Application of Nanoparticles in Tumour Targeted Drug Delivery and Vaccine

Abstract

Cancer is a major cause of death worldwide, and nearly 1 in 6 deaths each year is caused by cancer. Traditional cancer treatment strategies cannot completely solve cancer recurrence and metastasis. With the development of nanotechnology, the study of nanoparticles (NPs) has gradually become a hotspot of medical research. NPs have various advantages. NPs exploit the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) of tumour cells to achieve targeted drug delivery and can be retained in tumours long-term. NPs can be used as a powerful design platform for vaccines as well as immunization enhancers. Liposomes, as organic nanomaterials, are widely used in the preparation of nanodrugs and vaccines. Currently, most of the anticancer drugs that have been approved and entered clinical practice are prepared from lipid materials. However, the current clinical conversion rate of NPs is still extremely low, and the transition of NPs from the laboratory to clinical practice is still a substantial challenge. In this paper, we review the in vivo targeted delivery methods, material characteristics of NPs and the application of NPs in vaccine preparation. The application of nanoliposomes is also emphasized. Furthermore, the challenges and limitations of NPs are briefly discussed.

1 Introduction

1.1 Health Challenges of Tumour Therapy

Cancer is a disease caused by the uncontrolled growth of malignant cells, also known as malignant tumours. Cancer cells are characterized by strong invasiveness. Currently, cancer is a major cause of death worldwide, and nearly 1 in 6 deaths is caused by cancer each year. According to the World Cancer Report 2020, there are approximately 9.96 million cancer deaths worldwide; the common types of cancer associated with death are lung cancer (1.8 million deaths, approximately 18%), colorectal cancer (935,000 deaths, approximately 9.4%), and liver cancer (830,000 deaths, approximately 8.3%) (Liu et al., 2021) (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Cancer has become a common public health problem worldwide. Traditional cancer treatment strategies include surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. However, these methods still cannot completely prevent cancer metastasis and postoperative recurrence, which are substantial challenges in clinical practice. Additionally, common chemotherapy also has its own limitations, such as multidrug resistance (Barker et al., 2015), cardiotoxicity (Chang and Wang, 2018), and infertility (Brigden and McKenzie, 2000), among other complications, as well as poor drug selectivity against cancer. These severe side effects greatly limit the clinical treatment of cancer. Therefore, to overcome these shortcomings, it is urgent to introduce a new drug delivery platform to enhance the ability to target tumours and reduce side effects.

1.2 Application of Nanoparticles in Cancer and Vaccine

In recent years, NP drugs have gradually become a hotspot in medical research. The size of NPs is in the nanometre range (approximately less than 1 μm), and NPs generally have physical interfaces (Sheena et al., 2020). NPs are mainly divided into polymers (Rapoport, 2007), inorganic NPs (Arami et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016) and liposomes (Tan et al., 2021). Liposomes are composed of phospholipid molecules and are less toxic than are inorganic NPs. In addition, their phospholipid bilayer structure can not only encapsulate hydrophobic drugs and hydrophilic drugs but can also simultaneously deliver 2 drugs, enabling more types of drugs to be encapsulated and greatly improving drug delivery efficiency (Xiang et al., 2012). In addition, liposomes have good biocompatibility and biodegradability.

The emergence of NPs and their development in cancer treatment have had an important impact on clinical chemotherapy. NP drug delivery platforms can address various shortcomings of traditional treatment strategies. First, NPs can improve targeted drug delivery; the structural design of NPs can be modified so that they can more effectively deliver therapeutic drugs to the tumour site, thus minimizing the toxic side effects of the drugs and adverse reactions at sites external to the target. Second, NPs can deliver higher local drug concentrations to tumour site via enhanced permeability and retention (EPR), thereby improving drug availability and drug sensitivity and overcoming the multidrug resistance of tumour cells (Maeda et al., 2000). Third, NP drug delivery platforms can be used in combination with a variety of drugs to reduce the toxic side effects of chemotherapy drugs and improve the tumour microenvironment (TME) (Zhang et al., 2020a). However, due to the heterogeneity of the EPR effect, drug delivery remains very poor (Leroux, 2017). Therefore, in-depth explorations of how NPs enter tumour tissues is the first step to better target nanodrugs to tumours and improve the clinical conversion rate.

Because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the global emphasis on vaccines has increased, and vaccine research and development technologies have rapidly improved. As a powerful development platform for vaccines, nanotechnology can be used in both therapeutic and preventive vaccines. They can be used as transport systems to enhance the function of antigen-presenting cells or as an immune enhancer to activate immune responses. In addition, NPs can play roles in drug targeting, sustained and controlled drug release.

In summary, NPs provide an important strategy and new direction for tumour treatment and vaccination. In this paper, the targeted delivery mechanisms of NPs in cells and in vivo are briefly described, and the material characteristics of NPs and the application of NPs in tumour-targeted therapy and vaccine preparation are reviewed.

2 In vivo Tumour-Targeted Delivery Mechanisms of NPs

The efficacy of antitumour drugs largely depends on whether the drugs are delivered to the correct location (Bae and Park, 2011). To achieve drug-targeted therapy, it is necessary to find effective drugs, appropriate targets, and the right mode of delivery (Danhier et al., 2010). The distribution of traditional chemotherapeutic drugs in the body is nonspecific, and the high toxicity of those drugs can cause excessive damage to normal tissues and cells. Therefore, the long-term goal of cancer treatment is to increase the healthy lifespan and mobility of patients by reducing the systemic toxicity of drugs (Byrne et al., 2008). While the characteristics of NPs meet the needs for antitumour drug delivery, the specific tumour targeting of NPs allows drugs to exhibit better pharmacokinetic characteristics and reduce systemic toxicity while improving drug specificity and increasing intracellular drug delivery (Bae, 2009). Therefore, NP drug delivery platforms have become strategies to overcome the nonspecificity of chemotherapeutic drugs (Jain and Stylianopoulos, 2010). We firstly talk about two common modes of tumour-targeted delivery as shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

2.1 Passive Targeting

Passive targeting is based on enhanced permeability and retention effect (EPR) (Matsumura and Maeda, 1986; Torchilin, 2011) The rapid growth of tumours results in large gaps in vascular endothelial cells, leading to more drugs entering tumour tissue. The imperfect lymphatic reflux function of tumour tissue results in the long-term retention of drugs at the tumour site. The EPR effect is known as the “royal gate” (Danhier et al., 2010) and is the gold standard for the design of antitumour drugs and the physiological basis for the entry and accumulation of macromolecules and small particles in tumours. The presence of NPs can not only reduce the toxic side effects of chemotherapy drugs but also enhance the EPR effect and improve the targeting ability and efficacy of drugs (Torchilin, 2007a). For example, Doxil (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin) has a drug concentration that is 10 times higher than that of free doxorubicin at the tumour site (Torchilin, 2007b).

Except for tumours with blood vessels, such as prostate cancer or pancreatic cancer, almost all fast-growing tumours exhibit the EPR effect (Maeda et al., 2001; Din et al., 2017; Fang et al., 2020a). NPs must be of a certain size to exploit the EPR effect. The size of the drug in blood circulation must be larger than the renal clearance threshold to ensure long-term circulation. Therefore, the size of the NPs must be greater than 10 nm (Maeda et al., 2009; Maeda et al., 2013). Second, the size of NPs should be smaller than the lumen size of the vasculature at the tumour site; therefore, they need to be smaller than 100 nm (Noguchi et al., 1998; Liu et al., 2018a). In-depth studies have found that NPs that are approximately 50 nm have the highest efficacy on primary and metastatic tumours (Tang et al., 2014a). In addition to size, other NP properties, such as biocompatibility and surface charge, impact the EPR effect (Kobayashi et al., 2014; Ulbrich et al., 2016).

Currently, there are many anticancer drug preparations based on the EPR effect. Among them, the earliest passive targeting drug is a polymer-conjugated drug prepared by Maeda et al., i.e., SMANCS (Maeda, 2001). This anticancer polymer was approved in 1993 by the Japanese government for the treatment of liver cancer (Maeda et al., 1985; Maeda, 1994). Despite continuous in-depth research on the EPR effect, there is still great controversy regarding the EPR effect and clinical treatment. First, Shrey et al. used mathematical models and animal models to study murine and human tumours and showed that endothelial gaps were not the reason for the entry of NPs into solid tumours. There were only 26 intercellular spaces in 313 blood vessels. The overall coverage rate was only 0.048%, and only 7 of these 26 intercellular spaces were interendothelial channels; the remaining 19 were intercellular channels. The gaps on the tumour were 60 times smaller than that required for the observed accumulation of NPs (Sindhwani et al., 2020). Second, based on a literature survey of NP delivery from 2006 to 2016, it was found that only 0.7% (median) of drug-containing NPs entered solid tumours. In addition, more than 95% of targeted NPs cannot reach tumours during intravenous administration; therefore, the current clinical efficacy cannot significantly improve (Wilhelm et al., 2016). Because the EPR effect is a dynamic phenomenon, one possible cause of this situation is the heterogeneity of the EPR effect, that is, tumour vascular occlusion or embolism, which has become one of the main obstacles to the targeting of drug-containing NPs (Gerlinger et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2013).

2.2 Active Targeting

Active targeting refers to the binding of NPs modified with targeting ligands to specific receptors on tumour cells or the tumour endothelium on the basis of passive targeting, thereby allowing tumour-specific targeting. In the selection of targeting ligands, receptors that are expressed on all types of tumour cells should be selected, and the selected targeting receptors should only be overexpressed on tumour cells (Adams et al., 2001). Commonly used tumour cell receptors include transferrin receptor (TfR), folate receptor (FR), glycoproteins, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (Table 1).

Active targeting plays a dominant role in the targeted delivery of NPs. Schleich et al. (Schleich et al., 2014)compared nontargeted and single-targeted NPs and found that the accumulation of NPs in the single-targeted group was more than 2.5 times higher than that in the passively targeted group. In the process of active targeting, two decisive factors can be adjusted. The first factor is the abundance of tumour surface receptors. The long-term targeted delivery of nanodrugs can lead to a reduction in gene expression or to gene mutations, which will lead to a reduction in the efficacy of targeted nanodrugs and the development of multidrug resistance (Li et al., 2017; Hayashi and Konishi, 2021). Chen et al. (Chen et al., 2021)prepared chitosan oligosaccharide (COS)-coated and sialic acid (SA) receptor-targeted nano-micelles and found that these nano-micelles inhibited tumour epithelial mesenchymal metastasis by downregulating the expression of Hypoxia Inducible Factor-1α (HIF-1α), Glutathione (GSH), Multidrug Resistance-associated Protein 2 (MRP2) and Matrix Metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9). The results showed that these nano-micelles significantly enhanced the antitumour effect in vivo and in vitro, providing an effective strategy for the treatment of drug-resistant metastatic tumours (Figures 3A–D). The second factor is the selection of targeting agents for receptors (Zhukov and Tjulandin, 2008; Ma yer, 2009). Wang et al. (Wang et al., 2021b) selected coagulation peptide (A15) as a targeting agent to generate a self-amplified tumour nanotherapy platform with a chain reaction mechanism (Figure 3E). After the administration of drugs to mice, the total CA4 concentration in A15-PLG-CA4-treated C26 tumours was 2.9 times that in the control group at 24 h, the total BLZ945 concentration (24 h) in the C26 tumours treated with A15-PLG-CA4/BLZ945 was 3.8-fold more than that in the tumours treated with A15′-PLG-CA4/BLZ945, with a significant antitumour effect.

FIGURE 3

2.3 Other Modes

Besides the above two common modes of tumour-targeted delivery, there are also a variety of transport modes. Transcytosis is an active vesicle-mediated delivery pathway that is often used by macromolecules to cross biological barriers. The EPR effect has long been recognized as the main factor for the entry of NPs into tumour cells (Gerlowski and Jain, 1986). However, the EPR effect has always been controversial with regard to clinical application (Danhier, 2016; Nel et al., 2017). In 2015, Anders proposed that the EPR effect is not a common feature of all solid tumours (Hansen et al., 2015). Recently, Chan et al. found that transcytosis may be the main mode of entry of NPs into tumours. The effect of transcytosis on the enrichment of NPs at tumour sites was investigated. The observation of 3 sizes of gold NPs (AuNPs) via transmission electron microscopy (TEM) provided direct evidence of transcytosis; moreover, after blocking the transcytosis pathway, only 3–25% of the total AuNPs entered tumours via the EPR effect, indicating that transcytosis may play a dominant role. However, the mechanism of transcytosis and the triggering factors remain unclear. Studies have shown that receptor-glycoprotein binding (Nel et al., 2017) and charge inversion (Schulz et al., 2019; Fang et al., 2020b) may trigger transcytosis. Therefore, it is possible that transcytosis can be used to improve the efficiency of targeted drug delivery by NPs.

Targeted drug delivery mechanisms mediated by the TME are also feasible methods. The TME is hypoxic, has a low pH, and generates an inflammatory response and immunosuppression. It contains a large number of interstitial cells and immune cells and is an environment in which tumour cells depend on for survival (Schulz et al., 2019). Smart nanodrug delivery platforms utilize the internal phenomena of the TEM [e.g., low pH (Bener et al., 2020), overexpressed enzymes (Liu et al., 2017), and hyperthermia] or external stimuli (e.g., light, heat, and magnetic fields) to control the release of drugs (Shrestha et al., 2021). pH-responsive nano-formulations use pH changes to cause conformational or solubility changes, charge reversal, and chemical bond cleavage. The control and release of drugs from the tumour environment are achieved through the acidic environment of the tumour mesenchyme combined with acid-sensitive chemical bonding, thereby facilitating the endocytosis and targeting of nano-agents (Bener et al., 2020; Lin et al., 2020). By comparing poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(benzyl-l-aspartate) (PPA) and poly-imino-poly(benzyl-l-aspartate) (PIPA) block copolymers, Pu et al. (Pu et al., 2019)found that PIPAH had a better drug release rate and antitumour effect than that of pH-insensitive PPAH because the imine bond of PIPAH utilizes the acidic condition of the TME to more effectively release the active drug.

3 Biomaterials of NPs

Nanoparticles have unique properties that can improve drug biocompatibility, reduce drug toxicity, and enter tumour sites in a specific manner. These properties are closely related to the prepared materials. The preparation materials of nanoparticles mainly include lipid materials, polymer materials and inorganic materials as show in Table 2. Next, we discuss the lipid and polymer materials.

3.1 Lipid Materials

Lipid materials are biofriendly, highly versatile, biocompatible and have low toxicity. In addition, lipid materials can reduce the adverse reactions of the body to other exogenous biological carriers. Therefore, lipid materials have always been excellent carrier materials for the preparation of drugs. Different types of lipid nanoparticles can be prepared using lipid materials as show in Figure 4 (Feeney et al., 2016).

FIGURE 4

Liposomes are the most common lipid-based carriers prepared from lipid materials (Plaza-Oliver et al., 2021). Currently, a variety of liposome preparations have been approved by the FDA for clinical use (Nguyen et al., 2016). Liposomes have good encapsulation capacity for water-soluble and fat-soluble drugs, crystalline drugs, biological macromolecules and are excellent drug carriers (Bangham et al., 1965). The superior properties of liposomes have led to their extensive application in anticancer treatments. First, liposomes can improve the delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs and improve the therapeutic effect of drugs. Li et al. (Li et al., 2021) prepared curcumin-loaded liposomes (Cur + Lip) that were sequentially coated with chitooligosaccharides (Cur + Lip-Cos) and negative phospholipids (Cur + Lip-Cos-PC) to improve the water solubility and encapsulation rate and thus delay the release of Cur. Second, The Lips were then fixed in an injectable thiolated chitosan hydrogel which enhanced the antitumour effect. Xu et al. (Xu et al., 2019) constructed bifunctional liposomes (DOX-ACF + Lip) that overcome chemotherapy resistance caused by hypoxia. In addition, liposomes can be modified with other ligands and functional components. The range of drug delivery of conventional liposomes has been extended by modifying them to increase their cycle time (e.g., long-cycle liposomes) (Zylberberg and Matosevic, 2016), to increase their local drug delivery concentration (e.g., liposome gel systems) (Zeng et al., 2020) or for gene delivery (e.g., cationic liposomes) (Ahmad et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021a). Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) are solid micelle drug delivery systems made of natural or synthetic solid lipid materials as carriers and encapsulated drugs in lipid cores (Araujo et al., 2021). Compared with liposomes, SLNs exhibit better physical stability and higher drug loading capacity and bioavailability. Due to their low molecular mobility, SLNs can more accurately control the release of the drug payload in the cancer microenvironment (Tenchov et al., 2021). Kumar et al. (Pandian et al., 2021) developed and evaluated rutin-loaded SLNs for the treatment of brain tumours. The study found rutin-loaded SLNs have superior characterization for their physicochemical properties. Its biocompatibility and stability have been confirmed in vitro. At 54 h after injection, the distribution of rutin in the brain was 15.23 ± 0.32%, and prepared rutin- loaded SLNs were stable in circulation for up to 5 days. Therefore, rutin-loaded SLNs can be used as carriers for the targeting of tumours across the blood–brain barrier (BBB).

3.2 Polymer Materials

Nanopolymer materials have a wide range of applications in biomedicine. They have adjustable molecular designs, are highly stable, and have structural diversity (Zhang et al., 2019a). Nanopolymer materials are currently the mainstream nanodrug carrier. For example, the nanopolymer micellar paclitaxel (pm-Pac) provides a new option for advanced lung cancer chemotherapy. The objective remission rates (ORRs) for pm-Pac and paclitaxel treatment were shown to be 50 and 26%, respectively, and the safety analysis indicated that the incidence of serious adverse events in the pm-Pac group was lower, only half of that in the paclitaxel group (Shi et al., 2021).

Biodegradable biopolymers are one of the most important biomaterials. In recent years, the development of degradable biopolymers to replace nondegradable polymers has been a trend (Kirillova et al., 2021). NPs composed of early polymer materials exhibited rapid and effective clearance. However, due to their non-degradability, these NPs accumulated in the body, resulting in chronic toxicity and inflammatory responses. Therefore, the development of biodegradable polymer materials has received extensive recognition and attention (Anju et al., 2020). After degradable biopolymers carry drugs to specific target sites, they begin to slowly degrade into smaller nontoxic substances, ultimately being metabolized by the body. Biopolymers can be classified based on the source, i.e., natural (such as polysaccharides and chitosan) and synthetic (such as polyesters and their copolymers). Because these biodegradable biomedical polymer materials have good biosafety, they are often used in biological tissue engineering and 3D scaffolds (Maity and Cha kraborti, 2020). In addition, some biodegradable biopolymers, such as polyglycolic acid (PGA) and poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as materials for drug preparation (Palma et al., 2018). For specific applications in the medical field, the functionalization of biodegradable biopolymer materials is one of the development trends in the future (Masood, 2016; Gagliardi et al., 2021).

3.3 Inorganic Materials

Inorganic nanomaterials can be easily prepared into different shapes and sizes in different tumour environments, which are good carriers for preparing tumour vaccines. Therefore, they are widely used in the biomedical field (Liu et al., 2020). However, most inorganic nanomaterials are non-biodegradable, causing direct cytotoxicity, and the aggregation of some potential inorganic nanoparticles can easily lead to vascular occlusion (Fadeel and Garcia-Bennett, 2010; Mukherjee and Patra, 2016). At the same time, inorganic nanomaterials tend to cause non-specific drug leakage, which limits the development of inorganic nanomaterials (Gorbet and Ranjan, 2020). Common inorganic nanomaterials can be mainly divided into two categories: non-metallic and metallic.

There are many kinds of metal nanomaterials. The currently developed nano-metal materials include gold, titanium, thallium, zinc, etc. (Gussone et al., 2014). Photothermal therapy (PTT) is a kind of cancer treatment with high specificity and low toxicity. Qiuhong Zhang (Zhang et al., 2020b) developed a highly efficient near-infrared photothermal agent (NIR-II PTA) based on liquid exfoliated FePS₃ nanosheets. Using the properties of iron, the prepared nanosheets showed an ultra-high specific surface area, improved the catalytic activity of Fenton, and achieved a photothermal conversion efficiency of 43.3%, while realizing cancer chemodynamic therapy (CDT). Iron-based metal nanomaterials have the potential to be a new nanotherapeutic platform.

The biosafety of non-metallic nanomaterials is better than that of metal nanomaterials. Silicon-based nanomaterials are one of the most widely used non-metallic nanomaterials. They are easy to synthesize and manipulate. They also have many unique advantages in in vivo applications, such as excellent biocompatibility, versatile surface chemistry, etc (Wang et al., 2021c). Chen Qi et al. (Chen et al., 2020) developed organic-inorganic hybrid hollow mesoporous silica nanoparticles (HMONs) as vaccine carriers, and used dopamine to modify the surface to improve the controllability of biodegradation and drug release. Molecular disulfide-bonded hybrid backbones enable stepwise degradation in a reducing tumour microenvironment. The results showed that HMONs had an effective slow-release effect, significantly inhibited the proliferation of tumour cells, and achieved anti-tumour effects in vivo through the dual-reaction release of the tumour microenvironment. In general, the nanoparticles have good application prospects in tumour vaccines.

4 Clinical Application of NPs in Tumour Therapy and Vaccines

4.1 Application of NPs in Tumour Therapy

As mentioned above, the emergence of NPs can greatly improve current cancer treatment as show in Figure 5. NPs can be used as carriers to deliver cargo to cancer cells. NPs can improve the efficacy of drugs by improving their safety, tolerability and their targeting (Almanghadim et al., 2021). In photothermal therapy, NPs can be used as carriers of photothermal agents for tumour elimination. Cheng et al. (Cheng et al., 2021) used self-designed hybrid therapeutic NPs loaded with photothermal agents; after the intravenous injection of NPs, laser irradiation was used to achieve excellent photothermal therapeutic outcomes; the results showed that the tumour was completely eliminated, immunogenic cells died, and a large number of tumour-related antigens were generated. Moreover, NPs can also be directly used as photothermal agents for tumour therapy (An et al., 2021).

FIGURE 5

In addition, NPs also play a substantial role in the early diagnosis and treatment of tumours. Currently, for tumour imaging, the distribution of imaging contrast agents and tracers in the body is not well understood, the clearance rate is fast, the pharmacokinetics are poor, and there are certain adverse reactions. NPs open a new path for cancer imaging (Xu et al., 2018). Sun et al. (Sun et al., 2014) used nanorods as substrates, and the surfaces were modified with PEG and ⁶⁴Cu to successfully apply them in PET. Wang et al. (Wang et al., 2015b) generated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) coated with dSiO2 as core–shell NPs and labelled them with near infrared fluorescence material and an anti-CD146 monoclonal antibody for magnetic resonance imaging. The MKN 45 xenograft tumour model can be clearly identified as early as 30 min after injection.

Paclitaxel (PTX) is currently one of the most effective drugs for the treatment of cancer. However, its availability is limited due to its low solubility and various side effects. In clinical practice the use of PTX as an NP carrier can effectively reduce the toxic effect of PTX on noncancerous cells and significantly reduce the survival rate of all cancer cells (Danışman-Kalındemirtaş et al., 2021). Currently, a variety of NP drugs have been approved for the treatment of tumours (Table 3).

4.2 Application of NPs in Vaccines

NPs are good candidates for the preparation of vaccines. Nano-vaccines are safer and more stable and have better versatility (Mamo and Poland, 2012; Yadav et al., 2018). In the application of tumour vaccines, NPs have greatly improved the efficacy of vaccines and reduced the number of drug administrations (Sulczewski et al., 2018; Wadhwa et al., 2020). Many studies have reported the preparation of synthetic vaccines based on NPs; such vaccines have the potential to enhance the corresponding immune response (lymph node transport efficiency) and improve vaccine delivery (Fu et al., 2018; Kheirollahpour et al., 2020). Zhuang et al. (Zhuang et al., 2016) used lipid-enveloped zinc phosphate hybrid (LZnP) NPs to deliver polypeptides (TRP2180-188 and HGP10025-33) and Toll-like receptor 4 agonists. The results indicated that LZnP NPs increased the secretion of cytokines and the number of CD8⁺ T cells. Compared with free antigens and single peptide-loaded nano-vaccines, nano-vaccines had significant antitumour effects in the treatment and prevention of melanoma in a mouse model.

The emergence of nanomedicine has accelerated the development of vaccines. As one of the nine adjuvants approved by regulatory authorities, liposomes play an indispensable role in the preparation of vaccines (Delany et al., 2014; Dowling and Levy, 2015). Currently, there are only a few cancer vaccines on the market worldwide (such as HPV vaccines), but many cancer vaccines are already in the clinical stage (Table 4). It is believed that with the development of liposomes, liposomes will be widely used as high-quality materials in vaccine preparation.

4.2.1 Application in Traditional Vaccines

In vaccine applications, nanoliposomes can be used as carriers of immunostimulants to improve the capacity of immunostimulants (Zamani et al., 2018; Huang et al., 2021b). Zhang et al. (Zhang et al., 2019b) synthesized lipid NPs to carry imiquimod (IMQ), a toll-like receptor 7/8 (TLR 7/8) agonist, and monophosphoryl lipid A (MPLA), a TLR4 agonist. The results from the tumour treatment experiments indicated that the lipid NPs were more effective than other preparations at inhibiting tumour growth and that the loading of immune checkpoint blockade agents further enhanced the antitumour effect. In addition, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) can also be used as carriers for drug delivery. Noh et al. (Kim et al., 2012; Noh et al., 2017) designed and synthesized immunomodulatory liposomes (denoted as “tumosomes”) that can simultaneously deliver cancer antigens and adjuvants. These “tumosomes” have 2 lipid adjuvants, namely, MPLA and DDA, which have risk signals that can be used as pathogen characteristics. Experiments have shown that “tumosomes” effectively improve antitumour immune function, antigenicity and antigen uptake efficiency. This method induces and enhances the antitumour immune response and transforms the tumour into a vaccine. In addition, the vaccine can also be used in combination with other cancer treatment methods to improve the efficacy of cancer treatment.

In addition to acting as carriers, LNPs can also be used as adjuvants to prolong the biological half-life of vaccines and the ability of antigen-presenting cells to take up antigens (Kno tigová et al., 2015). They induce the production of immune regulatory cytokines, activate inflammation, local inflammation and cell recruitment, and induce faster, more extensive and stronger immune response (Park et al., 2018). Kocabas et al. (Kocabas et al., 2020) prepared dual- adjuvant liposomes by co-encapsulating cGAMP and oligodeoxynucleotides (ODN) containing unmethylated CpG motifs (CpGODN) into sterically stabilized cationic liposomes (SSCLs). The SSCLs promoted the formation of type I and type II interferons, the dual-adjuvant liposomes enhanced the immunostimulatory properties of cGAMP and CpGODN, promoted Th1 immunity, and caused melanoma remission by approximately 70%, and the lipid preparations reversed macrophage polarization to an M1 inflammatory phenotype. Farzad et al. (Farzad et al., 2019) coupled the P435 HER2/neu-derived peptide with drugs to establish an effective nanoliposome vaccine, which can be used as an adjuvant. The liposomal P435 preparation induced IL-4 in mice, and the Lip + DOPE + P435 preparation stimulated IFN-c. The authors concluded that Lip + DOPE + P435 is a promising candidate for the development of an effective vaccine for HER2-positive breast cancer.

Cationic liposomes are often used in the development of vaccines because cationic liposomes can better interact with negatively charged ions in the cell membrane than can other types of liposomes (Thi et al., 2021). This storage effect leads to a prolonged antigen release time at the injection site, and the effective transfection of macromolecules (such as pDNA and mRNA) also requires the presence of positively charged cationic lipids (Habrant et al., 2016). Additionally, studies have found that compared with negatively charged NPs, positively charged NPs can be rapidly taken up by cells (Zaki et al., 2011). However, these cationic lipids show higher cytotoxicity than do neutral or anionic lipids; therefore, their application has certain limitations (Wei et al., 2015). To allow more drugs to be prepared into NPs and used in the preparation of vaccines, negatively charged or neutral nanoliposomes must be developed. Naomi Benne et al. (Benne et al., 2018) inoculated atherosclerotic mice with anionic DSPG-Nanoliposomes and found that anionic DSPG-liposomes can serve as a useful delivery vector to induce antigen-specific Tregs, and that empty anionic liposomes reduce plaque size and cellular content to a similar extent as injection of apoptotic cells. The ApoB100-derived peptides were then encapsulated in anionic liposomes for administration. Anionic liposomes were found to significantly reduce plaque formation by about 50% and increase plaque stability. These results indicate that anionic DSPG-Nanoliposomes have potential as a delivery system in vaccination against atherosclerosis (Figures 6A,B6).

FIGURE 6

4.2.2 Application in DNA Vaccines

Currently, liposome-based nanodrug delivery systems are mainly used in the development and application of modern vaccines, of which nucleic acid vaccines are the mainstay (D’Amico et al., 2021; Alfagih et al., 2021). Nucleic acid vaccines have good stability and can be produced rapidly (Iavarone et al., 2017; Rockman et al., 2020). There are currently 2 types: DNA vaccines and RNA vaccines. DNA vaccines prevent diseases by injecting plasmids used for encoding. After the injection of plasmids, cells directly produce antigens, thereby causing a protective immune response (Gary and Weiner, 2020). Won (Youn et al., 2020) designed a DNA vaccine against HPV virus-specific antigens and found that the GX-188E vaccine induced HPV-16 E6- and E7-specific T-cell responses in patients with precancerous lesions, thereby alleviating cervical lesions. A small-scale clinical trial showed that PD-L1 antibody can treat patients with advanced refractory cervical cancer. However, due to the weak immunogenicity and short half-life of DNA vaccines, only a number of DNA vaccines are used in veterinary medicine (e.g., melanoma vaccines for dogs (Gummow et al., 2020)); no DNA vaccines are currently used in humans (Liu, 2019). As an excellent delivery system, LNPs can enhance the humoral and cellular immune responses of DNA vaccines, thereby compensating for the shortcomings of DNA vaccines and enabling their further development (Gary and Weiner, 2020). Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., 2021b) developed a novel liposome-polymer hybrid NP (pSFV-MEG/LNPs) for the delivery of multi-epitope self-replication DNA vaccines. These LNPs induced a strong humoral and cellular immune response compared with that generated with common preparations, with approximately 3.22-fold and 1.6-fold increases, respectively. The research and development (R&D) of DNA vaccines against COVID-19 has received close attention, and more than ten COVID-19 DNA vaccines are used in clinical practice worldwide. Among them, the COVID-19 DNA vaccine ZyCoV-D developed by Zydus Cadila has received emergency use authorization by the Indian drug regulatory agency, becoming the world’s first COVID-19 DNA vaccine (Abdulla et al., 2021).

4.2.3 Application in mRNA Vaccines

mRNA vaccines are based on the mRNA sequences of pathogen antigen proteins. After delivery into the body, antigen proteins are produced through translation to induce specific immune responses in the body and ultimately eliminate cancer cells (Pardi et al., 2018). mRNA vaccines have multiple advantages. First, they reduce the risk of T-cell function failure caused by persistent antigen exposure. Second, as the smallest genetic carrier, mRNA is non-infectious and does not integrate in the genome, playing its role exclusively in the cytoplasm, thereby avoiding genetic risks and increasing safety. In addition, the in vivo delivery of mRNA is fast and effective (Maruggi et al., 2019). Compared with traditional vaccines, mRNA vaccines can simultaneously deliver multiple antigens and immunomodulators, and the manufacturing process is simple, fast and inexpensive (Sahin et al., 2014); Compared with DNA vaccines, mRNA vaccines have faster action and good efficacy (Maruggi et al., 2019; Teo, 2021). However, mRNA vaccines are unstable in the body and have strict transport conditions, which limits their use (Guevara et al., 2019). The encapsulation of mRNA vaccines in LNPs greatly improves their stability and plays a key role in the transport of mRNAs to cells (Guan and Rosenecker, 2017; Hajj and Whitehead, 2017). Oberli et al. (Oberli et al., 2017) reported an LNP for the delivery of mRNA vaccines. They treated B16F10 melanoma with LNPs containing mRNA coding for the tumour-associated antigens gp100 and TRP2, resulting in tumour shrinkage and in an extension of overall survival in treated mice. They concluded that LNPs are a promising mRNA vaccine vector capable of inducing a strong cytotoxic T-cell response (Figure 6C,D).

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, mRNA vaccines have attracted the attention of many pharmaceutical companies, such as Pfizer and Moderna. The FDA has issued emergency use authorizations for 2 mRNA vaccines. The efficacies of Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT12b2 and Modern’s mRNA-1273 were 95 and 94.1%, respectively (Teo, 2021). However, the original intention of mRNA vaccine innovation was to develop anticancer vaccines. Moderna has released its new cancer vaccine mRNA-4157, which is a personalized cancer vaccine based on lipid encapsulation. A clinical trial found that in 10 patients with advanced brain cancer, the total remission rate was 50% and the disease control rate (DCR) was up to 90% (Bauman et al., 2020). In addition, the injectable liposome formulated mRNA vaccine BNT111 developed by Pfizer/BioNTech for melanoma tumours has achieved good efficacy and good safety. This vaccine can control cancer by enhancing the immune system and improving immune targeting. This is an effective immunotherapy for patients with melanoma. It is also the world’s first mRNA vaccine for tumours (Sahin et al., 2020).

5 Conclusion and Discussion

In this paper, we reviewed the in vivo targeted delivery mechanisms, application evolution of NPs. NPs provide a novel drug delivery platform for tumour drugs and can improve the efficiency of tumour treatment and reduce the side effects of tumour treatment. However, the mechanisms by which NPs enter tumours are still unclear, and further studies are needed. In the future, the focus of research on NPs should shift from the design of their structures to targeting, so that more NP drugs can be applied in clinical practice.

In recent years, the rapid development of nanotechnology has made NPs not only a hotspot for tumour treatment but also a hotspot for vaccine preparation. The focus of future research on tumour vaccines should be on safety and efficacy in tumour treatment and prevention. In the preparation of tumour vaccines, common preparation issues include the insufficient delivery of antigens and the insufficient release of drugs, limiting the development of vaccines. NPs are safe, can be modified for the controlled release of cargo and for targeting, and have a high antigen uptake rate and strong immunogenicity. Therefore, they are ideal carriers for the preparation of tumour vaccines. Currently, the nanodrugs available on the market are mainly liposomes and polymer micelle preparations. Compared with other NPs, nanoliposomes have better biocompatibility and biodegradability. However, the application of nanoliposomes in vaccines is still at an early stage of development and has certain limitations. The development of noncationic nanoliposomes, the mechanism of nanoliposome delivery systems, and the safety of vaccines all require further in-depth studies. We believe that when these remaining problems are properly addressed, NPs will transition from the laboratory to clinical application, launching a new era in cancer treatment.

References

• 1

  Abdulla Z. A. Al-Bashir S. M. Al-Salih N. S. Aldamen A. A. Abdulazeez M. Z. (2021). A Summary of the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Technologies Available or under Development. Pathogens10 (7), 788. 10.3390/pathogens10070788

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Adams G. P. Schier R. McCall A. M. Simmons H. H. Horak E. M. Alpaugh R. K. et al (2001). High Affinity Restricts the Localization and Tumor Penetration of Single-Chain Fv Antibody Molecules. Cancer Res.61 (12), 4750–4755.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Ahmad M. Z. Ahmad J. Alasmary M. Y. Abdel-Wahab B. A. Warsi M. H. Haque A. et al (2021). Emerging Advances in Cationic Liposomal Cancer Nanovaccines: Opportunities and Challenges. Immunotherapy13 (6), 491–507. 10.2217/imt-2020-0258

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Alfagih I. M. Aldosari B. AlQuadeib B. Almurshedi A. Alfagih M. M. (2021). Nanoparticles as Adjuvants and Nanodelivery Systems for mRNA-Based Vaccines. Pharmaceutics13 (1), 45. 10.3390/pharmaceutics13010045

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Almanghadim H. G. Nourollahzadeh Z. Khademi N. S. Tezerjani M. D. Sehrig F. Z. Estelami N. et al (2021). Application of Nanoparticles in Cancer Therapy with an Emphasis on Cell Cycle. Cell Biol. Int.45 (10), 1989–1998. 10.1002/cbin.11658

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  An D. Fu J. Zhang B. Xie N. Nie G. Ågren H. et al (2021). NIR‐II Responsive Inorganic 2D Nanomaterials for Cancer Photothermal Therapy: Recent Advances and Future Challenges. Adv. Funct. Mater.31 (32), 2101625. 10.1002/adfm.202101625

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Anju S. Prajitha N. Sukanya V. S. Mohanan P. V. (2020). Complicity of Degradable Polymers in Health-Care Applications. Mater. Today Chem.16, 100236. 10.1016/j.mtchem.2019.100236

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Arami H. Khandhar A. Liggitt D. Krishnan K. M. (2015). In Vivo delivery, Pharmacokinetics, Biodistribution and Toxicity of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles. Chem. Soc. Rev.44 (23), 8576–8607. 10.1039/C5CS00541H

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Araujo V. H. S. Delello Di Filippo L. Duarte J. L. Spósito L. Camargo B. A. F. d. da Silva P. B. et al (2021). Exploiting Solid Lipid Nanoparticles and Nanostructured Lipid Carriers for Drug Delivery against Cutaneous Fungal Infections. Crit. Rev. Microbiol.47 (1), 79–90. 10.1080/1040841X.2020.1843399

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Bae Y. H. (2009). Drug Targeting and Tumor Heterogeneity. J. Control. Release133 (1), 2–3. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.09.074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Bae Y. H. Park K. (2011). Targeted Drug Delivery to Tumors: Myths, Reality and Possibility. J. Control. Release153 (3), 198–205. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2011.06.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Bangham A. D. Standish M. M. Watkins J. C. (1965). Diffusion of Univalent Ions across the Lamellae of Swollen Phospholipids. J. Mol. Biol.13 (1), 238–IN27. 10.1016/S0022-2836(65)80093-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Barker H. E. Paget J. T. E. Khan A. A. Harrington K. J. (2015). The Tumour Microenvironment after Radiotherapy: Mechanisms of Resistance and Recurrence. Nat. Rev. Cancer15 (7), 409–425. 10.1038/nrc3958

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Bauman J. Burris H. Clarke J. Patel M. Cho D. Gutierrez M. et al (2020). 798 Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of mRNA-4157 in Combination with Pembrolizumab in Subjects with Unresectable Solid Tumors (KEYNOTE-603): an Update. J. Immunother. Cancer8 (Suppl. 3), A477. 10.1136/jitc-2020-SITC2020.0798

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Bener S. Puglisi A. Yagci Y. (2020). pH‐Responsive Micelle‐Forming Amphiphilic Triblock Copolymers. Macromol. Chem. Phys.221 (11), 2000109. 10.1002/macp.202000109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Benne N. van Duijn J. Lozano Vigario F. Leboux R. J. T. van Veelen P. Kuiper J. et al (2018). Anionic 1,2-Distearoyl-Sn-Glycero-3-Phosphoglycerol (DSPG) Liposomes Induce Antigen-specific Regulatory T Cells and Prevent Atherosclerosis in Mice. J. Control. Release291, 135–146. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.10.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Berry J. S. Trappey A. F. Sears A. K. Vreeland T. J. Clifton G. T. Hale D. F. et al (2013). Biomarker Correlation to Clinical Response in Phase I/II Trials of the Adjuvant Breast Cancer Vaccine Neuvax (Nelipepimut-S or E75). Jco31 (15_Suppl. l), TPS3126. 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.tps3126

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Bonello F. D’Agostino M. Moscvin M. Cerrato C. Boccadoro M. Gay F. (2018). CD38 as an Immunotherapeutic Target in Multiple Myeloma. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther.18 (12), 1209–1221. 10.1080/14712598.2018.1544240

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Bota D. Piccioni D. Duma C. LaRocca R. Kesari S. Abedi M. et al (2021). 952 Phase II Trial of AV-GBM-1: Dendritic Cell Vaccine Pulsed with Lysate Enriched for Autologous Tumor-Initiating Cell Antigens in the Treatment of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. J. Immunother. Cancer9 (Suppl. 2), A1001. 10.1136/jitc-2021-SITC2021.952

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Brigden M. McKenzie M. (2000). Treating Cancer Patients. Practical Monitoring and Management of Therapy-Related Complications. Can. Fam. Physician46, 2258–2268.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Budd G. T. Johnson J. M. Esakov Rhoades E. Moore H. C. F. Kruse M. L. Roesch E. E. et al (2022). Phase I Trial of an Alpha-Lactalbumin Vaccine in Patients with Moderate- to High-Risk Operable Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). Jco40 (16_Suppl. l), TPS1125. 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.TPS1125

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Butts C. Maksymiuk A. Goss G. Soulières D. Marshall E. Cormier Y. et al (2011). Updated Survival Analysis in Patients with Stage IIIB or IV Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Receiving BLP25 Liposome Vaccine (L-BLP25): Phase IIB Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Trial. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol.137 (9), 1337–1342. 10.1007/s00432-011-1003-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Byrne J. D. Betancourt T. Brannon-Peppas L. (2008). Active Targeting Schemes for Nanoparticle Systems in Cancer Therapeutics. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.60 (15), 1615–1626. 10.1016/j.addr.2008.08.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Cai J. Fu J. Li R. Zhang F. Ling G. Zhang P. (2019). A Potential Carrier for Anti-tumor Targeted Delivery-Hyaluronic Acid Nanoparticles. Carbohydr. Polym.208, 356–364. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.12.074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Cappuzzo F. Giulia P. Angelo D. Lorenza L. Beatrice B. Giulio M. et al (2022). Combi-TED: A Multicenter, Phase II, Open-Label, Randomized Trial Evaluating Efficacy of OSE2021 Plus Docetaxel or OSE2021 Plus Nivolumab as Second-Line Therapy in Metastatic NSCLC Progressing after First-Line Chemo-Immunotherapy. J. Clin. Oncol.40 (16_Suppl. l), TPS9140. 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.TPS9140

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Chang V. Y. Wang J. J. (2018). Pharmacogenetics of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity. Curr. Oncol. Rep.20 (7), 52. 10.1007/s11912-018-0696-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Chen Q. Chen Y. Zhang W. Huang Q. Hu M. Peng D. et al (2020). Acidity and Glutathione Dual‐Responsive Polydopamine‐Coated Organic‐Inorganic Hybrid Hollow Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for Controlled Drug Delivery. ChemMedChem15 (20), 1940–1946. 10.1002/cmdc.202000263

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Chen Y. Fang L. Zhou W. Chang J. Zhang X. He C. et al (2021). Nitric Oxide-Releasing Micelles with Intelligent Targeting for Enhanced Anti-tumor Effect of Cisplatin in Hypoxia. J. Nanobiotechnol19 (1), 246. 10.1186/s12951-021-00989-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Cheng L. Zhang X. Tang J. Lv Q. Liu J. (2021). Gene-engineered Exosomes-Thermosensitive Liposomes Hybrid Nanovesicles by the Blockade of CD47 Signal for Combined Photothermal Therapy and Cancer Immunotherapy. Biomaterials275, 120964. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.120964

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Cheng Y. Tian H. (2017). Current Development Status of MEK Inhibitors. Molecules22 (10), 1551. 10.3390/molecules22101551

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Cini E. Faltoni V. Petricci E. Taddei M. Salvini L. Giannini G. et al (2018). Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs) Charged with HDAC Inhibitor for Targeted Epigenetic Modulation. Chem. Sci.9 (31), 6490–6496. 10.1039/C7SC05266A

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Corroyer-Dulmont A. Valable S. Falzone N. Frelin-Labalme A.-M. Tietz O. Toutain J. et al (2020). VCAM-1 Targeted Alpha-Particle Therapy for Early Brain Metastases. Neuro Oncol.22 (3), 357–368. 10.1093/neuonc/noz169

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  CowmanCowman S. J. Koh M. Y. (2022). Revisiting the HIF Switch in the Tumor and its Immune Microenvironment. Trends Cancer8 (1), 28–42. 10.1016/j.trecan.2021.10.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  D’Amico C. Fontana F. Cheng R. Santos H. A. (2021). Development of Vaccine Formulations: Past, Present, and Future. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res.11 (2), 353–372. 10.1007/s13346-021-00924-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Danhier F. Feron O. Préat V. (2010). To Exploit the Tumor Microenvironment: Passive and Active Tumor Targeting of Nanocarriers for Anti-cancer Drug Delivery. J. Control. Release148 (2), 135–146. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.08.027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Danhier F. (2016). To Exploit the Tumor Microenvironment: Since the EPR Effect Fails in the Clinic, what Is the Future of Nanomedicine?J. Control. Release244, 108–121. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.11.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Danışman-Kalındemirtaş F. Kari̇per İ. A. Hepokur C. Erdem-Kuruca S. (2021). Selective Cytotoxicity of Paclitaxel Bonded Silver Nanoparticle on Different Cancer Cells. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol.61, 102265. 10.1016/j.jddst.2020.102265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Das A. Ali N. (2021). Nanovaccine: an Emerging Strategy. Expert Rev. Vaccines20 (10), 1273–1290. 10.1080/14760584.2021.1984890

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Delany I. Rappuoli R. De Gregorio E. (2014). Vaccines for the 21st Century. EMBO Mol. Med.6 (6), 708–720. 10.1002/emmm.201403876

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Deng X. Klussmann S. Wu G.-M. Akkerman D. Zhu Y.-Q. Liu Y. et al (2008). Effect of LHRH-PE40 on Target Cells via LHRH Receptors. J. Drug Target.16 (5), 379–388. 10.1080/10611860802102324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Din F. U. Aman W. Ullah I. Qureshi O. S. Mustapha O. Shafique S. et al (2017). Effective Use of Nanocarriers as Drug Delivery Systems for the Treatment of Selected Tumors. Ijn12, 7291–7309. 10.2147/ijn.S146315

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Doñate F. Raitano A. Morrison K. An Z. Capo L. Aviña H. et al (2016). AGS16F Is a Novel Antibody Drug Conjugate Directed against ENPP3 for the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res.22 (8), 1989–1999. 10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-15-1542

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Dowling D. J. Levy O. (2015). Pediatric Vaccine Adjuvants. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J.34 (12), 1395–1398. 10.1097/inf.0000000000000893

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Esnault C. Leblond V. Martin C. Desgranges A. Baltus C. B. Aubrey N. et al (2022). Adcitmer , a New CD56‐targeting Monomethyl Auristatin E‐conjugated Antibody, Is a Potential Therapeutic Approach in Merkel Cell Carcinoma*. Br. J. Dermatol186 (2), 295–306. 10.1111/bjd.20770

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Fadeel B. Garcia-Bennett A. E. (2010). Better Safe Than Sorry: Understanding the Toxicological Properties of Inorganic Nanoparticles Manufactured for Biomedical Applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.62 (3), 362–374. 10.1016/j.addr.2009.11.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Fang J. Islam W. Maeda H. (2020). Exploiting the Dynamics of the EPR Effect and Strategies to Improve the Therapeutic Effects of Nanomedicines by Using EPR Effect Enhancers. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.157, 142–160. 10.1016/j.addr.2020.06.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Fang Z. Pan S. Gao P. Sheng H. Li L. Shi L. et al (2020). Stimuli-responsive Charge-Reversal Nano Drug Delivery System: The Promising Targeted Carriers for Tumor Therapy. Int. J. Pharm.575, 118841. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.118841

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Farzad N. Barati N. Momtazi-Borojeni A. A. Yazdani M. Arab A. Razazan A. et al (2019). P435 HER2/neu-Derived Peptide Conjugated to Liposomes Containing DOPE as an Effective Prophylactic Vaccine Formulation for Breast Cancer. Artif. Cells, Nanomedicine, Biotechnol.47 (1), 664–672. 10.1080/21691401.2019.1576702

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Feeney O. M. Crum M. F. McEvoy C. L. Trevaskis N. L. Williams H. D. Pouton C. W. et al (2016). 50 Years of Oral Lipid-Based Formulations: Provenance, Progress and Future Perspectives. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.101, 167–194. 10.1016/j.addr.2016.04.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  Fisher R. Pusztai L. Swanton C. (2013). Cancer Heterogeneity: Implications for Targeted Therapeutics. Br. J. Cancer108 (3), 479–485. 10.1038/bjc.2012.581

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  Fu B. Huang X. Deng J. Gu D. Mei Q. Deng M. et al (2018). Application of Multifunctional Nanomaterials in Cancer Vaccines (Review). Oncol. Rep.39 (3), 893–900. 10.3892/or.2018.6206

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Gagliardi A. Giuliano E. Venkateswararao E. Fresta M. Bulotta S. Awasthi V. et al (2021). Biodegradable Polymeric Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery to Solid Tumors. Front. Pharmacol.12. 10.3389/fphar.2021.601626

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  Gary E. N. Weiner D. B. (2020). DNA Vaccines: Prime Time Is Now. Curr. Opin. Immunol.65, 21–27. 10.1016/j.coi.2020.01.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  Gerlinger M. Rowan A. J. Horswell S. Larkin J. Endesfelder D. Gronroos E. et al (2012). Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med.366 (10), 883–892. 10.1056/NEJMoa1113205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Gerlowski L. E. Jain R. K. (1986). Microvascular Permeability of Normal and Neoplastic Tissues. Microvasc. Res.31 (3), 288–305. 10.1016/0026-2862(86)90018-X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Gopalakrishnan K. Venkatesan S. Low E. S. H. Hande M. P. (2018). Effects of Rapamycin on the Mechanistic Target of Rapamycin (mTOR) Pathway and Telomerase in Breast Cancer Cells. Mutat. Research/Genetic Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen.836, 103–113. 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2018.03.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Gorbet M.-J. Ranjan A. (2020). Cancer Immunotherapy with Immunoadjuvants, Nanoparticles, and Checkpoint Inhibitors: Recent Progress and Challenges in Treatment and Tracking Response to Immunotherapy. Pharmacol. Ther.207, 107456. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.107456

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Gou W. Li Z. Xu X. Shen J. Guo M. Zhou X. et al (2020). ZX-29, a Novel ALK Inhibitor, Induces Apoptosis via ER Stress in ALK Rearrangement NSCLC Cells and Overcomes Cell Resistance Caused by an ALK Mutation. Biochimica Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Mol. Cell Res.1867 (7), 118712. 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2020.118712

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Graziadio A. Zanda M. Frau S. Fleming I. N. Musolino M. Dall’Angelo S. et al (2016). NGR Tumor-Homing Peptides: Structural Requirements for Effective APN (CD13) Targeting. Bioconjugate Chem.27 (5), 1332–1340. 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6b00136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  Guan S. Rosenecker J. (2017). Nanotechnologies in Delivery of mRNA Therapeutics Using Nonviral Vector-Based Delivery Systems. Gene Ther.24 (3), 133–143. 10.1038/gt.2017.5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Guevara M. L. Persano S. Persano F. (2019). Lipid-Based Vectors for Therapeutic mRNA-Based Anti-cancer Vaccines. Cpd25 (13), 1443–1454. 10.2174/1381612825666190619150221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Gummow J. Masavuli M. G. Mekonnen Z. A. Li Y. Wijesundara D. K. Shrestha A. C. et al (2020). Safety Profile of a Multi-Antigenic DNA Vaccine against Hepatitis C Virus. Vaccines8 (1), 53. 10.3390/vaccines8010053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Gussone J. Reinhard C. Kasperovich G. Gherekhloo H. Merzouk T. Hausmann J. (2014). In-situ Investigation of Microcrack Formation and Strains in Ag-Cu-Based Multi-Metal Matrix Composites Analysed by Synchrotron Radiation. Mater. Sci. Eng. A612, 102–114. 10.1016/j.msea.2014.06.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Habrant D. Peuziat P. Colombani T. Dallet L. Gehin J. Goudeau E. et al (2016). Design of Ionizable Lipids to Overcome the Limiting Step of Endosomal Escape: Application in the Intracellular Delivery of mRNA, DNA, and siRNA. J. Med. Chem.59 (7), 3046–3062. 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01679

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Hajj K. A. Whitehead K. A. (2017). Tools for Translation: Non-viral Materials for Therapeutic mRNA Delivery. Nat. Rev. Mater2 (10), 17056. 10.1038/natrevmats.2017.56

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Hansen A. E. Petersen A. L. Henriksen J. R. Boerresen B. Rasmussen P. Elema D. R. et al (2015). Positron Emission Tomography Based Elucidation of the Enhanced Permeability and Retention Effect in Dogs with Cancer Using Copper-64 Liposomes. ACS Nano9 (7), 6985–6995. 10.1021/acsnano.5b01324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Hayashi T. Konishi I. (2021). Correlation of Anti-tumour Drug Resistance with Epigenetic Regulation. Br. J. Cancer124 (4), 681–682. 10.1038/s41416-020-01183-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Huang H. Liu Y. Ouyang X. Wang H. Zhang Y. (2020). Identification of a Peptide Targeting CD56. Immunobiology225 (4), 151982. 10.1016/j.imbio.2020.151982

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Huang J. Yuen D. Mintern J. D. Johnston A. P. R. (2021). Opportunities for Innovation: Building on the Success of Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccines. Curr. Opin. Colloid & Interface Sci.55, 101468. 10.1016/j.cocis.2021.101468

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Huang M.-Y. Jiang X.-M. Wang B.-L. Sun Y. Lu J.-J. (2021). Combination Therapy with PD-1/pd-L1 Blockade in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Strategies and Mechanisms. Pharmacol. Ther.219, 107694. 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107694

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Hubbard J. M. Cremolini C. Graham R. P. Moretto R. Mitchelll J. L. Wessling J. et al (2019). A Phase I Study of PolyPEPI1018 Vaccine Plus Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer with a Predictive Biomarker (OBERTO). Jco37 (15_Suppl. l), 3557. 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.3557

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Iavarone C. O’hagan D. T. Yu D. Delahaye N. F. Ulmer J. B. (2017). Mechanism of Action of mRNA-Based Vaccines. Expert Rev. Vaccines16 (9), 871–881. 10.1080/14760584.2017.1355245

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Ikeda M. Yamaguchi M. Kato K. Nakamura K. Shiina S. Ichikawa-Ando T. et al (2015). Pr1E11, a Novel Anti-TROP-2 Antibody Isolated by Adenovirus-Based Antibody Screening, Recognizes a Unique Epitope. Biochem. Biophysical Res. Commun.458 (4), 877–882. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.02.051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Jain A. K. Kumar S. Choy G. S. Hollemon D. Mittendorf E. A. (2015). Analytical Validation of Bond Oracle HER2 IHC System for Identifying Low to Intermediate HER2-Expressing Breast Cancer in NeuVax PRESENT Phase III Clinical Trial. Jco33 (15_Suppl. l), e11609. 10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.e11609

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Jain R. K. Stylianopoulos T. (2010). Delivering Nanomedicine to Solid Tumors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol.7 (11), 653–664. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2010.139

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Jiang L. Yuan C. M. Hubacheck J. Janik J. E. Wilson W. Morris J. C. et al (2009). Variable CD52 Expression in Mature T Cell and NK Cell Malignancies: Implications for Alemtuzumab Therapy. Br. J. Haematol.145 (2), 173–179. 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07606.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Kaufman N. E. M. Dhingra S. Jois S. D. Vicente M. D. G. H. (2021). Molecular Targeting of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGFR). Molecules26 (4), 1076. 10.3390/molecules26041076

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Kheirollahpour M. Mehrabi M. Dounighi N. M. Mohammadi M. Masoudi A. (2020). Nanoparticles and Vaccine Development. Pnt8 (1), 6–21. 10.2174/2211738507666191024162042

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Kikuchi J. Hori M. Iha H. Toyama-Sorimachi N. Hagiwara S. Kuroda Y. et al (2020). Soluble SLAMF7 Promotes the Growth of Myeloma Cells via Homophilic Interaction with Surface SLAMF7. Leukemia34 (1), 180–195. 10.1038/s41375-019-0525-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Kim J. H. Noh Y.-W. Heo M. B. Cho M. Y. Lim Y. T. (2012). Multifunctional Hybrid Nanoconjugates for Efficient In Vivo Delivery of Immunomodulating Oligonucleotides and Enhanced Antitumor Immunity. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.51 (38), 9670–9673. 10.1002/anie.201204989

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Kirillova A. Yeazel T. R. Asheghali D. Petersen S. R. Dort S. Gall K. et al (2021). Fabrication of Biomedical Scaffolds Using Biodegradable Polymers. Chem. Rev.121 (18), 11238–11304. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c01200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  Knotigová P. T. Zyka D. Mašek J. Kovalová A. Křupka M. Bartheldyová E. et al (2015). Molecular Adjuvants Based on Nonpyrogenic Lipophilic Derivatives of norAbuMDP/GMDP Formulated in Nanoliposomes: Stimulation of Innate and Adaptive Immunity. Pharm. Res.32 (4), 1186–1199. 10.1007/s11095-014-1516-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Kobayashi H. Watanabe R. Choyke P. L. (2014). Improving Conventional Enhanced Permeability and Retention (EPR) Effects; what Is the Appropriate Target?Theranostics4 (1), 81–89. 10.7150/thno.7193

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  Kocabas B. B. Almacioglu K. Bulut E. A. Gucluler G. Tincer G. Bayik D. et al (2020). Dual-adjuvant Effect of pH-Sensitive Liposomes Loaded with STING and TLR9 Agonists Regress Tumor Development by Enhancing Th1 Immune Response. J. Control. Release328, 587–595. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.09.040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Kumar P. Huo P. Liu B. (2019). Formulation Strategies for Folate-Targeted Liposomes and Their Biomedical Applications. Pharmaceutics11 (8), 381. 10.3390/pharmaceutics11080381

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  Leroux J.-C. (2017). Editorial: Drug Delivery: Too Much Complexity, Not Enough Reproducibility?Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.56 (48), 15170–15171. 10.1002/anie.201709002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Li J. Zhang J. Zhang Q. Bai Z. Zhao Q. He D. et al (2018). Syntheses and Anti-cancer Activity of CO-releasing Molecules with Targeting Galactose Receptors. Org. Biomol. Chem.16 (43), 8115–8129. 10.1039/c8ob01921e

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  Li R. Lyu Y. Luo S. Wang H. Zheng X. Li L. et al (2021). Fabrication of a Multi-Level Drug Release Platform with Liposomes, Chitooligosaccharides, Phospholipids and Injectable Chitosan Hydrogel to Enhance Anti-tumor Effectiveness. Carbohydr. Polym.269, 118322. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118322

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Li R. Zheng K. Yuan C. Chen Z. Huang M. (2017). Be Active or Not: the Relative Contribution of Active and Passive Tumor Targeting of Nanomaterials. Nanotheranostics1 (4), 346–357. 10.7150/ntno.19380

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Li S.-Y. Cheng H. Qiu W.-X. Liu L.-H. Chen S. Hu Y. et al (2015). Protease-Activable Cell-Penetrating Peptide-Protoporphyrin Conjugate for Targeted Photodynamic Therapy In Vivo. ACS Appl. Mat. Interfaces7 (51), 28319–28329. 10.1021/acsami.5b08637

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  Li Y. Chen R. Li Z. Cheng H. Li X. Li T. et al (2019). miR-204 Negatively Regulates Cell Growth and Metastasis by Targeting ROBO4 in Human Bladder Cancer. Onco Targets Ther.12, 8515–8524. 10.2147/OTT.S205023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Lin J. Peng C. Ravi S. Siddiki A. K. M. N. A. Zheng J. Balkus K. J. et al (2020). Biphenyl Wrinkled Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles for pH-Responsive Doxorubicin Drug Delivery. Materials13 (8), 1998. 10.3390/ma13081998

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Lindskog M. Laurell A. Kjellman A. Melichar B. Rey P. M. Zieliński H. et al (2022). Ilixadencel, a Cell-Based Immune Primer, Plus Sunitinib versus Sunitinib Alone in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Study. Eur. Urology Open Sci.40, 38–45. 10.1016/j.euros.2022.03.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  Liu J. Tang H. Peng M. Yuquan W. (2018). Research Progress on Clinical Translation of Anti-tumor Nanomedicines. Sci. Technol. Her.36 (22), 118–126.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  Liu J.-n. Bu W. Shi J. (2017). Chemical Design and Synthesis of Functionalized Probes for Imaging and Treating Tumor Hypoxia. Chem. Rev.117 (9), 6160–6224. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.6b00525

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  Liu J. Miao L. Sui J. Hao Y. Huang G. (2020). Nanoparticle Cancer Vaccines: Design Considerations and Recent Advances. Asian J. Pharm. Sci.15 (5), 576–590. 10.1016/j.ajps.2019.10.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Liu M. A. (2019). A Comparison of Plasmid DNA and mRNA as Vaccine Technologies. Vaccines7 (2), 37. 10.3390/vaccines7020037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  Liu R. Xiao W. Hu C. Xie R. Gao H. (2018). Theranostic Size-Reducible and No Donor Conjugated Gold Nanocluster Fabricated Hyaluronic Acid Nanoparticle with Optimal Size for Combinational Treatment of Breast Cancer and Lung Metastasis. J. Control. Release278, 127–139. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  Liu Z. Li Z. Zhang Y. Zhou T. Zhang J. You W. et al (2021). Interpretation of the 2020 Global Cancer Statistical Report. Electron. J. Compr. Cancer Ther.7 (02), 1–14.

  • Google Scholar

• 100

  Lopez S. Zeybek B. Santin A. D. (2018). Targeting Her2/neu in Uterine Serous Carcinoma: A Paradigm Shift in Management. Oncotarget9 (94), 36652–36653. 10.18632/oncotarget.26413

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  Loquai C. Hassel J. Brück P. Derhovanessian E. Cuk K. Lörks V. et al (2021). 549 an RNA-Lipoplex (RNA-LPX) Vaccine Demonstrates Strong Immunogenicity and Promising Clinical Activity in a Phase I Trial in Cutaneous Melanoma Patients with No Evidence of Disease at Trial Inclusion. J. Immunother. Cancer9 (Suppl. 2), A579. 10.1136/jitc-2021-SITC2021.549

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  Loquai C. Hassel J. C. Oehm P. Derhovanessian E. Jabulowsky R. A. Gold M. et al (2020). A Shared Tumor-Antigen RNA-Lipoplex Vaccine With/without Anti-PD1 in Patients with Checkpoint-Inhibition Experienced Melanoma. Jco38 (15_Suppl. l), 3136. 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.3136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  Mayer R. J. (2009). Targeted Therapy for Advanced Colorectal Cancer - More Is Not Always Better. N. Engl. J. Med.360 (6), 623–625. 10.1056/NEJMe0809343

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  Macias-Perez I. M. Flinn I. W. (2013). GS-1101: A Delta-Specific PI3K Inhibitor in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Curr. Hematol. Malig. Rep.8 (1), 22–27. 10.1007/s11899-012-0142-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  Maeda H. Sawa T. Konno T. (2001). Mechanism of Tumor-Targeted Delivery of Macromolecular Drugs, Including the EPR Effect in Solid Tumor and Clinical Overview of the Prototype Polymeric Drug SMANCS. J. Control Release74 (1-3), 47–61. 10.1016/s0168-3659(01)00309-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  Maeda H. (2001). SMANCS and Polymer-Conjugated Macromolecular Drugs: Advantages in Cancer Chemotherapy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.46 (1), 169–185. 10.1016/S0169-409X(00)00134-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  Maeda H. (1994). SMANCS/lipiodol. Gan Kagaku Ryoho21 (6), 907–913.

  • Google Scholar

• 108

  Maeda H. Wu J. Sawa T. Matsumura Y. Hori K. (2000). Tumor Vascular Permeability and the EPR Effect in Macromolecular Therapeutics: a Review. J. Control Release65 (1-2), 271–284. 10.1016/s0168-3659(99)00248-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  Maeda H. Bharate G. Y. Daruwalla J. (2009). Polymeric Drugs for Efficient Tumor-Targeted Drug Delivery Based on EPR-Effect. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm.71 (3), 409–419. 10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.11.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  Maeda H. Nakamura H. Fang J. (2013). 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.65 (1), 71–79. 10.1016/j.addr.2012.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Maeda H. Ueda M. Morinaga T. Matsumoto T. (1985). Conjugation of Poly(styrene-Co-Maleic Acid) Derivatives to the Antitumor Protein Neocarzinostatin: Pronounced Improvements in Pharmacological Properties. J. Med. Chem.28 (4), 455–461. 10.1021/jm00382a012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  Maity S. Chakraborti A. S. (2020). Formulation, Physico-Chemical Characterization and Antidiabetic Potential of Naringenin-Loaded Poly D, L Lactide-Co-Glycolide (N-PLGA) Nanoparticles. Eur. Polym. J.134, 109818. 10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109818

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Mamo T. Poland G. A. (2012). Nanovaccinology: The Next Generation of Vaccines Meets 21st Century Materials Science and Engineering. Vaccine30 (47), 6609–6611. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.08.023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  Maruggi G. Zhang C. Li J. Ulmer J. B. Yu D. (2019). mRNA as a Transformative Technology for Vaccine Development to Control Infectious Diseases. Mol. Ther.27 (4), 757–772. 10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.01.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  Masood F. (2016). Polymeric Nanoparticles for Targeted Drug Delivery System for Cancer Therapy. Mater. Sci. Eng. C60, 569–578. 10.1016/j.msec.2015.11.067

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  Matsumura Y. Maeda H. (1986). A New Concept for Macromolecular Therapeutics in Cancer Chemotherapy: Mechanism of Tumoritropic Accumulation of Proteins and the Antitumor Agent Smancs. Cancer Res.46 (12 Pt 1), 6387–6392.

  • Google Scholar

• 117

  Merli M. Ferrario A. Maffioli M. Olivares C. Stasia A. Arcaini L. et al (2016). New Uses for Brentuximab Vedotin and Novel Antibody Drug Conjugates in Lymphoma. Expert Rev. Hematol.9 (8), 767–780. 10.1080/17474086.2016.1205949

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  Mukherjee S. Patra C. R. (2016). Therapeutic Application of Anti-angiogenic Nanomaterials in Cancers. Nanoscale8 (25), 12444–12470. 10.1039/C5NR07887C

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  Nazha B. Inal C. Owonikoko T. K. (2020). Disialoganglioside GD2 Expression in Solid Tumors and Role as a Target for Cancer Therapy. Front. Oncol.10, 1000. 10.3389/fonc.2020.01000

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  Nel A. Ruoslahti E. Meng H. (2017). New Insights into “Permeability” as in the Enhanced Permeability and Retention Effect of Cancer Nanotherapeutics. ACS Nano11 (10), 9567–9569. 10.1021/acsnano.7b07214

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  Nguyen T. X. Huang L. Gauthier M. Yang G. Wang Q. (2016). Recent Advances in Liposome Surface Modification for Oral Drug Delivery. Nanomedicine11 (9), 1169–1185. 10.2217/nnm.16.9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  Noguchi Y. Wu J. Duncan R. Strohalm J. Ulbrich K. Akaike T. et al (1998). Early Phase Tumor Accumulation of Macromolecules: A Great Difference in Clearance Rate between Tumor and Normal Tissues. Jpn. J. Cancer Res.89 (3), 307–314. 10.1111/j.1349-7006.1998.tb00563.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  Nogueira-Librelotto D. R. Codevilla C. F. Farooqi A. Rolim C. M. B. (2017). Transferrin-Conjugated Nanocarriers as Active-Targeted Drug Delivery Platforms for Cancer Therapy. Cpd23 (3), 454–466. 10.2174/1381612822666161026162347

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  Noh Y.-W. Kim S.-Y. Kim J.-E. Kim S. Ryu J. Kim I. et al (2017). Multifaceted Immunomodulatory Nanoliposomes: Reshaping Tumors into Vaccines for Enhanced Cancer Immunotherapy. Adv. Funct. Mat.27 (8), 1605398. 10.1002/adfm.201605398

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  O'Leary B. Finn R. S. Turner N. C. (2016). Treating Cancer with Selective CDK4/6 Inhibitors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol.13 (7), 417–430. 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.26

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  Oberli M. A. Reichmuth Andreas A. M. Dorkin J. R. Mitchell M. J. Fenton O. S. Jaklenec A. et al (2017). Lipid Nanoparticle Assisted mRNA Delivery for Potent Cancer Immunotherapy. Nano Lett.17 (3), 1326–1335. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b03329

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  Palma E. Pasqua A. Gagliardi A. Britti D. Fresta M. Cosco D. (2018). Antileishmanial Activity of Amphotericin B-Loaded-PLGA Nanoparticles: An Overview. Materials11 (7), 1167. 10.3390/ma11071167

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  Pandian S. R. K. Pavadai P. Vellaisamy S. Ravishankar V. Palanisamy P. Sundar L. M. et al (2021). Formulation and Evaluation of Rutin-Loaded Solid Lipid Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Brain Tumor. Schmiedeb. Arch. Pharmacol.394 (4), 735–749. 10.1007/s00210-020-02015-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  Pardi N. Hogan M. J. Porter F. W. Weissman D. (2018). mRNA Vaccines - a New Era in Vaccinology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.17 (4), 261–279. 10.1038/nrd.2017.243

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  Park W. Heo Y.-J. Han D. K. (2018). New Opportunities for Nanoparticles in Cancer Immunotherapy. Biomater. Res.22 (1), 24. 10.1186/s40824-018-0133-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  Patel M. R. Bauer T. M. Jimeno A. Wang D. LoRusso P. Do K. T. et al (2020). A Phase I Study of mRNA-2752, a Lipid Nanoparticle Encapsulating mRNAs Encoding Human OX40L, IL-23, and IL-36γ, for Intratumoral (iTu) Injection Alone and in Combination with Durvalumab. Jco38 (15_Suppl. l), 3092. 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.3092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  Plaza-Oliver M. Santander-Ortega M. J. Lozano M. V. (2021). Current Approaches in Lipid-Based Nanocarriers for Oral Drug Delivery. Drug Deliv. Transl. Res.11 (2), 471–497. 10.1007/s13346-021-00908-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  Porciuncula A. Morgado M. Gupta R. Syrigos K. Meehan R. Zacharek S. J. et al (2021). Spatial Mapping and Immunomodulatory Role of the OX40/OX40L Pathway in Human Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res.27 (22), 6174–6183. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0987

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  Pu X. Zhao L. Li J. Song R. Wang Y. Yu K. et al (2019). A Polymeric Micelle with an Endosomal pH-Sensitivity for Intracellular Delivery and Enhanced Antitumor Efficacy of Hydroxycamptothecin. Acta Biomater.88, 357–369. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.02.039

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  Radionuclide (2021). Radionuclide Reduces PSA in mCRPC. Cancer Discov.11 (5), 998–999. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-NB2021-0325

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  Ragelle H. Danhier F. Préat V. Langer R. Anderson D. G. (2017). Nanoparticle-based Drug Delivery Systems: a Commercial and Regulatory Outlook as the Field Matures. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv.14 (7), 851–864. 10.1080/17425247.2016.1244187

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  Rapoport N. (2007). Physical Stimuli-Responsive Polymeric Micelles for Anti-cancer Drug Delivery. Prog. Polym. Sci.32 (8), 962–990. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2007.05.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  Rockman S. Laurie K. L. Parkes S. Wheatley A. Barr I. G. (2020). New Technologies for Influenza Vaccines. Microorganisms8 (11), 1745. 10.3390/microorganisms8111745

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  Rowshanravan B. Halliday N. Sansom D. M. (2018). CTLA-4: a Moving Target in Immunotherapy. Blood131 (1), 58–67. 10.1182/blood-2017-06-741033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  Sahin U. Karikó K. Türeci Ö. (2014). mRNA-based Therapeutics - Developing a New Class of Drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.13 (10), 759–780. 10.1038/nrd4278

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  Sahin U. Oehm P. Derhovanessian E. Jabulowsky R. A. Vormehr M. Gold M. et al (2020). An RNA Vaccine Drives Immunity in Checkpoint-Inhibitor-Treated Melanoma. Nature585 (7823), 107–112. 10.1038/s41586-020-2537-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  Sanchez L. Dardac A. Madduri D. Richard S. Richter J. (2021). B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA) in Multiple Myeloma: the New Frontier of Targeted Therapies. Ther. Adv. Hematol.12, 204062072198958. 10.1177/2040620721989585

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  Schleich N. Po C. Jacobs D. Ucakar B. Gallez B. Danhier F. et al (2014). Comparison of Active, Passive and Magnetic Targeting to Tumors of Multifunctional paclitaxel/SPIO-Loaded Nanoparticles for Tumor Imaging and Therapy. J. Control. Release194, 82–91. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.07.059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  Schulz M. Salamero-Boix A. Niesel K. Alekseeva T. Sevenich L. (2019). Microenvironmental Regulation of Tumor Progression and Therapeutic Response in Brain Metastasis. Front. Immunol.10. 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01713

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  Sheena P. A. Hitha H. Sreedevi A. Varghese T. (2020). Influence of Finite Size and Surface Effects on the Structural, Electrical and Magnetic Properties of Nanostructured Nickel Oxide. J. Mater Sci. Mater Electron31 (7), 5769–5778. 10.1007/s10854-020-03147-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  Shi M. Gu A. Tu H. Huang C. Wang H. Yu Z. et al (2021). Comparing Nanoparticle Polymeric Micellar Paclitaxel and Solvent-Based Paclitaxel as First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-small-cell Lung Cancer: an Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial. Ann. Oncol.32 (1), 85–96. 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.10.479

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  Shrestha B. Wang L. Brey E. M. Uribe G. R. Tang L. (2021). Smart Nanoparticles for Chemo-Based Combinational Therapy. Pharmaceutics13 (6), 853. 10.3390/pharmaceutics13060853

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  Sindhwani S. Syed A. M. Ngai J. Kingston B. R. Maiorino L. Rothschild J. et al (2020). The Entry of Nanoparticles into Solid Tumours. Nat. Mat.19 (5), 566–575. 10.1038/s41563-019-0566-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  Subbiah V. Cote G. J. (2020). Advances in Targeting RET-dependent Cancers. Cancer Discov.10 (4), 498–505. 10.1158/2159-8290.Cd-19-1116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  Sulczewski F. B. Liszbinski R. B. Romão P. R. T. Rodrigues Junior L. C. (2018). Nanoparticle Vaccines against Viral Infections. Arch. Virol.163 (9), 2313–2325. 10.1007/s00705-018-3856-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  Sun X. Huang X. Yan X. Wang Y. Guo J. Jacobson O. et al (2014). Chelator-Free 64Cu-Integrated Gold Nanomaterials for Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Guided Photothermal Cancer Therapy. ACS Nano8 (8), 8438–8446. 10.1021/nn502950t

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  Tan O. J. Loo H. L. Thiagarajah G. Palanisamy U. D. Sundralingam U. (2021). Improving Oral Bioavailability of Medicinal Herbal Compounds through Lipid-Based Formulations - A Scoping Review. Phytomedicine90, 153651. 10.1016/j.phymed.2021.153651

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  Tang B. Yong X. Xie R. Li Q.-W. Yang S.-M. (2014). Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide Receptor-Based Imaging and Treatment of Tumors. Int. J. Oncol.44 (4), 1023–1031. 10.3892/ijo.2014.2276

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  Tang L. Yang X. Yin Q. Cai K. Wang H. Chaudhury I. et al (2014). Investigating the Optimal Size of Anticancer Nanomedicine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.111 (43), 15344–15349. 10.1073/pnas.1411499111

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  Taya M. Hammes S. R. (2018). Glycoprotein Non-metastatic Melanoma Protein B (GPNMB) and Cancer: A Novel Potential Therapeutic Target. Steroids133, 102–107. 10.1016/j.steroids.2017.10.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  Tenchov R. Bird R. Curtze A. E. Zhou Q. (2021). Lipid Nanoparticles─From Liposomes to mRNA Vaccine Delivery, a Landscape of Research Diversity and Advancement. ACS Nano15 (11), 16982–17015. 10.1021/acsnano.1c04996

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  Teo S. P. (2021). Review of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. J. Pharm. Pract.0 (0), 089719002110096. 10.1177/08971900211009650

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  Thi T. T. H. Suys E. J. A. Lee J. S. Nguyen D. H. Park K. D. Truong N. P. (2021). Lipid-Based Nanoparticles in the Clinic and Clinical Trials: From Cancer Nanomedicine to COVID-19 Vaccines. Vaccines9, 359. 10.3390/vaccines9040359

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  Torchilin V. P. (2007). Targeted Pharmaceutical Nanocarriers for Cancer Therapy and Imaging. AAPS J.9 (2), E128–E147. 10.1208/aapsj0902015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  Torchilin V. P. (2007). Targeted Pharmaceutical Nanocarriers for Cancer Therapy and Imaging. AAPS J.9 (2), E128–E147. 10.1208/aapsj0902015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  Torchilin V. (2011). Tumor Delivery of Macromolecular Drugs Based on the EPR Effect. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.63 (3), 131–135. 10.1016/j.addr.2010.03.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  Trembley J. H. Chen Z. Unger G. Slaton J. Kren B. T. Van Waes C. et al (2010). Emergence of Protein Kinase CK2 as a Key Target in Cancer Therapy. BioFactors36 (3), 187–195. 10.1002/biof.96

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  Ulbrich K. Holá K. Šubr V. Bakandritsos A. Tuček J. Zbořil R. (2016). Targeted Drug Delivery with Polymers and Magnetic Nanoparticles: Covalent and Noncovalent Approaches, Release Control, and Clinical Studies. Chem. Rev.116 (9), 5338–5431. 10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00589

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  van de Donkvan de Donk N. W. C. J. (2018). Immunomodulatory Effects of CD38-Targeting Antibodies. Immunol. Lett.199, 16–22. 10.1016/j.imlet.2018.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  Wadhwa A. Aljabbari A. Lokras A. Foged C. Thakur A. (2020). Opportunities and Challenges in the Delivery of mRNA-Based Vaccines. Pharmaceutics12 (2), 102. 10.3390/pharmaceutics12020102

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  Wajant H. (2016). Therapeutic Targeting of CD70 and CD27. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets20 (8), 959–973. 10.1517/14728222.2016.1158812

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  Wang F. Li C. Cheng J. Yuan Z. (2016). Recent Advances on Inorganic Nanoparticle-Based Cancer Therapeutic Agents. Ijerph13 (12), 1182. 10.3390/ijerph13121182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  Wang J. Zhu S. Chen Q. Sun J. Xia Y. Zhang Y. et al (2020). Preclinical Evaluation of SIM1803-1A, a Small Molecule Trk/ROS1 Dual Inhibitor for Wild and Mutate NTRK/ROS1 Fusion Solid Malignancies. Jco38 (15_Suppl. l), e21663. 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.e21663

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  Wang P. Qu Y. Li C. Yin L. Shen C. Chen W. et al (2015). Bio-functionalized Dense-Silica Nanoparticles for MR/NIRF Imaging of CD146 in Gastric Cancer. Ijn10, 749–763. 10.2147/ijn.S62837

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  Wang R.-T. Zhi X.-Y. Yao S.-Y. Zhang Y. (2015). LFC131 Peptide-Conjugated Polymeric Nanoparticles for the Effective Delivery of Docetaxel in CXCR4 Overexpressed Lung Cancer Cells. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces133, 43–50. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.05.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  Wang X. Zhong X. Li J. Liu Z. Cheng L. (2021). Inorganic Nanomaterials with Rapid Clearance for Biomedical Applications. Chem. Soc. Rev.50 (15), 8669–8742. 10.1039/D0CS00461H

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  Wang Y. Liu D. Zhang T. Xia L. (2021). FGF/FGFR Signaling in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Carcinogenesis to Recent Therapeutic Intervention. Cancers13 (6), 1360. 10.3390/cancers13061360

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  Wang Y. Shen N. Wang Y. Zhang Y. Tang Z. Chen X. (2021). Self‐Amplifying Nanotherapeutic Drugs Homing to Tumors in a Manner of Chain Reaction. Adv. Mat.33 (7), 2002094. 10.1002/adma.202002094

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  Wei J. Hui A.-M. (2022). The Paradigm Shift in Treatment from Covid-19 to Oncology with mRNA Vaccines. Cancer Treat. Rev.107, 102405. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102405

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  Wei X. Shao B. He Z. Ye T. Luo M. Sang Y. et al (2015). Cationic Nanocarriers Induce Cell Necrosis through Impairment of Na+/K+-ATPase and Cause Subsequent Inflammatory Response. Cell Res.25 (2), 237–253. 10.1038/cr.2015.9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  Wiedermann U. Wiltschke C. Jasinska J. Kundi M. Zurbriggen R. Garner-Spitzer E. et al (2010). A Virosomal Formulated Her-2/neu Multi-Peptide Vaccine Induces Her-2/neu-specific Immune Responses in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: a Phase I Study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.119 (3), 673–683. 10.1007/s10549-009-0666-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  Wilhelm S. Tavares A. J. Dai Q. Ohta S. Audet J. Dvorak H. F. et al (2016). Analysis of Nanoparticle Delivery to Tumours. Nat. Rev. Mater1 (5), 16014. 10.1038/natrevmats.2016.14

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  Williams M. Li D. Fuji R. Fuh F. Prabhu S. Zheng B. et al (2008). Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics, and Tolerability of a B-Cell Specific Antibody-Targeted Chemotherapeutic Agent, Anti-CD79b-MCC-DM1, in Cynomolgus Monkeys. Blood112 (11), 4974. 10.1182/blood.V112.11.4974.4974

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  Wu P.-H. Opadele A. E. Onodera Y. Nam J.-M. (2019). Targeting Integrins in Cancer Nanomedicine: Applications in Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy. Cancers11 (11), 1783. 10.3390/cancers11111783

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  Xiang L. Du J. Xiang X. Tang T. Hu X. Xiang D. (2012). Research Progress on the Application of Liposomes in Antitumor Drugs. South-Central Pharm.10 (4), 290–294. 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2981.2012.04.016

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  Xu J. Liao K. Jiang H. Zhou W. (2018). Research Progress of Novel Inorganic Nanometre Materials Carriers in Nanomedicine for Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment. Artif. Cells, Nanomedicine, Biotechnol.46 (Suppl. 3), S492–S502. 10.1080/21691401.2018.1499665

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  Xu L. Zhang Z. Ding Y. Wang L. Cheng Y. Meng L. et al (2019). Bifunctional Liposomes Reduce the Chemotherapy Resistance of Doxorubicin Induced by Reactive Oxygen Species. Biomater. Sci.7 (11), 4782–4789. 10.1039/C9BM00590K

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  Yadav H. K. S. Dibi M. Mohammad A. Srouji A. E. (2018). Nanovaccines Formulation and Applications-A Review. J. Drug Deliv. Sci. Technol.44, 380–387. 10.1016/j.jddst.2018.01.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  Yao Y. Yao X. Zhu S. Zhu W. Li Z. Wang Q. et al (2017). Target Cell Killing Effects of CD20 Targeting Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells Derived from the Type II Anti-CD20 Antibody. Jco35 (15_Suppl. l), e14548. 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.e14548

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  Youn J. W. Woo J. W. Kim Y.-M. LimYoon M. C. Park S. Y. Seo S. S. et al (2020). Pembrolizumab Plus GX-188E Therapeutic DNA Vaccine in Patients with HPV-16-Positive or HPV-18-Positive Advanced Cervical Cancer: Interim Results of a Single-Arm, Phase 2 Trial. Lancet Oncol.21 (12), 1653–1660. 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30486-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  Youssoufian H. Amato R. J. Sweeney C. J. Chiorean E. G. Fox F. Katz T. et al (2008). Phase 1 Study of IMC-3G3, an IgG1 Monoclonal Antibody Targeting PDGFRα in Patients with Advanced Solid Malignancies. Jco26 (15_Suppl. l), 14617. 10.1200/jco.2008.26.15_suppl.14617

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  Zaki N. M. Nasti A. Tirelli N. (2011). Nanocarriers for Cytoplasmic Delivery: Cellular Uptake and Intracellular Fate of Chitosan and Hyaluronic Acid-Coated Chitosan Nanoparticles in a Phagocytic Cell Model. Macromol. Biosci.11 (12), 1747–1760. 10.1002/mabi.201100156

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  Zaman A. Wu W. Bivona G. (2019). Targeting Oncogenic BRAF: Past, Present, and Future. Cancers11 (8), 1197. 10.3390/cancers11081197

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  Zaman M. S. Johnson A. J. Petersingham G. Muench G. W. Dong Q. Wu M. J. (2019). Protein Kinase CK2 Is Involved in Zinc Homeostasis in Breast and Prostate Cancer Cells. BioMetals32 (6), 861–873. 10.1007/s10534-019-00218-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  Zamani P. Momtazi‐Borojeni A. A. Nik M. E. Oskuee R. K. Sahebkar A. (2018). Nanoliposomes as the Adjuvant Delivery Systems in Cancer Immunotherapy. J. Cell. Physiology233 (7), 5189–5199. 10.1002/jcp.26361

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  Zammarchi F. Corbett S. Adams L. Tyrer P. C. Kiakos K. Janghra N. et al (2018). ADCT-402, a PBD Dimer-Containing Antibody Drug Conjugate Targeting CD19-Expressing Malignancies. Blood131 (10), 1094–1105. 10.1182/blood-2017-10-813493

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  Zeng Q. Cai X. Cao Y. Zhou C. Yu L. Chen J. (2020). Preparation, Characterization, and Pharmacodynamic Study on Deep Second Degree Burns of Total Flavonoids Composite Phospholipids Liposome Gel of Oxytropis Falcata Bunge. Drug Dev. Industrial Pharm.46 (12), 2000–2009. 10.1080/03639045.2020.1841787

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  Zhang D. Wu W. Jiang X. (2019). Controllable Synthesis and Biological Applications of Single-Molecule Polymer Nanomaterials. Acta Polym. Sin.50 (3), 199–208. 10.11777/j.issn1000-3304.2019.18191

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  Zhang L. Wu S. Qin Y. Fan F. Zhang Z. Huang C. et al (2019). Targeted Codelivery of an Antigen and Dual Agonists by Hybrid Nanoparticles for Enhanced Cancer Immunotherapy. Nano Lett.19 (7), 4237–4249. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b00030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  Zhang Q. Guo Q. Chen Q. Zhao X. Pennycook S. J. Chen H. (2020). Highly Efficient 2D NIR‐II Photothermal Agent with Fenton Catalytic Activity for Cancer Synergistic Photothermal-Chemodynamic Therapy. Adv. Sci.7 (7), 1902576. 10.1002/advs.201902576

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  Zhang Z. Yang W. Ma F. Ma Q. Zhang B. Zhang Y. et al (2020). Enhancing the Chemotherapy Effect of Apatinib on Gastric Cancer by Co-treating with Salidroside to Reprogram the Tumor Hypoxia Micro-environment and Induce Cell Apoptosis. Drug Deliv.27 (1), 691–702. 10.1080/10717544.2020.1754528

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  Zhao Y. Xu J. Le V. M. Gong Q. Li S. Gao F. et al (2019). EpCAM Aptamer-Functionalized Cationic Liposome-Based Nanoparticles Loaded with miR-139-5p for Targeted Therapy in Colorectal Cancer. Mol. Pharm.16 (11), 4696–4710. 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.9b00867

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  Zhao Y. Zheng H. Wang X. Zheng X. Zheng Y. Chen Y. et al (2021). Preparation and Biological Property Evaluation of Novel Cationic Lipid-Based Liposomes for Efficient Gene Delivery. AAPS PharmSciTech22 (1), 22. 10.1208/s12249-020-01868-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  Zhao Z. Ma X. Zhang R. Hu F. Zhang T. Liu Y. et al (2021). A Novel Liposome-Polymer Hybrid Nanoparticles Delivering a Multi-Epitope Self-Replication DNA Vaccine and its Preliminary Immune Evaluation in Experimental Animals. Nanomedicine Nanotechnol. Biol. Med.35, 102338. 10.1016/j.nano.2020.102338

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  Zhou D. Chen H. Mpoy C. Afrin S. Rogers B. E. Garbow J. R. et al (2021). Radiosynthesis and Evaluation of Talazoparib and its Derivatives as PARP-1-Targeting Agents. Biomedicines9 (5), 565. 10.3390/biomedicines9050565

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  Zhuang X. Wu T. Zhao Y. Hu X. Bao Y. Guo Y. et al (2016). Lipid-enveloped Zinc Phosphate Hybrid Nanoparticles for Codelivery of H-2Kb and H-2Db-Restricted Antigenic Peptides and Monophosphoryl Lipid A to Induce Antitumor Immunity against Melanoma. J. Control. Release228, 26–37. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.02.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  Zhukov N. V. Tjulandin S. A. (2008). Targeted Therapy in the Treatment of Solid Tumors: Practice Contradicts Theory. Biochem. Mosc.73 (5), 605–618. 10.1134/S000629790805012X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  Zylberberg C. Matosevic S. (2016). Pharmaceutical Liposomal Drug Delivery: a Review of New Delivery Systems and a Look at the Regulatory Landscape. Drug Deliv.23 (9), 3319–3329. 10.1080/10717544.2016.1177136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar