receive adequate attention in large-scale commercial batches that are reproducible. Taken as a whole, the development of nanoparticulate systems should be focused on their capacity to reach the clinical setting, as well as commercialization.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1. Siegel R.L. Miller K.D. Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2021 CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2021 71 7 33 10.3322/caac.21654 33433946

2. Bray F. Ferlay J. Soerjomataram I. Siegel R.L. Torre L.A. Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA A Cancer J. Clin. 2018 68 394 424 10.3322/caac.21492 30207593

3. Pan Y. Ma S. Cao K. Zhou S. Zhao A. Li M. Qian F. Zhu C. Therapeutic approaches targeting cancer stem cells J. Cancer Res. Ther. 2018 14 1469 30589025 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_976_17

4. Copur M.S. Crockett D. Gauchan D. Ramaekers R. Mleczko K. Molecular Testing Guideline for the Selection of Patients With Lung Cancer for Targeted Therapy J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 2006 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.8240 29763342

5. Jamal-Hanjani M. Quezada S.A. Larkin J. Swanton C. Translational implications of tumor heterogeneity Clin. Cancer Res. 2015 21 1258 1266 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1429 25770293 PMC4374162

6. Liu Y. Yang M. Luo J. Zhou H. Radiotherapy targeting cancer stem cells “awakens” them to induce tumour relapse and metastasis in oral cancer Int. J. Oral Sci. 2020 12 1 12 10.1038/s41368-020-00087-0 32576817 PMC7311531

7. Vasan N. Baselga J. Hyman D.M.J.N. A view on drug resistance in cancer Nature 2019 575 299 309 10.1038/s41586-019-1730-1 31723286 PMC8008476

8. Hussein N.A. Malla S. Pasternak M.A. Terrero D. Brown N.G. Ashby C.R. Jr. Assaraf Y.G. Chen Z.S. Tiwari A.K. The role of endolysosomal trafficking in anticancer drug resistance Drug Resist. Updates 2021 57 100769 10.1016/j.drup.2021.100769 34217999

9. Levin M. Stark M. Ofran Y. Assaraf Y.G. Deciphering molecular mechanisms underlying chemoresistance in relapsed AML patients: Towards precision medicine overcoming drug resistance Cancer Cell Int. 2021 21 1 16 10.1186/s12935-021-01746-w 33446189 PMC7809753

10. Mosca L. Ilari A. Fazi F. Assaraf Y.G. Colotti G. Taxanes in cancer treatment: Activity, chemoresistance and its overcoming Drug Resist. Updates 2021 54 100742 10.1016/j.drup.2020.100742 33429249

11. Wang J.-Q. Yang Y. Cai C.-Y. Teng Q.-X. Cui Q. Lin J. Assaraf Y.G. Chen Z.-S. Multidrug resistance proteins (MRPs): Structure, function and the overcoming of cancer multidrug resistance Drug Resist. Updates 2021 54 100743 10.1016/j.drup.2021.100743 33513557

12. Su Z. Dong S. Zhao S.-C. Liu K. Tan Y. Jiang X. Assaraf Y.G. Qin B. Chen Z.-S. Zou C. Novel nanomedicines to overcome cancer multidrug resistance Drug Resist. Updates 2021 58 100777 10.1016/j.drup.2021.100777 34481195

13. Ding L. Ley T.J. Larson D. Miller C. Koboldt D.C. Welch J.S. Ritchey J.K. Young M.A. Lamprecht T.L. McLellan M.D. Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing Nature 2012 481 506 510 10.1038/nature10738 22237025 PMC3267864

14. Garcia-Mayea Y. Mir C. Masson F. Paciucci R. LLeonart M. Insights into new mechanisms and models of cancer stem cell multidrug resistance Seminars in Cancer Biology Academic Press Cambridge, MA, USA 2020 166 180 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.07.022 31369817

15. Smidova V. Michalek P. Goliasova Z. Eckschlager T. Hodek P. Adam V. Heger Z.J.T. Nanomedicine of tyrosine kinase inhibitors Theranostics 2021 11 1546 10.7150/thno.48662 33408767 PMC7778595

16. Zhou H.-M. Zhang J.-G. Zhang X. Li Q.J.S.T. Therapy T. Targeting cancer stem cells for reversing therapy resistance: Mechanism, signaling, and prospective agents J Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2021 6 1 17 10.1038/s41392-020-00430-1 PMC7884707 33589595

17. Mao Y. Qamar M. Qamar S.A. Khan M.I. Bilal M. Iqbal H.M. Insight of nanomedicine strategies for a targeted delivery of nanotherapeutic cues to cope with the resistant types of cancer stem cells J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol. 2021 64 102681 10.1016/j.jddst.2021.102681

18. Lee Y.T. Tan Y.J. Oon C.E. Molecular targeted therapy: Treating cancer with specificity Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2018 834 188 196 10.1016/j.ejphar.2018.07.034 30031797

19. Wilkes G.M. Targeted therapy: Attacking cancer with molecular and immunological targeted agents Asia-Pac. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2018 5 137 10.4103/apjon.apjon_79_17 29607374 PMC5863423

20. Islam M.T. Ali E.S. Uddin S.J. Islam A. Shaw S. Khan I.N. Saravi S.S.S. Ahmad S. Rehman S. Gupta V.K. Andrographolide, a diterpene lactone from Andrographis paniculata and its therapeutic promises in cancer Cancer Lett. 2018 420 129 145 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.01.074 29408515

21. Ali E.S. Hua J. Wilson C.H. Tallis G.A. Zhou F.H. Rychkov G. Barritt G.J. The glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue exendin-4 reverses impaired intracellular Ca2+ signalling in steatotic hepatocytes Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta -Mol. Cell Res. 2016 1863 2135 2146 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2016.05.006 27178543

22. Sechler M. Cizmic A.D. Avasarala S. Van Scoyk M. Brzezinski C. Kelley N. Bikkavilli R.K. Winn R.A. Non-small-cell lung cancer: Molecular targeted therapy and personalized medicine–drug resistance, mechanisms, and strategies Pharm. Pers. Med. 2013 6 25 10.2147/PGPM.S26058 PMC3656464 23690695

23. Spaans J.N. Goss G.D. Drug resistance to molecular targeted therapy and its consequences for treatment decisions in non-small-cell lung cancer Front. Oncol. 2014 4 190 10.3389/fonc.2014.00190 25101246 PMC4107955

24. Muntimadugu E. Kommineni N. Khan W. Exploring the potential of nanotherapeutics in targeting tumor microenvironment for cancer therapy Pharmacol. Res. 2017 126 109 122 10.1016/j.phrs.2017.05.010 28511988

25. Thakur V. Kutty R.V. Recent advances in nanotheranostics for triple negative breast cancer treatment J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019 38 1 22 10.1186/s13046-019-1443-1 31661003 PMC6819447

26. Greish K. Enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect for anticancer nanomedicine drug targeting Cancer Nanotechnology Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2010 25 37 10.1007/978-1-60761-609-2_3 20217587

27. Grobmyer S.R. Morse D.L. Fletcher B. Gutwein L.G. Sharma P. Krishna V. Frost S.C. Moudgil B.M. Brown S. The promise of nanotechnology for solving clinical problems in breast cancer J. Surg. Oncol. 2011 103 317 325 10.1002/jso.21698 21337565

28. Zhu J. Huang H. Dong S. Ge L. Zhang Y.J.T. Progress in aptamer-mediated drug delivery vehicles for cancer targeting and its implications in addressing chemotherapeutic challenges J. Theranostics 2014 4 931 10.7150/thno.9663 PMC4107293 25057317

29. Kutty R.V. Leong D.T.W. Feng S.-S. Nanomedicine for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer Nanomedicine 2014 9 561 564 10.2217/nnm.14.19 24827837

30. Tan G.-R. Feng S.-S. Leong D.T.J.B. The reduction of anti-cancer drug antagonism by the spatial protection of drugs with PLA–TPGS nanoparticles Biomaterials 2014 35 3044 3051 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.033 24439415

31. Zhao M. van Straten D. Broekman M.L.D. Préat V. Schiffelers R.M. Nanocarrier-based drug combination therapy for glioblastoma Theranostics 2020 10 1355 1372 10.7150/thno.38147 31938069 PMC6956816

32. Ahmad A. Khan F. Mishra R.K. Khan R. Precision cancer nanotherapy: Evolving role of multifunctional nanoparticles for cancer active targeting J. Med. Chem. 2019 62 10475 10496 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b00511 31339714

33. Chaturvedi V.K. Singh A. Singh V.K. Singh M.P. Cancer nanotechnology: A new revolution for cancer diagnosis and therapy Curr. Drug Metab. 2019 20 416 429 10.2174/1389200219666180918111528 30227814

34. Ali E.S. Sharker S.M. Islam M.T. Khan I.N. Shaw S. Rahman M.A. Uddin S.J. Shill M.C. Rehman S. Das N. Targeting cancer cells with nanotherapeutics and nanodiagnostics: Current status and future perspectives Seminars in Cancer Biology Academic Press Cambridge, MA, USA 2021 52 68 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.01.011 32014609

35. Su S. Kang P.M. Recent Advances in Nanocarrier-Assisted Therapeutics Delivery Systems Pharmaceutics 2020 12 837 10.3390/pharmaceutics12090837 PMC7559885 32882875

36. Ventola C.L. Progress in Nanomedicine: Approved and Investigational Nanodrugs P T A Peer-Rev. J. Formul. Manag. 2017 42 742 755 PMC5720487 29234213

37. Shi J. Kantoff P.W. Wooster R. Farokhzad O.C. Cancer nanomedicine: Progress, challenges and opportunities Nat. Rev. Cancer 2017 17 20 37 10.1038/nrc.2016.108 27834398 PMC5575742

38. Ma P. Mumper R.J. Paclitaxel Nano-Delivery Systems: A Comprehensive Review J. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. 2013 4 1000164 10.4172/2157-7439.1000164 24163786 PMC3806207

39. Iqbal J. Abbasi B.A. Ahmad R. Mahmood T. Ali B. Khalil A.T. Kanwal S. Shah S.A. Alam M.M. Badshah H. Nanomedicines for developing cancer nanotherapeutics: From benchtop to bedside and beyond Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018 102 9449 9470 10.1007/s00253-018-9352-3 30219952

40. Khan A.Q. Rashid K. AlAmodi A.A. Raza S.S. Uddin S. Recent developments in unraveling signaling mechanisms underlying drug resistance due to cancer stem-like cells Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2020 54 130 141 10.1016/j.coph.2020.09.012 33166909

41. Holohan C. Van Schaeybroeck S. Longley D.B. Johnston P.G. Cancer drug resistance: An evolving paradigm Nat. Rev. Cancer 2013 13 714 726 10.1038/nrc3599 24060863

42. Haider T. Pandey V. Banjare N. Gupta P.N. Soni V. Drug resistance in cancer: Mechanisms and tackling strategies Pharmacol. Rep. 2020 72 1125 1151 10.1007/s43440-020-00138-7 32700248

43. Oliveira B. de Assis A.C.C. Souza N.M. Ferreira L.F.R. Soriano R.N. Bilal M. Iqbal H.M. Nanotherapeutic approach to tackle chemotherapeutic resistance of cancer stem cells Life Sci 2021 279 119667 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119667 34087280

44. Tanaka K. Miyata H. Sugimura K. Fukuda S. Kanemura T. Yamashita K. Miyazaki Y. Takahashi T. Kurokawa Y. Yamasaki M.J.C. miR-27 is associated with chemoresistance in esophageal cancer through transformation of normal fibroblasts to cancer-associated fibroblasts Carcinogenesis 2015 36 894 903 10.1093/carcin/bgv067 26026166

45. Mitamura T. Pradeep S. McGuire M. Wu S. Ma S. Hatakeyama H. Lyons Y.A. Hisamatsu T. Noh K. Villar-Prados A.J.O. Induction of anti-VEGF therapy resistance by upregulated expression of microseminoprotein (MSMP) Oncogene 2018 37 722 731 10.1038/onc.2017.348 29059175 PMC6040890

46. Kim S.-J. Uehara H. Yazici S. Busby J.E. Nakamura T. He J. Maya M. Logothetis C. Mathew P. Wang X. Targeting platelet-derived growth factor receptor on endothelial cells of multidrug-resistant prostate cancer J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2006 98 783 793 10.1093/jnci/djj211 16757703

47. Zhao B.X. Wang J. Song B. Wei H. Lv W.P. Tian L.M. Li M. Lv S. Establishment and biological characteristics of acquired gefitinib resistance in cell line NCI-H1975/gefinitib-resistant with epidermal growth factor receptor T790M mutation Mol. Med. Rep. 2015 11 2767 2774 10.3892/mmr.2014.3058 25483995

48. Kemper K. Krijgsman O. Cornelissen-Steijger P. Shahrabi A. Weeber F. Song J.Y. Kuilman T. Vis D.J. Wessels L.F. Voest E.E. Intra-and inter-tumor heterogeneity in a vemurafenib-resistant melanoma patient and derived xenografts EMBO Mol. Med. 2015 7 1104 1118 10.15252/emmm.201404914 26105199 PMC4568946

49. Meijer C. Mulder N.H. Timmer-Bosscha H. Sluiter W.J. Meersma G.J. de Vries E.G. Relationship of cellular glutathione to the cytotoxicity and resistance of seven platinum compounds Cancer Res. 1992 52 6885 6889 1458477

50. Muley H. Fadó R. Rodríguez-Rodríguez R. Casals N. Drug uptake-based chemoresistance in breast cancer treatment Biochem. Pharmacol. 2020 177 113959 10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113959 32272110

51. Liang G. Zhu Y. Ali D.J. Tian T. Xu H. Si K. Sun B. Chen B. Xiao Z. Engineered exosomes for targeted co-delivery of miR-21 inhibitor and chemotherapeutics to reverse drug resistance in colon cancer J. Nanobiotechnology 2020 18 1 15 10.1186/s12951-019-0560-5 31918721 PMC6950820

52. Mateo J. Carreira S. Sandhu S. Miranda S. Mossop H. Perez-Lopez R. Nava Rodrigues D. Robinson D. Omlin A. Tunariu N. DNA-repair defects and olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer N. Engl. J. Med. 2015 373 1697 1708 10.1056/NEJMoa1506859 26510020 PMC5228595

53. Wong-Brown M. van der Westhuizen A. Bowden N. Targeting DNA repair in ovarian cancer treatment resistance Clin. Oncol. 2020 32 518 526 10.1016/j.clon.2020.03.005 32253106

54. Sun W. Lan D. Gan T. Cai Z.J.N. Autophagy facilitates multidrug resistance development through inhibition of apoptosis in breast cancer cells Neoplasma 2015 62 199 208 10.4149/neo_2015_025 25591585

55. Teeuwssen M. Fodde R. Wnt signaling in ovarian cancer stemness, EMT, and therapy resistance J. Clin. Med. 2019 8 1658 10.3390/jcm8101658 PMC6832489 31614568

56. Wang L. Saci A. Szabo P.M. Chasalow S.D. Castillo-Martin M. Domingo-Domenech J. Siefker-Radtke A. Sharma P. Sfakianos J.P. Gong Y. EMT-and stroma-related gene expression and resistance to PD-1 blockade in urothelial cancer Nat. Commun. 2018 9 1 12 10.1038/s41467-018-05992-x 30158554 PMC6115401

57. Sethi T. Rintoul R.C. Moore S.M. MacKinnon A.C. Salter D. Choo C. Chilvers E.R. Dransfield I. Donnelly S.C. Strieter R. Extracellular matrix proteins protect small cell lung cancer cells against apoptosis: A mechanism for small cell lung cancer growth and drug resistance in vivo Nat. Med. 1999 5 662 668 10.1038/9511 10371505

58. Roskoski R. Jr. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor inhibitors in the treatment of renal cell carcinomas Pharmacol. Res. 2017 120 116 132 10.1016/j.phrs.2017.03.010 28330784

59. Reinmuth N. Fan F. Liu W. Parikh A.A. Stoeltzing O. Jung Y.D. Bucana C.D. Radinsky R. Gallick G.E. Ellis L.M. Impact of insulin-like growth factor receptor-I function on angiogenesis, growth, and metastasis of colon cancer Lab. Investig. 2002 82 1377 1389 10.1097/01.LAB.0000032411.41603.C2 12379772

60. Sun Y. Tumor microenvironment and cancer therapy resistance Cancer Lett. 2016 380 205 215 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.07.044 26272180

61. Dagogo-Jack I. Shaw A.T. Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to cancer therapies Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018 15 81 94 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.166 29115304

62. Swanton C. Intratumor heterogeneity: Evolution through space and time Cancer Res. 2012 72 4875 4882 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2217 23002210 PMC3712191

63. Housman G. Byler S. Heerboth S. Lapinska K. Longacre M. Snyder N. Sarkar S.J.C. Drug resistance in cancer: An overview Cancers 2014 6 1769 1792 10.3390/cancers6031769 25198391 PMC4190567

64. Gagnon J.-F. Bernard O. Villeneuve L. Têtu B. Guillemette C. Irinotecan inactivation is modulated by epigenetic silencing of UGT1A1 in colon cancer Clin. Cancer Res. 2006 12 1850 1858 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2130 16551870

65. Hughes L.R. Stephens T.C. Boyle F.T. Jackman A.L. Raltitrexed (Tomudex TM), a highly polyglutamatable antifolate thymidylate synthase inhibitor Antifolate Drugs in Cancer Therapy Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 1999 147 165

66. Xue X. Liang X.-J. Overcoming drug efflux-based multidrug resistance in cancer with nanotechnology Chin. J. Cancer 2012 31 100 10.5732/cjc.011.10326 22237039 PMC3777470

67. Gottesman M.M. Pastan I.H. The role of multidrug resistance efflux pumps in cancer: Revisiting a JNCI publication exploring expression of the MDR1 (P-glycoprotein) gene J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2015 107 djv222 10.1093/jnci/djv222 26286731 PMC4836801

68. Bozzato E. Bastiancich C. Préat V.J.C. Nanomedicine: A Useful Tool against Glioma Stem Cells Cancers 2021 13 9 10.3390/cancers13010009 PMC7792799 33375034

69. Chowdhury P. Ghosh U. Samanta K. Jaggi M. Chauhan S.C. Yallapu M.M. Bioactive nanotherapeutic trends to combat triple negative breast cancer Bioact. Mater. 2021 6 3269 3287 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2021.02.037 33778204 PMC7970221

70. Li J. Chen L. Su H. Yan L. Gu Z. Chen Z. Zhang A. Zhao F. Zhao Y. The pharmaceutical multi-activity of metallofullerenol invigorates cancer therapy Nanoscale 2019 11 14528 14539 10.1039/C9NR04129J 31364651

71. Nunes T. Hamdan D. Leboeuf C. El Bouchtaoui M. Gapihan G. Nguyen T.T. Meles S. Angeli E. Ratajczak P. Lu H. Targeting cancer stem cells to overcome chemoresistance Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018 19 4036 10.3390/ijms19124036 PMC6321478 30551640

72. Bertrand N. Wu J. Xu X. Kamaly N. Farokhzad O.C. Cancer nanotechnology: The impact of passive and active targeting in the era of modern cancer biology Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2014 66 2 25 10.1016/j.addr.2013.11.009 24270007 PMC4219254

73. Maeda H. Wu J. Sawa T. Matsumura Y. Hori K. Tumor vascular permeability and the EPR effect in macromolecular therapeutics: A review J. Control. Release 2000 65 271 284 10.1016/S0168-3659(99)00248-5 10699287

74. Danhier F. Feron O. Préat V. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: Passive and active tumor targeting of nanocarriers for anti-cancer drug delivery J. Control. Release 2010 148 135 146 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.08.027 20797419

75. Ramanathan R.K. Korn R.L. Sachdev J.C. Fetterly G.J. Marceau K. Marsh V. Neil J.M. Newbold R.G. Raghunand N. Prey J. Abstract CT224: Pilot study in patients with advanced solid tumors to evaluate feasibility of ferumoxytol (FMX) as tumor imaging agent prior to MM-398, a nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) Cancer Res. 2014 74 CT224

76. Arrieta O. Medina L.-A. Estrada-Lobato E. Ramírez-Tirado L.-A. Mendoza-García V.-O. de la Garza-Salazar J. High liposomal doxorubicin tumour tissue distribution, as determined by radiopharmaceutical labelling with 99m Tc-LD, is associated with the response and survival of patients with unresectable pleural mesothelioma treated with a combination of liposomal doxorubicin and cisplatin Cancer Chemother. 2014 74 211 215 10.1007/s00280-014-2477-x 24817602

77. Minko T. Kopeckova P. Pozharov V. Kopecek J. Peculiarities of apoptosis induction and cell metabolism in human ovarian carcinoma cell lines exposed to free and HPMA copolymer bound adriamycin Proc. Control. Release Soc. 1998 25 99 100

78. Minko T. Kopečková P. Pozharov V. Kopeček J. HPMA copolymer bound adriamycin overcomes MDR1 gene encoded resistance in a human ovarian carcinoma cell line J. Control. Release 1998 54 223 233 10.1016/S0168-3659(98)00009-1 9724909

79. Yu M. Wu J. Shi J. Farokhzad O.C. Nanotechnology for protein delivery: Overview and perspectives J. Control. Release 2016 240 24 37 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.10.012 26458789 PMC4833694

80. O’Brien M.E. Wigler N. Inbar M. Rosso R. Grischke E. Santoro A. Catane R. Kieback D. Tomczak P. Ackland S.P. Reduced cardiotoxicity and comparable efficacy in a phase IIItrial of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin HCl (CAELYX™/Doxil ® ) versus conventional doxorubicin forfirst-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer Ann. Oncol. 2004 15 440 449 10.1093/annonc/mdh097 14998846

81. Hoy S.M. Albumin-bound paclitaxel: A review of its use for the first-line combination treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer Drugs 2014 74 1757 1768 10.1007/s40265-014-0291-8 25260887

82. Farran B. Pavitra E. Kasa P. Peela S. Raju G.S.R. Nagaraju G.P. Folate-targeted immunotherapies: Passive and active strategies for cancer Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2019 45 45 52 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2019.02.001 30770191

83. Wang Q. Liu F. Wang L. Xie C. Wu P. Du S. Zhou S. Sun Z. Liu Q. Yu L. Enhanced and prolonged antitumor effect of salinomycin-loaded gelatinase-responsive nanoparticles via targeted drug delivery and inhibition of cervical cancer stem cells Int. J. Nanomed. 2020 15 1283 10.2147/IJN.S234679 PMC7049776 32161458

84. Kuo Y.-C. Wang L.-J. Rajesh R. Targeting human brain cancer stem cells by curcumin-loaded nanoparticles grafted with anti-aldehyde dehydrogenase and sialic acid: Colocalization of ALDH and CD44 Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019 102 362 372 10.1016/j.msec.2019.04.065 31147008

85. Chen D. Pan X. Xie F. Lu Y. Zou H. Yin C. Zhang Y. Gao J. Codelivery of doxorubicin and elacridar to target both liver cancer cells and stem cells by polylactide-co-glycolide/d-alpha-tocopherol polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate nanoparticles Int. J. Nanomed. 2018 13 6855 10.2147/IJN.S181928 30498347 PMC6207383

86. Tsai P.-H. Wang M.-L. Chang J.-H. Yarmishyn A.A. Nhi Nguyen P.N. Chen W. Chien Y. Huo T.-I. Mou C.-Y. Chiou S.-H. Dual delivery of HNF4α and cisplatin by mesoporous silica nanoparticles inhibits cancer pluripotency and tumorigenicity in hepatoma-derived CD133-expressing stem cells ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019 11 19808 19818 10.1021/acsami.9b04474 31066542

87. Gener P. Montero S. Xandri-Monje H. Díaz-Riascos Z.V. Rafael D. Andrade F. Martínez-Trucharte F. González P. Seras-Franzoso J. Manzano A. Zileuton™ loaded in polymer micelles effectively reduce breast cancer circulating tumor cells and intratumoral cancer stem cells Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. 2020 24 102106 10.1016/j.nano.2019.102106 31666201

88. Huang Y. Lin J. Xiong Y. Chen J. Du X. Liu Q. Liu T. Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles induce ferroptosis of human ovarian cancer stem cells by weakening cellular autophagy J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 2020 16 1612 1622 10.1166/jbn.2020.2991 33461653

89. Chen F. Zeng Y. Qi X. Chen Y. Ge Z. Jiang Z. Zhang X. Dong Y. Chen H. Yu Z. Targeted salinomycin delivery with EGFR and CD133 aptamers based dual-ligand lipid-polymer nanoparticles to both osteosarcoma cells and cancer stem cells Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. 2018 14 2115 2127 10.1016/j.nano.2018.05.015 29898423

90. Yao H. Sun L. Li J. Zhou X. Li R. Shao R. Zhang Y. Li L. A Novel Therapeutic siRNA Nanoparticle Designed for Dual-Targeting CD44 and Gli1 of Gastric Cancer Stem Cells Int. J. Nanomed. 2020 15 7013 10.2147/IJN.S260163 PMC7522319 33061365

91. Wei X. He J. Wang J. Wang W. MPEG-CS/Bmi-1RNAi nanoparticles synthesis and its targeted inhibition effect on CD133+ laryngeal stem cells J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2018 18 1577 1584 10.1166/jnn.2018.14303 29448632

92. Kunoh T. Shimura T. Kasai T. Matsumoto S. Mahmud H. Khayrani A.C. Seno M. Kunoh H. Takada J. Use of DNA-generated gold nanoparticles to radiosensitize and eradicate radioresistant glioma stem cells Nanotechnology 2018 30 055101 10.1088/1361-6528/aaedd5 30499457

93. Lopez-Bertoni H. Kozielski K.L. Rui Y. Lal B. Vaughan H. Wilson D.R. Mihelson N. Eberhart C.G. Laterra J. Green J. Bioreducible polymeric nanoparticles containing multiplexed cancer stem cell regulating miRNAs inhibit glioblastoma growth and prolong survival Nano Lett. 2018 18 4086 4094 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b00390 29927251 PMC6197883

94. Sun T. Patil R. Galstyan A. Klymyshyn D. Ding H. Chesnokova A. Cavenee W.K. Furnari F.B. Ljubimov V.A. Shatalova E. Blockade of a laminin-411–notch axis with CRISPR/Cas9 or a nanobioconjugate inhibits glioblastoma growth through tumor-microenvironment cross-talk Cancer Res. 2019 79 1239 1251 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2725 30659021 PMC6625517

95. García-Heredia J.M. Carnero A.J.C. Role of mitochondria in cancer stem cell resistance Cells 2020 9 1693 10.3390/cells9071693 PMC7407626 32679735

96. Martínez-Torres A.C. Lorenzo-Anota H.Y. García-Juárez M.G. Zarate-Triviño D.G. Rodríguez-Padilla C. Chitosan gold nanoparticles induce different ROS-dependent cell death modalities in leukemic cells Int. J. Nanomed. 2019 14 7173 10.2147/IJN.S221021 PMC6734554 31564872

97. Cordani M. Strippoli R. Somoza Á.J.C. Nanomaterials as inhibitors of epithelial mesenchymal transition in cancer treatment Cancers 2020 12 25 10.3390/cancers12010025 PMC7017008 31861725

98. Elazar V. Adwan H. Bäuerle T. Rohekar K. Golomb G. Berger M.R. Sustained delivery and efficacy of polymeric nanoparticles containing osteopontin and bone sialoprotein antisenses in rats with breast cancer bone metastasis Int. J. Cancer 2010 126 1749 1760 10.1002/ijc.24890 19739076

99. Tolcher A.W. Rodrigueza W.V. Rasco D.W. Patnaik A. Papadopoulos K.P. Amaya A. Moore T.D. Gaylor S.K. Bisgaier C.L. Sooch M.P. A phase 1 study of the BCL2-targeted deoxyribonucleic acid inhibitor (DNAi) PNT2258 in patients with advanced solid tumors Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2014 73 363 371 10.1007/s00280-013-2361-0 24297683 PMC3909249

100. Davis M.E. Zuckerman J.E. Choi C.H.J. Seligson D. Tolcher A. Alabi C.A. Yen Y. Heidel J.D. Ribas A.J.N. Evidence of RNAi in humans from systemically administered siRNA via targeted nanoparticles Nature 2010 464 1067 1070 10.1038/nature08956 20305636 PMC2855406

101. Schultheis B. Strumberg D. Santel A. Vank C. Gebhardt F. Keil O. Lange C. Giese K. Kaufmann J. Khan M. First-in-human phase I study of the liposomal RNA interference therapeutic Atu027 in patients with advanced solid tumors J. Clin. Oncol. 2014 32 4141 4148 10.1200/JCO.2013.55.0376 25403217

102. Ashton S. Song Y.H. Nolan J. Cadogan E. Murray J. Odedra R. Foster J. Hall P.A. Low S. Taylor P. Aurora kinase inhibitor nanoparticles target tumors with favorable therapeutic index in vivo Sci. Transl. Med. 2016 8 ra317 ra325 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad2355 26865565

103. Islam M.A. Reesor E.K. Xu Y. Zope H.R. Zetter B.R. Shi J. Biomaterials for mRNA delivery Biomater. Sci. 2015 3 1519 1533 10.1039/C5BM00198F 26280625 PMC4641793

104. Batrakova E.V. Kim M.S. Using exosomes, naturally-equipped nanocarriers, for drug delivery J. Control. Release 2015 219 396 405 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.07.030 26241750 PMC4656109

105. Hrkach J. Von Hoff D. Ali M.M. Andrianova E. Auer J. Campbell T. De Witt D. Figa M. Figueiredo M. Horhota A. Preclinical development and clinical translation of a PSMA-targeted docetaxel nanoparticle with a differentiated pharmacological profile Sci. Transl. Med. 2012 4 ra128 ra139 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003651 22491949

106. Eliasof S. Lazarus D. Peters C.G. Case R.I. Cole R.O. Hwang J. Schluep T. Chao J. Lin J. Yen Y. Correlating preclinical animal studies and human clinical trials of a multifunctional, polymeric nanoparticle Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013 110 15127 15132 10.1073/pnas.1309566110 23980155 PMC3773776

107. Zuckerman J.E. Gritli I. Tolcher A. Heidel J.D. Lim D. Morgan R. Chmielowski B. Ribas A. Davis M.E. Yen Y. Correlating animal and human phase Ia/Ib clinical data with CALAA-01, a targeted, polymer-based nanoparticle containing siRNA J. Proc. Natl. 2014 111 11449 11454 10.1073/pnas.1411393111 25049380 PMC4128111

108. Cheng Z. Al Zaki A. Hui J.Z. Muzykantov V.R. Tsourkas A.J.S. Multifunctional nanoparticles: Cost versus benefit of adding targeting and imaging capabilities Science 2012 338 903 910 10.1126/science.1226338 23161990 PMC3660151

109. Trédan O. Galmarini C.M. Patel K. Tannock I.F. Drug resistance and the solid tumor microenvironment J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007 99 1441 1454 10.1093/jnci/djm135 17895480

110. Correia A.L. Bissell M. The tumor microenvironment is a dominant force in multidrug resistance Drug Resist. Updates 2012 15 39 49 10.1016/j.drup.2012.01.006 PMC3658318 22335920

111. Witz I.P. The tumor microenvironment: The making of a paradigm Cancer Microenviron. 2009 2 9 17 10.1007/s12307-009-0025-8 PMC2756342 19701697

112. Fidler I. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: The’seed and soil’hypothesis revisited Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003 3 453 458 10.1038/nrc1098 12778135

113. Roy A. Li S. Nanobiotechnology. Modifying the tumor microenvironment using nanoparticle therapeutics Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2016 8 891 908 10.1002/wnan.1406 27038329 PMC5045752

114. Vaupel P. Tumor microenvironmental physiology and its implications for radiation oncology Seminars in Radiation Oncology WB Saunders Philadelphia, PA, USA 2004 198 206 10.1016/j.semradonc.2004.04.008 15254862

115. Adityan S. Tran M. Bhavsar C. Wu S.Y. Nano-therapeutics for modulating the tumour microenvironment: Design, development, and clinical translation J. Control. Release 2020 327 512 532 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.08.016 32800879

116. Wang L. Huo M. Chen Y. Shi J. Tumor microenvironment-enabled nanotherapy Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018 7 1701156 10.1002/adhm.201701156 29283221

117. Zheng F.-F. Zhang P.-H. Xi Y. Chen J.-J. Li L.-L. Zhu J.-J. Aptamer/graphene quantum dots nanocomposite capped fluorescent mesoporous silica nanoparticles for intracellular drug delivery and real-time monitoring of drug release J. Anal. Chem. 2015 87 11739 11745 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b03131 26524192

118. Feng X. Yao J. Gao X. Jing Y. Kang T. Jiang D. Jiang T. Feng J. Zhu Q. Jiang X. Multi-targeting peptide-functionalized nanoparticles recognized vasculogenic mimicry, tumor neovasculature, and glioma cells for enhanced anti-glioma therapy ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015 7 27885 27899 10.1021/acsami.5b09934 26619329

119. Thakkar S. Sharma D. Kalia K. Tekade R.K. Tumor microenvironment targeted nanotherapeutics for cancer therapy and diagnosis: A review Acta Biomater. 2020 101 43 68 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.09.009 31518706

120. Messerschmidt S.K. Musyanovych A. Altvater M. Scheurich P. Pfizenmaier K. Landfester K. Kontermann R.E. Targeted lipid-coated nanoparticles: Delivery of tumor necrosis factor-functionalized particles to tumor cells J. Control. Release 2009 137 69 77 10.1016/j.jconrel.2009.03.010 19306900

121. Ernsting M.J. Hoang B. Lohse I. Undzys E. Cao P. Do T. Gill B. Pintilie M. Hedley D. Li S.-D. Targeting of metastasis-promoting tumor-associated fibroblasts and modulation of pancreatic tumor-associated stroma with a carboxymethylcellulose-docetaxel nanoparticle J. Control. Release 2015 206 122 130 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.03.023 25804872 PMC4409566

122. Chiou G.-Y. Cherng J.-Y. Hsu H.-S. Wang M.-L. Tsai C.-M. Lu K.-H. Chien Y. Hung S.-C. Chen Y.-W. Wong C.-I. Cationic polyurethanes-short branch PEI-mediated delivery of Mir145 inhibited epithelial–mesenchymal transdifferentiation and cancer stem-like properties and in lung adenocarcinoma J. Control. Release 2012 159 240 250 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.01.014 22285547

123. Otlewski J. Szlachcic A. Pala K. Zakrzewska M. Jakimowicz P. Wiedlocha A. FGF1-gold nanoparticle conjugates targeting FGFR efficiently decrease cell viability upon NIR irradiation Int. J. Nanomed. 2012 7 5915 10.2147/IJN.S36575 PMC3514973 23226697

124. Ji T. Zhao Y. Ding Y. Wang J. Zhao R. Lang J. Qin H. Liu X. Shi J. Tao N. Transformable peptide nanocarriers for expeditious drug release and effective cancer therapy via cancer-associated fibroblast activation Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2016 55 1050 1055 10.1002/anie.201506262 PMC4736689 26283097

125. Zhen Z. Tang W. Wang M. Zhou S. Wang H. Wu Z. Hao Z. Li Z. Liu L. Xie J. Protein nanocage mediated fibroblast-activation protein targeted photoimmunotherapy to enhance cytotoxic T cell infiltration and tumor control J. Nano Lett. 2017 17 862 869 10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b04150 28027646

126. Szot C. Saha S. Zhang X.M. Zhu Z. Hilton M.B. Morris K. Seaman S. Dunleavey J.M. Hsu K.S. Yu G.J. Tumor stroma–targeted antibody-drug conjugate triggers localized anticancer drug release J. Clin. Investig. 2018 128 2927 2943 10.1172/JCI120481 29863500 PMC6025988

127. Miao L. Wang Y. Lin C.M. Xiong Y. Chen N. Zhang L. Kim W.Y. Huang L. Nanoparticle modulation of the tumor microenvironment enhances therapeutic efficacy of cisplatin J. Control. Release 2015 217 27 41 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.08.027 26285063 PMC4623876

128. Guo S. Lin C.M. Xu Z. Miao L. Wang Y. Huang L. Co-delivery of cisplatin and rapamycin for enhanced anticancer therapy through synergistic effects and microenvironment modulation ACS Nano 2014 8 4996 5009 10.1021/nn5010815 24720540 PMC4046782

129. Kaps L. Schuppan D.J.C. Targeting cancer associated fibroblasts in liver fibrosis and liver cancer using nanocarriers Cells 2020 9 2027 10.3390/cells9092027 32899119 PMC7563527

130. Wang Z. Chui W.-K. Ho P.C. Nanoparticulate delivery system targeted to tumor neovasculature for combined anticancer and antiangiogenesis therapy Pharm. Res. 2011 28 585 596 10.1007/s11095-010-0308-2 21057857

131. Hu Q. Gu G. Liu Z. Jiang M. Kang T. Miao D. Tu Y. Pang Z. Song Q. Yao L. F3 peptide-functionalized PEG-PLA nanoparticles co-administrated with tLyp-1 peptide for anti-glioma drug delivery Biomaterials 2013 34 1135 1145 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.048 23146434

132. Hong H. Yang K. Zhang Y. Engle J.W. Feng L. Yang Y. Nayak T. Goel S. Bean J. Theuer C.P. In vivo targeting and imaging of tumor vasculature with radiolabeled, antibody-conjugated nanographene ACS Nano 2012 6 2361 2370 10.1021/nn204625e 22339280 PMC3314116

133. Cui Y. Zhang C. Luo R. Liu H. Zhang Z. Xu T. Zhang Y. Wang D. Noninvasive monitoring of early antiangiogenic therapy response in human nasopharyngeal carcinoma xenograft model using MRI with RGD-conjugated ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles Int. J. Nanomed. 2016 11 5671 10.2147/IJN.S115357 PMC5117895 27895477

134. Murphy E.A. Majeti B.K. Barnes L.A. Makale M. Weis S.M. Lutu-Fuga K. Wrasidlo W. Cheresh D.A. Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery to tumor vasculature suppresses metastasis Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008 105 9343 9348 10.1073/pnas.0803728105 18607000 PMC2453735

135. Fu S. Xu W. Luo T. Li P. Zhou C. Pang B. Qiushi R. Cui D. RGD-conjugated gold nanorods induce radiosensitization in melanoma cancer cells by downregulating αvβ3 expression Int. J. Nanomed. 2012 7 915 10.2147/IJN.S28314 PMC3299204 22412298

136. Zhu S. Niu M. O’Mary H. Cui Z. Targeting of tumor-associated macrophages made possible by PEG-sheddable, mannose-modified nanoparticles J Mol. Pharm. 2013 10 3525 3530 10.1021/mp400216r PMC3946577 23901887

137. Ortega R.A. Barham W.J. Kumar B. Tikhomirov O. McFadden I.D. Yull F.E. Giorgio T.D. Biocompatible mannosylated endosomal-escape nanoparticles enhance selective delivery of short nucleotide sequences to tumor associated macrophages Nanoscale 2015 7 500 510 10.1039/C4NR03962A 25408159

138. Zhang Z. Tongchusak S. Mizukami Y. Kang Y.J. Ioji T. Touma M. Reinhold B. Keskin D.B. Reinherz E.L. Sasada T.J.B. Induction of anti-tumor cytotoxic T cell responses through PLGA-nanoparticle mediated antigen delivery Biomaterials 2011 32 3666 3678 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.01.067 21345488

139. Schmid D. Park C.G. Hartl C.A. Subedi N. Cartwright A.N. Puerto R.B. Zheng Y. Maiarana J. Freeman G.J. Wucherpfennig K.W. T cell-targeting nanoparticles focus delivery of immunotherapy to improve antitumor immunity Nat. Commun. 2017 8 1 12 10.1038/s41467-017-01830-8 29170511 PMC5700944

140. Ordikhani F. Uehara M. Kasinath V. Dai L. Eskandari S.K. Bahmani B. Yonar M. Azzi J.R. Haik Y. Sage P.T. Targeting antigen-presenting cells by anti–PD-1 nanoparticles augments antitumor immunity JCI Insight 2018 3 e122700 10.1172/jci.insight.122700 PMC6237477 30333312

141. Wu Y. Gu W. Li J. Chen C. Xu Z.P. Silencing PD-1 and PD-L1 with nanoparticle-delivered small interfering RNA increases cytotoxicity of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes Nanomedicine 2019 14 955 967 10.2217/nnm-2018-0237 30901292

142. Chen Q. Xu L. Liang C. Wang C. Peng R. Liu Z. Photothermal therapy with immune-adjuvant nanoparticles together with checkpoint blockade for effective cancer immunotherapy Nat. Commun. 2016 7 1 13 10.1038/ncomms13193 PMC5078754 27767031

143. Smith T.T. Stephan S.B. Moffett H.F. McKnight L.E. Ji W. Reiman D. Bonagofski E. Wohlfahrt M.E. Pillai S.P. Stephan M.T. In situ programming of leukaemia-specific T cells using synthetic DNA nanocarriers Nat. Nanotechnol. 2017 12 813 820 10.1038/nnano.2017.57 28416815 PMC5646367

144. Siriwon N. Kim Y.J. Siegler E. Chen X. Rohrs J.A. Liu Y. Wang P. CAR-T cells surface-engineered with drug-encapsulated nanoparticles can ameliorate intratumoral T-cell hypofunction Cancer Immunol. Res. 2018 6 812 824 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-17-0502 29720380

145. Guan Y.-Y. Luan X. Xu J.-R. Liu Y.-R. Lu Q. Wang C. Liu H.-J. Gao Y.-G. Chen H.-Z. Fang C.J.B. Selective eradication of tumor vascular pericytes by peptide-conjugated nanoparticles for antiangiogenic therapy of melanoma lung metastasis Biomaterials 2014 35 3060 3070 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.12.027 24393268

146. Yan Z. Zhan C. Wen Z. Feng L. Wang F. Liu Y. Yang X. Dong Q. Liu M. Lu W. LyP-1-conjugated doxorubicin-loaded liposomes suppress lymphatic metastasis by inhibiting lymph node metastases and destroying tumor lymphatics Nanotechnology 2011 22 415103 10.1088/0957-4484/22/41/415103 21914940

147. Alsaab H.O. Sau S. Alzhrani R.M. Cheriyan V.T. Polin L.A. Vaishampayan U. Rishi A.K. Iyer A.K. Tumor hypoxia directed multimodal nanotherapy for overcoming drug resistance in renal cell carcinoma and reprogramming macrophages Biomaterials 2018 183 280 294 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.08.053 30179778 PMC6414719

148. Abbasi A.Z. Gordijo C.R. Amini M.A. Maeda A. Rauth A.M. DaCosta R.S. Wu X.Y. Hybrid manganese dioxide nanoparticles potentiate radiation therapy by modulating tumor hypoxia Cancer Res. 2016 76 6643 6656 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3475 27758881

149. Thambi T. Deepagan V. Yoon H.Y. Han H.S. Kim S.-H. Son S. Jo D.-G. Ahn C.-H. Suh Y.D. Kim K. Hypoxia-responsive polymeric nanoparticles for tumor-targeted drug delivery Biomaterials 2014 35 1735 1743 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.11.022 24290696

150. Yang G. Tian J. Chen C. Jiang D. Xue Y. Wang C. Gao Y. Zhang W. An oxygen self-sufficient NIR-responsive nanosystem for enhanced PDT and chemotherapy against hypoxic tumors Chem. Sci. 2019 10 5766 5772 10.1039/C9SC00985J 31293763 PMC6568044

151. Zhu H. Zhang S. Ling Y. Meng G. Yang Y. Zhang W. pH-responsive hybrid quantum dots for targeting hypoxic tumor siRNA delivery J. Control. Release 2015 220 529 544 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.11.017 26590349

152. Liu P. Zhang H. Wu X. Guo L. Wang F. Xia G. Chen B. Yin H. Wang Y. Li X. Tf-PEG-PLL-PLGA nanoparticles enhanced chemosensitivity for hypoxia-responsive tumor cells OncoTargets Ther. 2016 9 5049 10.2147/OTT.S108169 PMC4990384 27574446

153. Kim J. Cho H.R. Jeon H. Kim D. Song C. Lee N. Choi S.H. Hyeon T. Continuous O2-evolving MnFe2O4 nanoparticle-anchored mesoporous silica nanoparticles for efficient photodynamic therapy in hypoxic cancer J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017 139 10992 10995 10.1021/jacs.7b05559 28737393

154. Son S. Rao N.V. Ko H. Shin S. Jeon J. Han H.S. Thambi T. Suh Y.D. Park J.H. Carboxymethyl dextran-based hypoxia-responsive nanoparticles for doxorubicin delivery Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018 110 399 405 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.11.048 29133095

155. Tian H. Luo Z. Liu L. Zheng M. Chen Z. Ma A. Liang R. Han Z. Lu C. Cai L. Cancer cell membrane-biomimetic oxygen nanocarrier for breaking hypoxia-induced chemoresistance Adv. Funct. Mater. 2017 27 1703197 10.1002/adfm.201703197

156. Winer I. Wang S. Lee Y.-E.K. Fan W. Gong Y. Burgos-Ojeda D. Spahlinger G. Kopelman R. Buckanovich R. F3-targeted cisplatin-hydrogel nanoparticles as an effective therapeutic that targets both murine and human ovarian tumor endothelial cells in vivo Cancer Res. 2010 70 8674 8683 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-1917 20959470 PMC2970692

157. Wang F. Wang Y.-C. Dou S. Xiong M.-H. Sun T.-M. Wang J. Doxorubicin-tethered responsive gold nanoparticles facilitate intracellular drug delivery for overcoming multidrug resistance in cancer cells ACS Nano 2011 5 3679 3692 10.1021/nn200007z 21462992

158. Ahmadi Nasab N. Hassani Kumleh H. Beygzadeh M. Teimourian S. Kazemzad M. Delivery of curcumin by a pH-responsive chitosan mesoporous silica nanoparticles for cancer treatment Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018 46 75 81 10.1080/21691401.2017.1290648 28278578

159. Liu Y. Qiao L. Zhang S. Wan G. Chen B. Zhou P. Zhang N. Wang Y. Dual pH-responsive multifunctional nanoparticles for targeted treatment of breast cancer by combining immunotherapy and chemotherapy Acta Biomater. 2018 66 310 324 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.11.010 29129789

160. Martínez-Carmona M. Lozano D. Colilla M. Vallet-Regí M. Lectin-conjugated pH-responsive mesoporous silica nanoparticles for targeted bone cancer treatment Acta Biomater. 2018 65 393 404 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.11.007 29127069

161. Li H.-J. Du J.-Z. Liu J. Du X.-J. Shen S. Zhu Y.-H. Wang X. Ye X. Nie S. Wang J. Smart superstructures with ultrahigh pH-sensitivity for targeting acidic tumor microenvironment: Instantaneous size switching and improved tumor penetration ACS Nano 2016 10 6753 6761 10.1021/acsnano.6b02326 27244096

162. Shafiu Kamba A. Ismail M. Tengku Ibrahim T.A. Zakaria Z.A.B. A pH-sensitive, biobased calcium carbonate aragonite nanocrystal as a novel anticancer delivery system BioMed Res. Int. 2013 2013 1 10 10.1155/2013/587451 PMC3845482 24324966

163. Zhang Y.-X. Zhao Y.-Y. Shen J. Sun X. Liu Y. Liu H. Wang Y. Wang J. Nanoenabled modulation of acidic tumor microenvironment reverses anergy of infiltrating T cells and potentiates anti-PD-1 therapy Nano Lett. 2019 19 2774 2783 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b04296 30943039

164. Venturelli L. Nappini S. Bulfoni M. Gianfranceschi G. Dal Zilio S. Coceano G. Del Ben F. Turetta M. Scoles G. Vaccari L. Glucose is a key driver for GLUT1-mediated nanoparticles internalization in breast cancer cells Sci. Rep. 2016 6 1 14 10.1038/srep21629 26899926 PMC4761954

165. Elgogary A. Xu Q. Poore B. Alt J. Zimmermann S.C. Zhao L. Fu J. Chen B. Xia S. Liu Y. Combination therapy with BPTES nanoparticles and metformin targets the metabolic heterogeneity of pancreatic cancer Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016 113 E5328 E5336 10.1073/pnas.1611406113 27559084 PMC5018752

166. Marrache S. Dhar S. The energy blocker inside the power house: Mitochondria targeted delivery of 3-bromopyruvate Chem. Sci. 2015 6 1832 1845 10.1039/C4SC01963F 25709804 PMC4335358

167. Villegas M.R. Baeza A. Vallet-Regí M. Hybrid collagenase nanocapsules for enhanced nanocarrier penetration in tumoral tissues ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2015 7 24075 24081 10.1021/acsami.5b07116 26461206

168. Zinger A. Koren L. Adir O. Poley M. Alyan M. Yaari Z. Noor N. Krinsky N. Simon A. Gibori H. Collagenase nanoparticles enhance the penetration of drugs into pancreatic tumors J. ACS Nano 2019 13 11008 11021 10.1021/acsnano.9b02395 31503443 PMC6837877

169. Miao L. Huang L. Exploring the tumor microenvironment with nanoparticles Nanotechnol. -Based Precis. Tools Detect. Treat. Cancer 2015 166 193 226 10.1007/978-3-319-16555-4_9 PMC5010228 25895870

170. Steichen S.D. Caldorera-Moore M. Peppas N.A. A review of current nanoparticle and targeting moieties for the delivery of cancer therapeutics Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2013 48 416 427 10.1016/j.ejps.2012.12.006 23262059 PMC3619023

171. Sá-Pereira I. Brites D. Brito M.A. Neurovascular unit: A focus on pericytes Mol. Neurobiol. 2012 45 327 347 10.1007/s12035-012-8244-2 22371274

172. Pérez-Herrero E. Fernández-Medarde A. Advanced targeted therapies in cancer: Drug nanocarriers, the future of chemotherapy Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2015 93 52 79 10.1016/j.ejpb.2015.03.018 25813885

173. Batlle E. Clevers H. Cancer stem cells revisited Nat. Med. 2017 23 1124 1134 10.1038/nm.4409 28985214

174. Shibue T. Weinberg R.A. EMT, CSCs, and drug resistance: The mechanistic link and clinical implications Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2017 14 611 629 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.44 28397828 PMC5720366

175. Das M. Law S. Role of tumor microenvironment in cancer stem cell chemoresistance and recurrence Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2018 103 115 124 10.1016/j.biocel.2018.08.011 30153480

176. Najafi M. Farhood B. Mortezaee K. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) in cancer progression and therapy J. Cell. Physiol. 2019 234 8381 8395 10.1002/jcp.27740 30417375

177. Najafi M. Mortezaee K. Majidpoor J. Cancer stem cell (CSC) resistance drivers Life Sci. 2019 234 116781 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.116781 31430455

178. Tang L. Mei Y. Shen Y. He S. Xiao Q. Yin Y. Xu Y. Shao J. Wang W. Cai Z. Nanoparticle-mediated targeted drug delivery to remodel tumor microenvironment for cancer therapy Int. J. Nanomed. 2021 16 5811 10.2147/IJN.S321416 PMC8403563 34471353

179. Kuşoğlu A. Avcı Ç.B. Cancer stem cells: A brief review of the current status Gene 2019 681 80 85 10.1016/j.gene.2018.09.052 30268439

180. Rao W. Wang H. Han J. Zhao S. Dumbleton J. Agarwal P. Zhang W. Zhao G. Yu J. Zynger D.L. Chitosan-decorated doxorubicin-encapsulated nanoparticle targets and eliminates tumor reinitiating cancer stem-like cells ACS Nano 2015 9 5725 5740 10.1021/nn506928p 26004286

181. Prieto-Vila M. Takahashi R.-U. Usuba W. Kohama I. Ochiya T. Drug resistance driven by cancer stem cells and their niche Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017 18 2574 10.3390/ijms18122574 PMC5751177 29194401

182. Miranda-Lorenzo I. Dorado J. Lonardo E. Alcala S. Serrano A.G. Clausell-Tormos J. Cioffi M. Megias D. Zagorac S. Balic A. Intracellular autofluorescence: A biomarker for epithelial cancer stem cells Nat. Methods 2014 11 1161 1169 10.1038/nmeth.3112 25262208

183. Li Y. Zhang R. Lu Z. Ma G. Chen L. Tang Q. Zhang X. Microenvironment-Responsive Three-Pronged Approach Breaking Traditional Chemotherapy to Target Cancer Stem Cells for Synergistic Inoperable Large Tumor Therapy Small 2016 12 5516 5523 10.1002/smll.201601932 27552926

184. Shen S. Xu X. Lin S. Zhang Y. Liu H. Zhang C. Mo R. A nanotherapeutic strategy to overcome chemotherapeutic resistance of cancer stem-like cells Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021 16 104 113 10.1038/s41565-020-00793-0 33437035

185. Tian J. Gu Y. Li Y. Liu T. CD271 antibody-functionalized HGNs for targeted photothermal therapy of osteosarcoma stem cells Nanotechnology 2020 31 305707 10.1088/1361-6528/ab8593 32235073

186. Locatelli E. Li Y. Monaco I. Guo W. Maturi M. Menichetti L. Armanetti P. Martin R.C. Franchini M.C. A novel theranostic gold nanorods-and Adriamycin-loaded micelle for EpCAM targeting, laser ablation, and photoacoustic imaging of cancer stem cells in hepatocellular carcinoma Int. J. Nanomed. 2019 14 1877 10.2147/IJN.S197265 30936691 PMC6422422

187. Chen H. Shi Y. Sun L. Ni S. Electrospun composite nanofibers with all-trans retinoic acid and MWCNTs-OH against cancer stem cells Life Sci 2020 258 118152 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118152 32735881

188. Wu M. Mei T. Lin C. Wang Y. Chen J. Le W. Sun M. Xu J. Dai H. Zhang Y. Melanoma cell membrane biomimetic versatile CuS nanoprobes for homologous targeting photoacoustic imaging and photothermal chemotherapy ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020 12 16031 16039 10.1021/acsami.9b23177 32186357

189. Yang M. Yang T. Mao C. Enhancement of photodynamic cancer therapy by physical and chemical factors Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2019 58 14066 14080 10.1002/anie.201814098 PMC6800243 30663185

190. Hou Y.-J. Yang X.-X. Liu R.-Q. Zhao D. Guo C.-X. Zhu A.-C. Wen M.-N. Liu Z. Qu G.-F. Meng H.-X. Pathological Mechanism of Photodynamic Therapy and Photothermal Therapy Based on Nanoparticles Int. J. Nanomed. 2020 15 6827 10.2147/IJN.S269321 PMC7501968 32982235

191. Crous A. Abrahamse H. Effective gold nanoparticle-antibody-mediated drug delivery for photodynamic therapy of lung cancer stem cells Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 3742 10.3390/ijms21113742 PMC7311980 32466428

192. Yang B. Liu H. Yang H. Chen W. Wu J. Feng X. Tong R. Yu H. Chen Y. Lv Z. Combinatorial photochemotherapy on liver cancer stem cells with organoplatinum (ii) metallacage-based nanoparticles J. Mater. Chem. B 2019 7 6476 6487 10.1039/C9TB01299K 31465082

193. Han Y. An Y. Jia G. Wang X. He C. Ding Y. Tang Q. Theranostic micelles based on upconversion nanoparticles for dual-modality imaging and photodynamic therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma Nanoscale 2018 10 6511 6523 10.1039/C7NR09717D 29569668

194. Cao W. Liu B. Xia F. Duan M. Hong Y. Niu J. Wang L. Liu Y. Li C. Cui D. MnO 2@ Ce6-loaded mesenchymal stem cells as an “oxygen-laden guided-missile” for the enhanced photodynamic therapy on lung cancer Nanoscale 2020 12 3090 3102 10.1039/C9NR07947E 31965129

195. Farzin A. Hassan S. Emadi R. Etesami S.A. Ai J. Comparative evaluation of magnetic hyperthermia performance and biocompatibility of magnetite and novel Fe-doped hardystonite nanoparticles for potential bone cancer therapy Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019 98 930 938 10.1016/j.msec.2019.01.038 30813100

196. Ghorbanzade S. Naghib S.M. Sadr A. Fateminia F.S. Ghaffarinejad A. Majidzadeh-A K. Sanati-Nezhad A. Multifunctional magnetic nanoparticles-labeled mesenchymal stem cells for hyperthermia and bioimaging applications Stem Cell Nanotechnology Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany 2019 57 72 10.1007/7651_2019_271 31848892

197. Su Z. Liu D. Chen L. Zhang J. Ru L. Chen Z. Gao Z. Wang X. CD44-targeted magnetic nanoparticles kill head and neck squamous cell carcinoma stem cells in an alternating magnetic field Int. J. Nanomed. 2019 14 7549 10.2147/IJN.S215087 PMC6754337 31571863

198. Yin H. Xiong G. Guo S. Xu C. Xu R. Guo P. Shu D. Delivery of anti-miRNA for triple-negative breast cancer therapy using RNA nanoparticles targeting stem cell marker CD133 Mol. Ther. 2019 27 1252 1261 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.04.018 31085078 PMC6612664

199. Ma J. Kala S. Yung S. Chan T.M. Cao Y. Jiang Y. Liu X. Giorgio S. Peng L. Wong A. Blocking stemness and metastatic properties of ovarian cancer cells by targeting p70S6K with dendrimer nanovector-based siRNA delivery Mol. Ther. 2018 26 70 83 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.11.006 29241971 PMC5763163

200. Watts J.K. Corey D.R. Silencing disease genes in the laboratory and the clinic J. Pathol. 2012 226 365 379 10.1002/path.2993 22069063 PMC3916955

201. Hattab D. Gazzali A.M. Bakhtiar A.J.P. Clinical advances of siRNA-based nanotherapeutics for cancer treatment Pharmaceutics 2021 13 1009 10.3390/pharmaceutics13071009 34371702 PMC8309123

202. Conde J. Ambrosone A. Hernandez Y. Tian F. McCully M. Berry C.C. Baptista P.V. Tortiglione C. de la Fuente J.M. 15 years on siRNA delivery: Beyond the state-of-the-art on inorganic nanoparticles for RNAi therapeutics Nano Today 2015 10 421 450 10.1016/j.nantod.2015.06.008

203. Whitehead K.A. Langer R. Anderson D.G. Knocking down barriers: Advances in siRNA delivery Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009 8 129 138 10.1038/nrd2742 19180106 PMC7097568

204. Lammers T. Kiessling F. Hennink W.E. Storm G. Drug targeting to tumors: Principles, pitfalls and (pre-) clinical progress J. Control. Release 2012 161 175 187 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.09.063 21945285

205. Roscigno G. Scognamiglio I. Ingenito F. Chianese R.V. Palma F. Chan A. Condorelli G.J.C. Modulating the crosstalk between the tumor and the microenvironment using sirna: A flexible strategy for breast cancer treatment Cancers 2020 12 3744 10.3390/cancers12123744 PMC7763441 33322132

206. Jiang Y. Huo S. Hardie J. Liang X.-J. Rotello V.M. Progress and perspective of inorganic nanoparticle-based siRNA delivery systems Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 2016 13 547 559 10.1517/17425247.2016.1134486 26735861 PMC4914043

207. Binnemars-Postma K. Bansal R. Storm G. Prakash J. Targeting the Stat6 pathway in tumor-associated macrophages reduces tumor growth and metastatic niche formation in breast cancer FASEB J. 2018 32 969 978 10.1096/fj.201700629R 29066614

208. Egorova A.A. Shtykalova S.V. Maretina M.A. Sokolov D.I. Selkov S.A. Baranov V.S. Kiselev A.V. Synergistic anti-angiogenic effects using peptide-based combinatorial delivery of siRNAs targeting VEGFA, VEGFR1, and endoglin genes Pharmaceutics 2019 11 261 10.3390/pharmaceutics11060261 31174285 PMC6631635

209. Hwang H.J. Lee Y.-R. Kang D. Lee H.C. Seo H.R. Ryu J.-K. Kim Y.-N. Ko Y.-G. Park H.J. Lee J.-S. Endothelial cells under therapy-induced senescence secrete CXCL11, which increases aggressiveness of breast cancer cells Cancer Lett. 2020 490 100 110 10.1016/j.canlet.2020.06.019 32659248

210. Hayes M. Drummond D. Hong K. Park J. Marks J. Kirpotin D.J. Assembly of nucleic acid-lipid nanoparticles from aqueous-organic monophases Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2006 1758 429 442 10.1016/j.bbamem.2006.03.020 16678786

211. Mainini F. Eccles M.R. Lipid and polymer-based nanoparticle siRNA delivery systems for cancer therapy Molecules 2020 25 2692 10.3390/molecules25112692 PMC7321291 32532030

212. Deng Z.J. Morton S.W. Ben-Akiva E. Dreaden E.C. Shopsowitz K.E. Hammond P.T. Layer-by-layer nanoparticles for systemic codelivery of an anticancer drug and siRNA for potential triple-negative breast cancer treatment ACS Nano 2013 7 9571 9584 10.1021/nn4047925 24144228 PMC3870477

213. Salzano G. Riehle R. Navarro G. Perche F. De Rosa G. Torchilin V. Polymeric micelles containing reversibly phospholipid-modified anti-survivin siRNA: A promising strategy to overcome drug resistance in cancer Cancer Lett. 2014 343 224 231 10.1016/j.canlet.2013.09.037 24099916 PMC3947185

214. Su S. Tian Y. Li Y. Ding Y. Ji T. Wu M. Wu Y. Nie G. “Triple-punch” strategy for triple negative breast cancer therapy with minimized drug dosage and improved antitumor efficacy Acs Nano 2015 9 1367 1378 10.1021/nn505729m 25611071

215. Hamurcu Z. Ashour A. Kahraman N. Ozpolat B.J.O. FOXM1 regulates expression of eukaryotic elongation factor 2 kinase and promotes proliferation, invasion and tumorgenesis of human triple negative breast cancer cells Oncotarget 2016 7 16619 10.18632/oncotarget.7672 26918606 PMC4941339

216. Huang X. Lee R.J. Qi Y. Li Y. Lu J. Meng Q. Teng L. Xie J. Microfluidic hydrodynamic focusing synthesis of polymer-lipid nanoparticles for siRNA delivery Oncotarget 2017 8 96826 10.18632/oncotarget.18281 29228574 PMC5722526

217. Li Y. Lee R.J. Yu K. Bi Y. Qi Y. Sun Y. Li Y. Xie J. Teng L. Delivery of siRNA using lipid nanoparticles modified with cell penetrating peptide ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016 8 26613 26621 10.1021/acsami.6b09991 27617513

218. Sakurai Y. Mizumura W. Murata M. Hada T. Yamamoto S. Ito K. Iwasaki K. Katoh T. Goto Y. Takagi A. Efficient siRNA delivery by lipid nanoparticles modified with a nonstandard macrocyclic peptide for EpCAM-targeting Mol. Pharm. 2017 14 3290 3298 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b00362 28789523

219. Shahbazi R. Asik E. Kahraman N. Turk M. Ozpolat B. Ulubayram K.J.N. Modified gold-based siRNA nanotherapeutics for targeted therapy of triple-negative breast cancer Nanomedicine 2017 12 1961 1973 10.2217/nnm-2017-0081 28745127

220. Jyotsana N. Sharma A. Chaturvedi A. Budida R. Scherr M. Kuchenbauer F. Lindner R. Noyan F. Sühs K.-W. Stangel M. Lipid nanoparticle-mediated siRNA delivery for safe targeting of human CML in vivo Ann. Hematol. 2019 98 1905 1918 10.1007/s00277-019-03713-y 31104089 PMC7116733

221. Xu J. Liu Y. Li Y. Wang H. Stewart S. Van der Jeught K. Agarwal P. Zhang Y. Liu S. Zhao G. Precise targeting of POLR2A as a therapeutic strategy for human triple negative breast cancer Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019 14 388 397 10.1038/s41565-019-0381-6 30804480 PMC6449187

222. Morry J. Ngamcherdtrakul W. Gu S. Reda M. Castro D.J. Sangvanich T. Gray J.W. Yantasee W.J. Targeted treatment of metastatic breast cancer by PLK1 siRNA delivered by an antioxidant nanoparticle platform Mol. Cancer Ther. 2017 16 763 772 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0644 28138033 PMC5445934

223. Werfel T.A. Wang S. Jackson M.A. Kavanaugh T.E. Joly M.M. Lee L.H. Hicks D.J. Sanchez V. Ericsson P.G. Kilchrist K.V. Selective mTORC2 inhibitor therapeutically blocks breast cancer cell growth and survival Cancer Res. 2018 78 1845 1858 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-2388 29358172 PMC5882532

224. Okamoto A. Asai T. Hirai Y. Shimizu K. Koide H. Minamino T. Oku N. Systemic administration of siRNA with anti-HB-EGF antibody-modified lipid nanoparticles for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer Mol. Pharm. 2018 15 1495 1504 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b01055 29502423

225. Huang K.-W. Hsu F.-F. Qiu J.T. Chern G.-J. Lee Y.-A. Chang C.-C. Huang Y.-T. Sung Y.-C. Chiang C.-C. Huang R.-L. Highly efficient and tumor-selective nanoparticles for dual-targeted immunogene therapy against cancer Sci. Adv. 2020 6 eaax5032 10.1126/sciadv.aax5032 31998834 PMC6962042

226. Şalva E. Kabasakal L. Eren F. Özkan N. Çakalağaoğlu F. Akbuğa J. Local delivery of chitosan/VEGF siRNA nanoplexes reduces angiogenesis and growth of breast cancer in vivo Nucleic Acid Ther. 2012 22 40 48 10.1089/nat.2011.0312 22217324

227. Guo P. Yang J. Di Jia M.A.M. Auguste D.T. ICAM-1-targeted, Lcn2 siRNA-encapsulating liposomes are potent anti-angiogenic agents for triple negative breast cancer Theranostics 2016 6 1 10.7150/thno.12167 26722369 PMC4679350

228. Vaidya A.M. Sun Z. Ayat N. Schilb A. Liu X. Jiang H. Sun D. Scheidt J. Qian V. He S. Systemic delivery of tumor-targeting siRNA nanoparticles against an oncogenic LncRNA facilitates effective triple-negative breast cancer therapy Bioconjugate Chem. 2019 30 907 919 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.9b00028 30739442 PMC6820053

229. Asik E. Akpinar Y. Caner A. Kahraman N. Guray T. Volkan M. Albarracin C. Pataer A. Arun B. Ozpolat B.J.N. EF2-kinase targeted cobalt-ferrite siRNA-nanotherapy suppresses BRCA1-mutated breast cancer Nanomedicine 2019 14 2315 2338 10.2217/nnm-2019-0132 31432749

230. Cerqueira N.M. Pereira S. Fernandes P.A. Ramos M.J. Overview of ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors: An appealing target in anti-tumour therapy Curr. Med. Chem. 2005 12 1283 1294 10.2174/0929867054020981 15974997

231. Golan T. Khvalevsky E.Z. Hubert A. Gabai R.M. Hen N. Segal A. Domb A. Harari G. David E.B. Raskin S.J.O. RNAi therapy targeting KRAS in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients Oncotarget 2015 6 24560 10.18632/oncotarget.4183 26009994 PMC4695206

232. Tolcher A.W. Papadopoulos K.P. Patnaik A. Rasco D.W. Martinez D. Wood D.L. Fielman B. Sharma M. Janisch L.A. Brown B.D. Safety and activity of DCR-MYC, a first-in-class Dicer-substrate small interfering RNA (DsiRNA) targeting MYC, in a phase I study in patients with advanced solid tumors J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 33 11006 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.11006

233. Ramot Y. Rotkopf S. Gabai R.M. Zorde Khvalevsky E. Muravnik S. Marzoli G.A. Domb A.J. Shemi A. Nyska A. Preclinical safety evaluation in rats of a polymeric matrix containing an siRNA drug used as a local and prolonged delivery system for pancreatic cancer therapy Toxicol. Pathol. 2016 44 856 865 10.1177/0192623316645860 27147553

234. Mendt M. Kamerkar S. Sugimoto H. McAndrews K.M. Wu C.-C. Gagea M. Yang S. Blanko E.V.R. Peng Q. Ma X. Generation and testing of clinical-grade exosomes for pancreatic cancer JCI Insight 2018 3 e99263 10.1172/jci.insight.99263 PMC5931131 29669940

235. Zatsepin T.S. Kotelevtsev Y.V. Koteliansky V.J. Lipid nanoparticles for targeted siRNA delivery–going from bench to bedside Int. J. Nanomed. 2016 11 3077 10.2147/IJN.S106625 PMC4939975 27462152

236. Wagner M.J. Mitra R. McArthur M.J. Baze W. Barnhart K. Wu S.Y. Rodriguez-Aguayo C. Zhang X. Coleman R.L. Lopez-Berestein G.J. Preclinical mammalian safety studies of EPHARNA (DOPC nanoliposomal EphA2-targeted siRNA) Mol. Cancer Ther. 2017 16 1114 1123 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0541 28265009 PMC5457703

237. Parashar D. Rajendran V. Shukla R. Sistla R. Lipid-based nanocarriers for delivery of small interfering RNA for therapeutic use Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2020 142 105159 10.1016/j.ejps.2019.105159 31747618

238. Liu X. Targeting polo-like kinases: A promising therapeutic approach for cancer treatment Transl. Oncol. 2015 8 185 195 10.1016/j.tranon.2015.03.010 26055176 PMC4486469

239. Arranja A.G. Pathak V. Lammers T. Shi Y. Tumor-targeted nanomedicines for cancer theranostics Pharmacol. Res. 2017 115 87 95 10.1016/j.phrs.2016.11.014 27865762 PMC5412956

240. Tabernero J. Shapiro G.I. LoRusso P.M. Cervantes A. Schwartz G.K. Weiss G.J. Paz-Ares L. Cho D.C. Infante J.R. Alsina M.J. First-in-humans trial of an RNA interference therapeutic targeting VEGF and KSP in cancer patients with liver involvement Cancer Discov. 2013 3 406 417 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-12-0429 23358650

241. Teles R.H.G. Moralles H.F. Cominetti M.R. Global trends in nanomedicine research on triple negative breast cancer: A bibliometric analysis Int. J. Nanomed. 2018 13 2321 10.2147/IJN.S164355 PMC5910795 29713164

242. Singh A. Trivedi P. Jain N. Advances in siRNA delivery in cancer therapy Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018 46 274 283 10.1080/21691401.2017.1307210 28423924

243. Lin Y.-X. Wang Y. Blake S. Yu M. Mei L. Wang H. Shi J. RNA nanotechnology-mediated cancer immunotherapy Theranostics 2020 10 281 10.7150/thno.35568 31903120 PMC6929632

244. He B. Zhao Z. Cai Q. Zhang Y. Zhang P. Shi S. Xie H. Peng X. Yin W. Tao Y. miRNA-based biomarkers, therapies, and resistance in Cancer Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2020 16 2628 10.7150/ijbs.47203 32792861 PMC7415433

245. Mollaei H. Safaralizadeh R. Rostami Z. MicroRNA replacement therapy in cancer J. Cell. Physiol. 2019 234 12369 12384 10.1002/jcp.28058 30605237 PMC13484118

246. Mishra S. Yadav T. Rani V. Exploring miRNA based approaches in cancer diagnostics and therapeutics Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2016 98 12 23 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.10.003 26481951

247. Wu M. Wang G. Tian W. Deng Y. Xu Y. MiRNA-based therapeutics for lung cancer Curr. Pharm. Des. 2017 23 5989 5996 10.2174/1381612823666170714151715 28714413

248. Ben-Shushan D. Markovsky E. Gibori H. Tiram G. Scomparin A. Satchi-Fainaro R. Overcoming obstacles in microRNA delivery towards improved cancer therapy Drug Deliv. Transl. Res. 2014 4 38 49 10.1007/s13346-013-0160-0 25786616

249. Tivnan A. Orr W.S. Gubala V. Nooney R. Williams D.E. McDonagh C. Prenter S. Harvey H. Domingo-Fernández R. Bray I.M. Inhibition of neuroblastoma tumor growth by targeted delivery of microRNA-34a using anti-disialoganglioside GD2 coated nanoparticles PLoS ONE 2012 7 e38129 10.1371/journal.pone.0038129 22662276 PMC3360657

250. Ghosh R. Singh L.C. Shohet J.M. Gunaratne P.H.J.B. A gold nanoparticle platform for the delivery of functional microRNAs into cancer cells Biomaterials 2013 34 807 816 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.10.023 23111335

251. Ibrahim A.F. Weirauch U. Thomas M. Grünweller A. Hartmann R.K. Aigner A.J. MicroRNA replacement therapy for miR-145 and miR-33a is efficacious in a model of colon carcinoma Cancer Res. 2011 71 5214 5224 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-4645 21690566

252. Dai X. Tan C. Combination of microRNA therapeutics with small-molecule anticancer drugs: Mechanism of action and co-delivery nanocarriers Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2015 81 184 197 10.1016/j.addr.2014.09.010 25281917

253. Gandhi N.S. Tekade R.K. Chougule M.B. Nanocarrier mediated delivery of siRNA/miRNA in combination with chemotherapeutic agents for cancer therapy: Current progress and advances J. Control. Release 2014 194 238 256 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.09.001 25204288 PMC4254052

254. Shi S. Han L. Deng L. Zhang Y. Shen H. Gong T. Zhang Z. Sun X. Dual drugs (microRNA-34a and paclitaxel)-loaded functional solid lipid nanoparticles for synergistic cancer cell suppression J. Control. Release 2014 194 228 237 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.09.005 25220161

255. Mittal A. Chitkara D. Behrman S.W. Mahato R.I. Efficacy of gemcitabine conjugated and miRNA-205 complexed micelles for treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer Biomaterials 2014 35 7077 7087 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.04.053 24836307

256. Park E.Y. Chang E. Lee E.J. Lee H.-W. Kang H.-G. Chun K.-H. Woo Y.M. Kong H.K. Ko J.Y. Suzuki H.J. Targeting of miR34a–NOTCH1 axis reduced breast cancer stemness and chemoresistance Cancer Res. 2014 74 7573 7582 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1140 25368020

257. Baldassari F. Zerbinati C. Galasso M. Corrà F. Minotti L. Agnoletto C. Previati M. Croce C.M. Volinia S.J. Screen for MicroRNA and drug interactions in breast cancer cell lines points to miR-126 as a modulator of CDK4/6 and PIK3CA inhibitors Front. Genet. 2018 9 174 10.3389/fgene.2018.00174 29868122 PMC5968201

258. Qian X. Long L. Shi Z. Liu C. Qiu M. Sheng J. Pu P. Yuan X. Ren Y. Kang C.J.B. Star-branched amphiphilic PLA-b-PDMAEMA copolymers for co-delivery of miR-21 inhibitor and doxorubicin to treat glioma Biomaterials 2014 35 2322 2335 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.11.039 24332459

259. Mao F. Zhang J. Cheng X. Xu Q. miR-149 inhibits cell proliferation and enhances chemosensitivity by targeting CDC42 and BCL2 in neuroblastoma Cancer Cell Int. 2019 19 1 11 10.1186/s12935-019-1082-9 31889909 PMC6935209

260. Wang Z.-C. Huang F.-Z. Xu H.-B. Sun J.-C. Wang C.-F. MicroRNA-137 inhibits autophagy and chemosensitizes pancreatic cancer cells by targeting ATG5 Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2019 111 63 71 10.1016/j.biocel.2019.01.020 30710750

261. Gokita K. Inoue J. Ishihara H. Kojima K. Inazawa J. Therapeutic potential of LNP-mediated delivery of miR-634 for cancer therapy Mol. Ther. -Nucleic Acids 2020 19 330 338 10.1016/j.omtn.2019.10.045 31877409 PMC6938807

262. Jin J. Sui B. Gou J. Liu J. Tang X. Xu H. Zhang Y. Jin X. PSMA ligand conjugated PCL-PEG polymeric micelles targeted to prostate cancer cells PLoS ONE 2014 9 e112200 10.1371/journal.pone.0112200 25386942 PMC4227701

263. Esposito C.L. Catuogno S. De Franciscis V. Aptamer-mediated selective delivery of short RNA therapeutics in cancer cells J. RNAi Gene Silencing Int. J. RNA 2014 10 500 PMC4238741 25414727

264. Abdelaal A.M. Kasinski A.L. Ligand-mediated delivery of RNAi-based therapeutics for the treatment of oncological diseases NAR Cancer 2021 3 zcab030 10.1093/narcan/zcab030 34316717 PMC8291076

265. Wen X. Zheng P. Ma Y. Ou Y. Huang W. Li S. Liu S. Zhang X. Wang Z. Zhang Q. Salutaxel, a conjugate of docetaxel and a muramyl dipeptide (MDP) analogue, acts as multifunctional prodrug that inhibits tumor growth and metastasis J. Med. Chem. 2018 61 1519 1540 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b01407 29357251

266. Wang Z. Chen J. Little N. Lu J. Self-assembling prodrug nanotherapeutics for synergistic tumor targeted drug delivery Acta Biomater. 2020 111 20 28 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.05.026 32454086 PMC7245299

267. Maksimenko A. Dosio F. Mougin J. Ferrero A. Wack S. Reddy L.H. Weyn A.-A. Lepeltier E. Bourgaux C. Stella B. A unique squalenoylated and nonpegylated doxorubicin nanomedicine with systemic long-circulating properties and anticancer activity Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014 111 E217 E226 10.1073/pnas.1313459110 24385587 PMC3896189

268. Cheetham A.G. Chakroun R.W. Ma W. Cui H. Self-assembling prodrugs Chem. Soc. Rev. 2017 46 6638 6663 10.1039/C7CS00521K 29019492 PMC5844511

269. Wang Q. Xiao M. Wang D. Hou X. Gao J. Liu J. Liu J. In Situ Supramolecular Self-Assembly of Pt (IV) Prodrug to Conquer Cisplatin Resistance Adv. Funct. Mater. 2021 2101826 10.1002/adfm.202101826

270. Gaucher G. Dufresne M.-H. Sant V.P. Kang N. Maysinger D. Leroux J.-C. Block copolymer micelles: Preparation, characterization and application in drug delivery J. Control. Release 2005 109 169 188 10.1016/j.jconrel.2005.09.034 16289422

271. Zhang P. Xu J. Gao S.E. Li S. Dual-function nanocarriers with interfacial drug-interactive motifs for improved delivery of chemotherapeutic agents Nanobiomaterials in Cancer Therapy Elsevier Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2016 367 394

272. Huang Y. Lu J. Gao X. Li J. Zhao W. Sun M. Stolz D.B. Venkataramanan R. Rohan L.C. Li S. PEG-derivatized embelin as a dual functional carrier for the delivery of paclitaxel Bioconjugate Chem. 2012 23 1443 1451 10.1021/bc3000468 PMC3399921 22681537

273. Zhang Y. Huang Y. Zhao W. Lu J. Zhang P. Zhang X. Li J. Gao X. Venkataramanan R. Li S. Fmoc-conjugated PEG-vitamin E 2 micelles for tumor-targeted delivery of paclitaxel: Enhanced drug-carrier interaction and loading capacity AAPS J. 2014 16 1282 1291 10.1208/s12248-014-9651-2 25193267 PMC4389742

274. Pan A. Zhang H. Li Y. Lin T.-Y. Wang F. Lee J. Cheng M. Dall’Era M. Li T. White R. Disulfide-crosslinked nanomicelles confer cancer-specific drug delivery and improve efficacy of paclitaxel in bladder cancer Nanotechnology 2016 27 425103 10.1088/0957-4484/27/42/425103 27640312 PMC6522262

275. Lu J. Liu X. Liao Y.-P. Salazar F. Sun B. Jiang W. Chang C.H. Jiang J. Wang X. Wu A. Nano-enabled pancreas cancer immunotherapy using immunogenic cell death and reversing immunosuppression Nat. Commun. 2017 8 1 14 10.1038/s41467-017-01651-9 29180759 PMC5703845

276. Lu J. Liu X. Liao Y.-P. Wang X. Ahmed A. Jiang W. Ji Y. Meng H. Nel A. Breast cancer chemo-immunotherapy through liposomal delivery of an immunogenic cell death stimulus plus interference in the IDO-1 pathway ACS Nano 2018 12 11041 11061 10.1021/acsnano.8b05189 30481959 PMC6262474

277. Duhem N. Danhier F. Pourcelle V. Schumers J.-M. Bertrand O. LeDuff C.C.S. Hoeppener S. Schubert U.S. Gohy J.-F.O. Marchand-Brynaert J.J. Self-assembling doxorubicin–tocopherol succinate prodrug as a new drug delivery system: Synthesis, characterization, and in vitro and in vivo anticancer activity Bioconjugate Chem. 2014 25 72 81 10.1021/bc400326y 24328289

278. Mao X. Si J. Huang Q. Sun X. Zhang Q. Shen Y. Tang J. Liu X. Sui M. Self-Assembling Doxorubicin Prodrug Forming Nanoparticles and Effectively Reversing Drug Resistance In Vitro and In Vivo Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2016 5 2517 2527 10.1002/adhm.201600345 27529558

279. Yang C. Tu K. Gao H. Zhang L. Sun Y. Yang T. Kong L. Ouyang D. Zhang Z. The novel platinum (IV) prodrug with self-assembly property and structure-transformable character against triple-negative breast cancer Biomaterials 2020 232 119751 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119751 31918218

280. Liang X. Gao C. Cui L. Wang S. Wang J. Dai Z. Self-assembly of an amphiphilic janus camptothecin–floxuridine conjugate into liposome-like nanocapsules for more efficacious combination chemotherapy in cancer Adv. Mater. 2017 29 1703135 10.1002/adma.201703135 28891273

281. Yu G. Zhao X. Zhou J. Mao Z. Huang X. Wang Z. Hua B. Liu Y. Zhang F. He Z. Supramolecular polymer-based nanomedicine: High therapeutic performance and negligible long-term immunotoxicity J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018 140 8005 8019 10.1021/jacs.8b04400 29874067

282. Milman N. Ginini L. Gil Z. Exosomes and their role in tumorigenesis and anticancer drug resistance Drug Resist. Updates 2019 45 1 12 10.1016/j.drup.2019.07.003 31369918

283. Mc Namee N. O’Driscoll L.J. Extracellular vesicles and anti-cancer drug resistance Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta -Rev. Cancer 2018 1870 123 136 10.1016/j.bbcan.2018.07.003 30003999

284. Li J. Gao N. Gao Z. Liu W. Pang B. Dong X. Li Y. Fan T. The emerging role of exosomes in cancer chemoresistance Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021 9 2985 10.3389/fcell.2021.737962 PMC8581179 34778252

285. Dong X. Bai X. Ni J. Zhang H. Duan W. Graham P. Li Y. Exosomes and breast cancer drug resistance Cell Death Dis. 2020 11 1 14 10.1038/s41419-020-03189-z 33203834 PMC7673022

286. Crommelin D.J. van Hoogevest P. Storm G. The role of liposomes in clinical nanomedicine development. What now? Now what? J. Control. Release 2020 318 256 263 10.1016/j.jconrel.2019.12.023 31846618

287. Wang T.-T. Xia Y.-Y. Gao J.-Q. Xu D.-H. Han M. Recent Progress in the Design and Medical Application of In Situ Self-Assembled Polypeptide Materials Pharmaceutics 2021 13 753 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050753 34069645 PMC8160760

288. Ben-David U. Ha G. Tseng Y.-Y. Greenwald N.F. Oh C. Shih J. McFarland J.M. Wong B. Boehm J.S. Beroukhim R.J. Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution Nat. Genet. 2017 49 1567 1575 10.1038/ng.3967 28991255 PMC5659952

289. Wang J. Zheng Y. Zhao M. Exosome-based cancer therapy: Implication for targeting cancer stem cells Front. Pharmacol. 2017 7 533 10.3389/fphar.2016.00533 28127287 PMC5226951

290. Katakowski M. Chopp M. Exosomes as tools to suppress primary brain tumor Cell. Mol. Neurobiol. 2016 36 343 352 10.1007/s10571-015-0280-9 26983831 PMC11482504

291. Luan X. Sansanaphongpricha K. Myers I. Chen H. Yuan H. Sun D. Engineering exosomes as refined biological nanoplatforms for drug delivery Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2017 38 754 763 10.1038/aps.2017.12 28392567 PMC5520184

292. Colao I.L. Corteling R. Bracewell D. Wall I. Manufacturing exosomes: A promising therapeutic platform Trends Mol. Med. 2018 24 242 256 10.1016/j.molmed.2018.01.006 29449149

293. Munagala R. Aqil F. Jeyabalan J. Gupta R. Bovine milk-derived exosomes for drug delivery Cancer Lett. 2016 371 48 61 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.10.020 26604130 PMC4706492

294. Yamagishi T. Sahni S. Sharp D.M. Arvind A. Jansson P.J. Richardson D.R. P-glycoprotein mediates drug resistance via a novel mechanism involving lysosomal sequestration J. Biol. Chem. 2013 288 31761 31771 10.1074/jbc.M113.514091 24062304 PMC3814770

295. Kim M.S. Haney M.J. Zhao Y. Mahajan V. Deygen I. Klyachko N.L. Inskoe E. Piroyan A. Sokolsky M. Okolie O. Development of exosome-encapsulated paclitaxel to overcome MDR in cancer cells Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. 2016 12 655 664 10.1016/j.nano.2015.10.012 PMC4809755 26586551

296. Jang S.C. Kim O.Y. Yoon C.M. Choi D.-S. Roh T.-Y. Park J. Nilsson J. Lotvall J. Kim Y.-K. Gho Y.S. Bioinspired exosome-mimetic nanovesicles for targeted delivery of chemotherapeutics to malignant tumors ACS Nano 2013 7 7698 7710 10.1021/nn402232g 24004438

297. Saari H. Lázaro-Ibáñez E. Viitala T. Vuorimaa-Laukkanen E. Siljander P. Yliperttula M. Microvesicle-and exosome-mediated drug delivery enhances the cytotoxicity of Paclitaxel in autologous prostate cancer cells J. Control. Release 2015 220 727 737 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.09.031 26390807

298. Srivastava A. Amreddy N. Babu A. Panneerselvam J. Mehta M. Muralidharan R. Chen A. Zhao Y.D. Razaq M. Riedinger N. Nanosomes carrying doxorubicin exhibit potent anticancer activity against human lung cancer cells Sci. Rep. 2016 6 1 15 10.1038/srep38541 27941871 PMC5150529

299. Sinha D. Roy S. Saha P. Chatterjee N. Bishayee A. Trends in research on exosomes in cancer progression and anticancer therapy Cancers 2021 13 326 10.3390/cancers13020326 33477340 PMC7829710

300. Wu H. Mu X. Liu L. Wu H. Hu X. Chen L. Liu J. Mu Y. Yuan F. Liu W. Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells-derived exosomal microRNA-193a reduces cisplatin resistance of non-small cell lung cancer cells via targeting LRRC1 Cell Death Dis. 2020 11 1 14 10.1038/s41419-020-02962-4 32978367 PMC7519084

301. Shtam T.A. Kovalev R.A. Varfolomeeva E.Y. Makarov E.M. Kil Y.V. Filatov M.V. Exosomes are natural carriers of exogenous siRNA to human cells in vitro Cell Commun. Signal. 2013 11 1 10 10.1186/1478-811X-11-88 24245560 PMC3895799

302. Kamerkar S. LeBleu V.S. Sugimoto H. Yang S. Ruivo C.F. Melo S.A. Lee J.J. Kalluri R.J.N. Exosomes facilitate therapeutic targeting of oncogenic KRAS in pancreatic cancer Nature 2017 546 498 503 10.1038/nature22341 28607485 PMC5538883

303. Zhang H. Wang Y. Bai M. Wang J. Zhu K. Liu R. Ge S. Li J. Ning T. Deng T. Exosomes serve as nanoparticles to suppress tumor growth and angiogenesis in gastric cancer by delivering hepatocyte growth factor si RNA Cancer Sci. 2018 109 629 641 10.1111/cas.13488 29285843 PMC5834801

304. Lou G. Song X. Yang F. Wu S. Wang J. Chen Z. Liu Y. Exosomes derived from miR-122-modified adipose tissue-derived MSCs increase chemosensitivity of hepatocellular carcinoma J. Hematol. Oncol. 2015 8 1 11 10.1186/s13045-015-0220-7 26514126 PMC4627430

305. Lou G. Chen L. Xia C. Wang W. Qi J. Li A. Zhao L. Chen Z. Zheng M. Liu Y. MiR-199a-modified exosomes from adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells improve hepatocellular carcinoma chemosensitivity through mTOR pathway J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020 39 1 9 10.1186/s13046-019-1512-5 31898515 PMC6941283

306. Kim S.M. Yang Y. Oh S.J. Hong Y. Seo M. Jang M. Cancer-derived exosomes as a delivery platform of CRISPR/Cas9 confer cancer cell tropism-dependent targeting J. Control. Release 2017 266 8 16 10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.09.013 28916446

307. Zhang Q. Zhang H. Ning T. Liu D. Deng T. Liu R. Bai M. Zhu K. Li J. Fan Q. Exosome-delivered c-Met siRNA could reverse chemoresistance to cisplatin in gastric cancer Int. J. Nanomed. 2020 15 2323 10.2147/IJN.S231214 PMC7133545 32308384

308. Liu T. Zhang X. Du L. Wang Y. Liu X. Tian H. Wang L. Li P. Zhao Y. Duan W. Exosome-transmitted miR-128-3p increase chemosensitivity of oxaliplatin-resistant colorectal cancer Mol. Cancer 2019 18 1 17 10.1186/s12943-019-0981-7 30890168 PMC6423768

309. Han M. Hu J. Lu P. Cao H. Yu C. Li X. Qian X. Yang X. Yang Y. Han N. Exosome-transmitted miR-567 reverses trastuzumab resistance by inhibiting ATG5 in breast cancer Cell Death Dis. 2020 11 1 15 10.1038/s41419-020-2250-5 31969559 PMC6976584

310. Cui J. Wang H. Zhang X. Sun X. Zhang J. Ma J.J.A. Exosomal miR-200c suppresses chemoresistance of docetaxel in tongue squamous cell carcinoma by suppressing TUBB3 and PPP2R1B Aging 2020 12 6756 10.18632/aging.103036 32310826 PMC7202518

311. Rosenblum D. Joshi N. Tao W. Karp J.M. Peer D.J. Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics Nat. Commun. 2018 9 1 12 10.1038/s41467-018-03705-y 29650952 PMC5897557

312. Wagner V. Dullaart A. Bock A.-K. Zweck A.J. The emerging nanomedicine landscape Nat. Biotechnol. 2006 24 1211 1217 10.1038/nbt1006-1211 17033654

313. Sercombe L. Veerati T. Moheimani F. Wu S.Y. Sood A.K. Hua S.J. Advances and challenges of liposome assisted drug delivery Front. Pharmacol. 2015 6 286 10.3389/fphar.2015.00286 26648870 PMC4664963

314. Hua S. De Matos M.B. Metselaar J.M. Storm G.J. Current trends and challenges in the clinical translation of nanoparticulate nanomedicines: Pathways for translational development and commercialization Front. Pharmacol. 2018 9 790 10.3389/fphar.2018.00790 30065653 PMC6056679

315. Caster J.M. Patel A.N. Zhang T. Wang A. Investigational nanomedicines in 2016: A review of nanotherapeutics currently undergoing clinical trials Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2017 9 e1416 10.1002/wnan.1416 27312983

316. Allen T.M. Cullis P.R. Liposomal drug delivery systems: From concept to clinical applications Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013 65 36 48 10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.037 23036225

317. Min Y. Caster J.M. Eblan M.J. Wang A.Z. Clinical translation of nanomedicine Chem. Rev. 2015 115 11147 11190 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00116 26088284 PMC4607605

318. Kim M. Williams S. Daunorubicin and cytarabine liposome in newly diagnosed therapy-related Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes Ann. Pharmacother. 2018 52 792 800 10.1177/1060028018764923 29532662

319. Poveda A. López-Pousa A. Martin J. Del Muro J.G. Bernabe R. Casado A. Balana C. Sanmartín O. Menéndez M. Escudero P.J.S. Phase II clinical trial with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx ® /Doxil ® ) and quality of life evaluation (EORTC QLQ-C30) in adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas: A study of the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcomas (GEIS) Sarcoma 2005 9 127 132 10.1080/13577140500287024 18521419 PMC2395634

320. Giri B.P. Gregg K. Singh P. Dagli D.J. Giri A. Hypoxia-Targeted Polymeric Micelles for Cancer Therapy and Imaging U.S. Patent 13,804,007 9 January 2014

321. Anselmo A.C. Mitragotri S.J. Nanoparticles in the clinic: An update Bioeng. Transl. Med. 2019 4 e10143 10.1002/btm2.10143 31572799 PMC6764803

322. Gabizon A. Peretz T. Sulkes A. Amselem S. Ben-Yosef R. Ben-Baruch N. Catane R. Biran S. Barenholz Y. Systemic administration of doxorubicin-containing liposomes in cancer patients: A phase I study Eur. J. Cancer Clin. Oncol. 1989 25 1795 1803 10.1016/0277-5379(89)90350-7 2632261

323. Damascelli B. Cantu G. Mattavelli F. Tamplenizza P. Bidoli P. Leo E. Dosio F. Cerrotta A.M. Di Tolla G. Frigerio L. Intraarterial chemotherapy with polyoxyethylated castor oil free paclitaxel, incorporated in albumin nanoparticles (ABI-007) Phase I study of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck and anal canal: Preliminary evidence of clinical activity Cancer Interdiscip. Int. J. Am. Cancer Soc. 2001 92 2592 2602 10.1002/1097-0142(20011115)92:10<2592::aid-cncr1612>3.0.co;2-4 11745194

324. Libutti S.K. Paciotti G.F. Byrnes A.A. Alexander H.R. Gannon W.E. Walker M. Seidel G.D. Yuldasheva N. Tamarkin L.J. Phase I and pharmacokinetic studies of CYT-6091, a novel PEGylated colloidal gold-rhTNF nanomedicine Clin. Cancer Res. 2010 16 6139 6149 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0978 20876255 PMC3004980

325. Hamaguchi T. Kato K. Yasui H. Morizane C. Ikeda M. Ueno H. Muro K. Yamada Y. Okusaka T. Shirao K. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of NK105, a paclitaxel-incorporating micellar nanoparticle formulation Br. J. Cancer 2007 97 170 176 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603855 17595665 PMC2360299

326. Thomas D.A. Kantarjian H.M. Stock W. Heffner L.T. Faderl S. Garcia-Manero G. Ferrajoli A. Wierda W. Pierce S. Lu B.J.C. Phase 1 multicenter study of vincristine sulfate liposomes injection and dexamethasone in adults with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia Cancer 2009 115 5490 5498 10.1002/cncr.24632 19708032 PMC4458381

327. Roy V. LaPlant B.R. Gross G.G. Bane C.L. Palmieri F.M. Phase II trial of weekly nab (nanoparticle albumin-bound)-paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel)(Abraxane ® ) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (N0531) Ann. Oncol. 2009 20 449 453 10.1093/annonc/mdn661 19087987 PMC2733073

328. Hamaguchi T. Doi T. Eguchi-Nakajima T. Kato K. Yamada Y. Shimada Y. Fuse N. Ohtsu A. Matsumoto S.-I. Takanashi M.J. Phase I study of NK012, a novel SN-38–incorporating micellar nanoparticle, in adult patients with solid tumors Clin. Cancer Res. 2010 16 5058 5066 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0387 20943763

329. Mamot C. Ritschard R. Wicki A. Stehle G. Dieterle T. Bubendorf L. Hilker C. Deuster S. Herrmann R. Rochlitz C. Tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of doxorubicin-loaded anti-EGFR immunoliposomes in advanced solid tumours: A phase 1 dose-escalation study Lancet Oncol. 2012 13 1234 1241 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70476-X 23153506

330. Wetzler M. Thomas D.A. Wang E.S. Shepard R. Ford L.A. Heffner T.L. Parekh S. Andreeff M. O’Brien S. Kantarjian H.M. Phase I/II trial of nanomolecular liposomal annamycin in adult patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2013 13 430 434 10.1016/j.clml.2013.03.015 23763920 PMC3737573

331. Silverman J.A. Reynolds L. Deitcher S. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vincristine sulfate liposome injection (VSLI) in adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013 53 1139 1145 10.1002/jcph.155 23907766

332. Roy A. Park S. Cunningham D. Kang Y.-K. Chao Y. Chen L.-T. Rees C. Lim H. Tabernero J. Ramos F. A randomized phase II study of PEP02 (MM-398), irinotecan or docetaxel as a second-line therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma Ann. Oncol. 2013 24 1567 1573 10.1093/annonc/mdt002 23406728

333. Weiss G.J. Chao J. Neidhart J.D. Ramanathan R.K. Bassett D. Neidhart J.A. Choi C.H.J. Chow W. Chung V. Forman S.J. First-in-human phase 1/2a trial of CRLX101, a cyclodextrin-containing polymer-camptothecin nanopharmaceutical in patients with advanced solid tumor malignancies Investig. New Drugs 2013 31 986 1000 10.1007/s10637-012-9921-8 23397498 PMC3774600

334. Senzer N. Nemunaitis J. Nemunaitis D. Bedell C. Edelman G. Barve M. Nunan R. Pirollo K.F. Rait A. Chang E. Phase I study of a systemically delivered p53 nanoparticle in advanced solid tumors Mol. Ther. 2013 21 1096 1103 10.1038/mt.2013.32 23609015 PMC3666630

335. Von Hoff D.D. Mita M.M. Ramanathan R.K. Weiss G.J. Mita A.C. LoRusso P.M. Burris H.A. Hart L.L. Low S.C. Parsons D.M. Phase I study of PSMA-targeted docetaxel-containing nanoparticle BIND-014 in patients with advanced solid tumors Clin. Cancer Res. 2016 22 3157 3163 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2548 26847057

336. Graziani S.R. Vital C.G. Morikawa A.T. Van Eyll B.M. Junior H.J.F. Kalil Filho R. Maranhão R.C. Phase II study of paclitaxel associated with lipid core nanoparticles (LDE) as third-line treatment of patients with epithelial ovarian carcinoma Med. Oncol. 2017 34 1 7 10.1007/s12032-017-1009-z 28756613

337. Subbiah V. Grilley-Olson J.E. Combest A.J. Sharma N. Tran R.H. Bobe I. Osada A. Takahashi K. Balkissoon J. Camp A.J. Phase Ib/II Trial of NC-6004 (Nanoparticle Cisplatin) plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors Clin. Cancer Res. 2018 24 43 51 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1114 29030354

338. Conner J.B. Bawa R. Nicholas J.M. Weinstein V.J. Copaxone in the era of biosimilars and nanosimilars Handbook of Clinical Nanomedicine-from Bench too Bedside Pan Stanford Publishing Pte Ltd. Singapore 2014 1 31

339. Mukai H. Kogawa T. Matsubara N. Naito Y. Sasaki M. Hosono A. A first-in-human Phase 1 study of epirubicin-conjugated polymer micelles (K-912/NC-6300) in patients with advanced or recurrent solid tumors Investig. New Drugs 2017 35 307 314 10.1007/s10637-016-0422-z 28054329

340. Beg M.S. Brenner A.J. Sachdev J. Borad M. Kang Y.-K. Stoudemire J. Smith S. Bader A.G. Kim S. Hong D. Phase I study of MRX34, a liposomal miR-34a mimic, administered twice weekly in patients with advanced solid tumors Investig. New Drugs 2017 35 180 188 10.1007/s10637-016-0407-y 27917453 PMC5893501

341. Yang Q. Wang X.-D. Chen J. Tian C.-X. Li H.-J. Chen Y.-J. Lv Q.J. A clinical study on regional lymphatic chemotherapy using an activated carbon nanoparticle–epirubicin in patients with breast cancer Tumor Biol. 2012 33 2341 2348 10.1007/s13277-012-0496-y 22948779

342. Lu C. Stewart D.J. Lee J.J. Ji L. Ramesh R. Jayachandran G. Nunez M.I. Wistuba I.I. Erasmus J.J. Hicks M.E. Phase I clinical trial of systemically administered TUSC2 (FUS1)-nanoparticles mediating functional gene transfer in humans PLoS ONE 2012 7 e34833 10.1371/journal.pone.0034833 22558101 PMC3338819

343. Chawla S.P. Chua V.S. Fernandez L. Quon D. Saralou A. Blackwelder W.C. Hall F.L. Gordon E.M. Phase I/II and phase II studies of targeted gene delivery in vivo: Intravenous Rexin-G for chemotherapy-resistant sarcoma and osteosarcoma Mol. Ther. 2009 17 1651 1657 10.1038/mt.2009.126 19532136 PMC2835268

344. Benchimol M.J. Bourne D. Moghimi S.M. Simberg D.J. Pharmacokinetic analysis reveals limitations and opportunities for nanomedicine targeting of endothelial and extravascular compartments of tumours J. Drug Target. 2019 27 690 698 10.1080/1061186X.2019.1566339 30614276 PMC6679937

345. Prabhakar U. Maeda H. Jain R.K. Sevick-Muraca E.M. Zamboni W. Farokhzad O.C. Barry S.T. Gabizon A. Grodzinski P. Blakey D.C. Challenges and key considerations of the enhanced permeability and retention effect for nanomedicine drug delivery in oncology Cancer Res. 2013 73 2412 2417 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4561 23423979 PMC3916009

346. Mak I.W. Evaniew N. Ghert M.J. Lost in translation: Animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment Am. J. Transl. Res. 2014 6 114 24489990 PMC3902221

347. Maeda H. Nakamura H. Fang J. The EPR effect for macromolecular drug delivery to solid tumors: Improvement of tumor uptake, lowering of systemic toxicity, and distinct tumor imaging in vivo Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013 65 71 79 10.1016/j.addr.2012.10.002 23088862

348. Stillman N.R. Kovacevic M. Balaz I. Hauert S. In silico modelling of cancer nanomedicine, across scales and transport barriers npj Comput. Mater. 2020 6 92 10.1038/s41524-020-00366-8

349. Yanamala N. Kagan V.E. Shvedova A.A. Molecular modeling in structural nano-toxicology: Interactions of nano-particles with nano-machinery of cells Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2013 65 2070 2077 10.1016/j.addr.2013.05.005 23726945 PMC3819408

350. Yuan D. He H. Wu Y. Fan J. Cao Y. Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Nanoparticles J. Pharm. Sci. 2019 108 58 72 10.1016/j.xphs.2018.10.037 30385282 PMC6311421

351. Li Z. Tan S. Li S. Shen Q. Wang K. Cancer drug delivery in the nano era: An overview and perspectives Oncol. Rep. 2017 38 611 624 10.3892/or.2017.5718 28627697 PMC5562049

352. Kuai R. Li D. Chen Y.E. Moon J.J. Schwendeman A.J. High-density lipoproteins: Nature’s multifunctional nanoparticles ACS Nano 2016 10 3015 3041 10.1021/acsnano.5b07522 26889958 PMC4918468

353. Yang M. Wu S. The advances and challenges in utilizing exosomes for delivering cancer therapeutics Front. Pharmacol. 2018 9 735 10.3389/fphar.2018.00735 30061829 PMC6055018

354. Adhipandito C.F. Cheung S.-H. Lin Y.-H. Wu S.-H. Atypical Renal Clearance of Nanoparticles Larger Than the Kidney Filtration Threshold Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 22 11182 10.3390/ijms222011182 34681853 PMC8537351