Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.

Innovative approaches for cancer treatment: current perspectives and new challenges

Carlotta Pucci, Chiara Martinelli, Gianni Ciofani

ecancermedicalscience · 2019 · Review

doi:10.3332/ecancer.2019.961

Abstract

Every year, cancer is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide and, even though much progress has been achieved in medicine, there are still many issues that must be addressed in order to improve cancer therapy.For this reason, oncological research is putting a lot of effort towards finding new and efficient therapies which can alleviate critical side effects caused by conventional treatments.Different technologies are currently under evaluation in clinical trials or have been already introduced into clinical practice.While nanomedicine is contributing to the development of biocompatible materials both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, bioengineering of extracellular vesicles and cells derived from patients has allowed designing ad hoc systems and univocal targeting strategies.In this review, we will provide an in-depth analysis of the most innovative advances in basic and applied cancer research.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 17, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Cancer is one of the main causes of death worldwide, and in the past decade, many research studies have focused on finding new therapies to reduce the side effects caused by conventional therapies.

During cancer progression, tumours become highly heterogeneous, creating a mixed population of cells characterised by different molecular features and diverse responsivity to therapies. This heterogeneity can be appreciated both at spatial and temporal levels and is the key factor responsible for the development of resistant phenotypes promoted by a selective pressure upon treatment administration. Usually, cancer is treated as a global and homogeneous disease and tumours are considered as a whole population of cells. Thus, a deep understanding of these complex phenomena is of fundamental importance in order to design precise and efficient therapies.

Nanomedicine offers a versatile platform of biocompatible and biodegradable systems that are able to deliver conventional chemotherapeutic drugs in vivo, increasing their bioavailability and concentration around tumour tissues, and improving their release profile. Nanoparticles can be exploited for different applications, ranging from diagnosis to therapy.

Recently, extracellular vesicles (EVs), responsible for cancer development, microenvironment modification and required for metastatic progression, have been widely investigated as efficient drug delivery vehicles.

Natural antioxidants and many phytochemicals have been recently introduced as anti-cancer adjuvant therapies due to their anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic properties.

Targeted therapy is another branch of cancer therapy aiming at targeting a specific site, such as tumour vasculature or intracellular organelles, leaving the surroundings unaffected. This enormously increases the specificity of the treatment, reducing its drawbacks.

Another promising opportunity relies on gene therapy and expression of genes triggering apoptosis and wild type tumour suppressors, or the targeted silencing mediated by siRNAs, currently under evaluation in many clinical trials worldwide.

Thermal ablation of tumours and magnetic hyperthermia are opening new opportunities for precision medicine, making the treatment localised in very narrow and precise areas. These methods could be a potential substitute for more invasive practices, such as surgery.

Furthermore, new fields such as radiomics and pathomics are contributing to the development of innovative approaches for collecting big amounts of data and elaborate new therapeutic strategies and predict accurate responses, clinical outcome and cancer recurrence.

Taken all together, these strategies will be able to provide the best personalised therapies for cancer patients, highlighting the importance of combining multiple disciplines to get the best outcome.

In this review, we will provide a general overview of the most advanced basic and applied cancer therapies, as well as newly proposed methods that are currently under investigation at the research stage that should overcome the limitation of conventional therapies; different approaches to cancer diagnosis and therapy and their current status in the clinical context will be discussed, underlining their impact as innovative anti-cancer strategies.

Nanomedicine

Nanoparticles are small systems (1–1,000 nm in size) with peculiar physicochemical properties due to their size and high surface-to-volume ratio. Biocompatible nanoparticles are used in cancer medicine to overcome some of the issues related to conventional therapies, such as the low specificity and bioavailability of drugs or contrast agents. Therefore, encapsulation of the active agents in nanoparticles will increase their solubility/biocompatibility, their stability in bodily fluids and retention time in the tumour vasculature. Furthermore, nanoparticles can be engineered to be extremely selective for a precise target (see the “Targeted therapy and immunotherapy” section) and to release the drug in a controlled way by responding to a specific stimulus. This is the case of ThermoDox, a liposomal formulation that can release doxorubicin as a response to an increment of temperature.

Inorganic nanoparticles are generally used as contrast agents for diagnosis purposes. Among them, quantum dots are small light-emitting semiconductor nanocrystals with peculiar electronic and optical properties, which make them highly fluorescent, resistant to photobleaching and sensitive for detection and imaging purposes. Combined with active ingredients, they can be promising tools for theranostic applications. In a recent study, quantum dots coated with poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) were conjugated to anti-HER2 antibody and localised in specific tumour cells.

Superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPIONs) are usually exploited as contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) because they interact with magnetic fields. Five types of SPIONs have been tested for MRI: ferumoxides (Feridex in the US, Endorem in Europe), ferucarbotran (Resovist), ferucarbotran C (Supravist, SHU 555 C), ferumoxtran-10 (Combidex) and NC100150 (Clariscan). Ferucarbotran is currently available in few countries, while the others have been removed from the market. SPIONs have also been studied for cancer treatment by magnetic hyperthermia (see the “Thermal ablation and magnetic hyperthermia” section), and a formulation of iron oxide coated with aminosilane called Nanotherm has been already approved for the treatment of glioblastoma.

Gold nanoparticles have raised interest because of their optical and electrical properties and low toxicity. They are mainly used as contrast agents for X-ray imaging, computed tomography, photoacoustic imaging and photodynamic therapy. A nanoshell made of a silica core and a gold shell coated with PEG was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 and commercialised as AuroShell (Nanospectra) for the treatment of breast cancer by photodynamic therapy.

Organic nanoparticles are mainly used as delivery systems for drugs. Liposomes and micelles are both made of phospholipids, but they differ in their morphology. Liposomes are spherical particles having at least one lipid bilayer, resembling the structure of cell membranes. They are mainly used to encapsulate hydrophilic drugs in their aqueous core, but hydrophobic drugs can also be accommodated in the bilayer or chemically attached to the particles. Micelles, instead, own a hydrophobic core that can encapsulate hydrophobic drugs. Doxil, doxorubicin-loaded PEGylated liposomes, were the first nanoparticles approved by the FDA in 1995 to treat AIDS-associated Kaposi’s sarcoma. This formulation drastically reduces doxorubicin side effects. Since then, other liposomal formulations have been approved by the FDA for cancer therapy, such as Myocet and DaunoXome. Polymeric nanoparticles are made of biocompatible or natural polymers, such as poly(lactide-co-glycolide), poly(ε-caprolactone), chitosan, alginate and albumin. Some formulations have already been accepted by the FDA, such as Abraxane (albumin-paclitaxel particles for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma) and Ontak (an engineered protein combining interleukin-2 and diphtheria toxins for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s peripheral T-cell lymphomas).

As well as these systems, which have been either accepted or are under clinical investigation, it is worth mentioning some new nanoparticles currently undergoing testing at the research level, which should improve treatment performance. For example, solid lipid nanoparticles, made of lipids that are solid at body temperature, and fabricated to load hydrophobic drugs have been demonstrated to give a higher drug stability and prolonged release compared to other systems; however, the encapsulation efficiency is often low because of their high crystallinity. To overcome this issue, one or more lipids, liquid at room temperature (like oleic acid, for example), are included in the formulation. Lipid nanoparticles are good candidates for brain tumour therapy as they are able to cross the blood–brain barrier (BBB). A recent work showed that lipid nanoparticles loaded with SPIONs and temozolomide are efficient to treat glioblastoma since they combine the effect of the conventional chemotherapy and hyperthermia. Dendrimers are another family of nanoparticles composed of polymers with a repetitive branched structure and characterised by a globular morphology. Their architecture can be easily controlled, making their structure extremely versatile for many applications. For example, some recent studies show that poly-L-lysine (PLL) dendrimers loaded with doxorubicin induce anti-angiogenic responses in in vivo tumour models. Currently, there is only one clinical trial for a formulation named ImDendrim based on a dendrimer and on a rhenium complex coupled to an imidazolium ligand, for the treatment of inoperable liver cancers that do not respond to conventional therapies.

Extracellular vesicles for cancer diagnosis and therapy

EVs are classified in two categories based on their biogenesis. Specifically, exosomes are small vesicles of around 30–150 nm originated from endosomes in physiological and pathological conditions and released by a fusion of multivesicular bodies (MVBs) to the cell membrane, while shed microvesicles (sMVs), with a typical size of 50–1,300 nm, are present in almost any extracellular bodily fluid and are responsible for the exchange of molecular materials between cells. Exosomes are involved in cancer development and spreading, in the bidirectional communication between tumour cells and surrounding tissues, and in the construction of the microenvironment needed for pre-metastatic niche establishment and metastatic progression. Hence, circulating vesicles are clinically relevant in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and follow up. Exosomes are actually recognised as valid diagnostic tools, but they can also be isolated and exploited as anti-cancer vaccines or nanosized drug carriers in cancer therapy.

Nowadays, one of the main issues in cancer diagnosis is the early identification of biomarkers by non-invasive techniques. Obtaining a significant amount of information, before and during tumour treatment, should allow the monitoring of cancer progression and the efficacy of therapeutic regimens. Liquid biopsies to detect circulating tumour cells, RNAs, DNAs and exosomes have been used as indicators for personalised medicine. In recent years, exosomes detection has been validated as a reliable tool for preclinical practice in different cancer types, thanks to the identification of their content: double-stranded DNA (dsDNA), messenger RNA (mRNA), micro RNA (miRNA), long non-coding RNA (lncRNA), proteins and lipids. DsDNA has been detected in exosomes isolated from plasma and serum of different cancer cell types, and mutated genes involved in tumorigenesis, such as mutated KRAS and TP53, have been identified as disease predictors. Similarly, exosomal AR-V7 mRNA has been used as a prognostic marker of resistance to hormonal therapy in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Gene expression profiling of multiple RNAs from urinary exosomes has been adopted as an efficient diagnostic tool. LncRNAs isolated from serum exosomes have been exploited for disease prognosis in colorectal cancer patients, and multiple miRNAs allow one to distinguish between different lung cancer subtypes. GPC1-positive exosomes have been employed to detect pancreatic cancer, while circulating exosomal macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) was able to predict liver metastasis onset. Finally, multiple lipids present in urinary exosomes have been approved as prostate cancer indicators. Due to the high variability of patient classes and sample size, and in order to obtain clinically significant results for a fast and effective diagnosis, huge investments in exosome research will be required in the near future.

Exosomes could also be exploited as natural, biocompatible and low immunogenic nanocarriers for drug delivery in cancer therapy. They can be passively loaded by mixing purified vesicles with small drugs, or actively loaded by means of laboratory techniques, such as electroporation and sonication. Superparamagnetic nanoparticles conjugated to transferrin have been tested for the isolation of exosomes expressing transferrin receptor from mice blood. After incubation with doxorubicin, they have been used to target liver cancer cells in response to external magnetic fields, inhibiting cell growth both in vitro and in vivo. Kim et al. engineered mouse macrophage-derived exosomes with aminoethyl anisamide-PEG to target sigma receptor, overexpressed in lung cancer cells and passively loaded them with paclitaxel. These systems acted as targeting agents able to suppress metastatic growth in vivo.

Three clinical trials with loaded exosomes are currently ongoing for the treatment of different tumours: a phase I trial is evaluating the ability of exosomes to deliver curcumin to normal and colon cancer tissues; a phase II trial is investigating the in vivo performance of autologous tumour cell-derived microparticles carrying methotrexate in lung cancer patients and a clinical inquiry is focusing on autologous erythrocyte-derived microparticles loaded with methotrexate for gastric, colorectal and ovarian cancer treatment.

Recently, new strategies to produce ad hoc exosomes have been developed. Cells releasing exosomes have been genetically engineered to overexpress specific macromolecules, or modified to release exosomes with particular targeting molecules.

Exosomes derived from different cancer cells have already been exploited as cancer vaccines. Autologous dendritic cell-derived exosomes with improved immunostimulatory function have been tested in a phase II clinical trial for the activation of CD8+ T cells in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, observing disease stabilisation and a better overall survival. In a phase I trial, ascites-derived exosomes supplemented with granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) have been administered to colorectal cancer patients, soliciting a tumour-specific immune response.

Many issues related to exosomes clinical translation remain open and are mostly connected to the definition of preclinical procedures for isolation, quantification, storage and standard protocols for drug loading. It is becoming even more necessary to distinguish between tumour and healthy blood cell-derived vesicles to characterise their post-isolation half-life and to perform standard content analyses. For these purposes, innovative approaches and technologies have been set up, such as microarrays and specific monoclonal antibodies and RNA markers amplification strategies.

Natural antioxidants in cancer therapy

Every day, the human body undergoes several exogenous insults, such as ultraviolet (UV) rays, air pollution and tobacco smoke, which result in the production of reactive species, especially oxidants and free radicals, responsible for the onset of many diseases, including cancer. These molecules can also be produced as a consequence of clinical administration of drugs, but they are also naturally created inside our cells and tissues by mitochondria and peroxisomes, and from macrophages metabolism, during normal physiological aerobic processes.

Oxidative stress and radical oxygen species are able to damage DNA (genetic alterations, DNA double strand breaks and chromosomal aberrations) and other bio-macromolecules, such as lipids (membrane peroxidation and necrosis) and proteins (significantly changing the regulation of transcription factors and, as a consequence, of essential metabolic pathways).

The protective mechanisms our body has developed against these molecules are sometimes insufficient to counteract the huge damages produced. Recently, in addition to research into the roles of the physiological enzymes superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione peroxidase (GP), natural antioxidants such as vitamins, polyphenols and plant-derived bioactive compounds are being studied in order to introduce them as preventive agents and potential therapeutic drugs. These molecules have anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant properties and are found in many vegetables and spices. Vitamins, alkaloids, flavonoids, carotenoids, curcumin, berberine, quercetin and many other compounds have been screened in vitro and tested in vivo, displaying appreciable anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic properties, and have been introduced as complementary therapies for cancer.

Despite the advantages of using natural drugs, their translation into clinical practice remains difficult due to their limited bioavailability and/or toxicity. Curcumin, a polyphenolic compound extracted from turmeric (Curcuma longa), is a traditional Southeast Asian remedy with anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and chemopreventive and therapeutic activities. It has been shown to have cytotoxic effects in different kinds of tumours, such as brain, lung, leukaemia, pancreatic and hepatocellular carcinoma, with no adverse effects in normal cells at the effective therapeutic doses. Curcumin can modulate a plethora of cellular mechanisms; however, its biological properties, and as a consequence, the treatment duration and the efficient therapeutic doses, have not been completely elucidated yet. This molecule is highly lipophilic, poorly soluble in water and not very stable. Different strategies and specific carriers, such as liposomes and micelles, have been developed to improve its bioavailability. Currently, 24 clinical trials involving curcumin are ongoing and 23 have been already completed.

Berberine is an alkaloid compound extracted from different plants, such as Berberis. Recently, it has been demonstrated to be effective against different tumours and to act as a chemopreventive agent, modulating many signalling pathways. Like curcumin, it is poorly soluble in water; therefore, different nanotechnological strategies have been developed to facilitate its delivery across cell membranes; six clinical trials are open and one has been completed.

Quercetin, a polyphenolic flavonoid found in fruits and vegetable, has been proven to be effective to treat several tumours, such as lung, prostate, liver, colon and breast cancers, by binding cellular receptors and interfering with many signalling pathways. Interestingly, it has been shown to be effective also in combination with chemotherapeutic agents. Presently, seven clinical trials are open and four have been completed.

Targeted therapy and immunotherapy

One of the main problems of conventional cancer therapy is the low specificity of chemotherapeutic drugs for cancer cells. In fact, most drugs act both on healthy and diseased tissues, generating severe side effects. Researchers are putting a lot of effort into finding a way to target only the desired site. Nanoparticles have raised great interest for their tendency to accumulate more in tumour tissues due to the enhanced permeability and retention effect (EPR). This process, called passive targeting, relies on the small size of nanoparticles and the leaky vasculature and impaired lymphatic drainage of neoplastic tissues. Passive targeting, however, is difficult to control and can induce multidrug resistance (MDR). Active targeting, on the other hand, enhances the uptake by tumour cells by targeting specific receptors that are overexpressed on them. Nanoparticles, for example, can be functionalized with ligands that univocally bind particular cells or subcellular sites. Several kinds of ligands can be used, such as small molecules, peptides, proteins, aptamers and antibodies.

Folic acid and biotin are small molecules, whose receptors are overexpressed in tumour tissues. Several nanocarriers have been functionalized with folic acid to target ovarian and endometrial cancers: folic acid-conjugated polyethylene glycol-poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles delivering docetaxel increased drug cellular uptake by human cervical carcinoma cells. Small ligands are cheap and can be linked to nanoparticles by simple conjugation chemistry.

Different kinds of small peptides and proteins are also effective in active targeting. Angiopep-2 is a peptide that has raised great interest in the treatment of brain cancer, because it binds to low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein-1 (LRP1) of endothelial cells in the BBB, and it is also overexpressed in glioblastoma cancer cells. Bombesin peptide conjugated to poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles loaded with docetaxel was used to target the gastrin-releasing peptide receptor, overexpressed on cell surface of prostate, breast, ovarian, pancreatic and colorectal cancer cells. Transferrin is a serum glycoprotein overexpressed on many solid tumours, especially on glioblastoma multiforme cells, and on epithelial cells of the BBB. Transferrin-conjugated chitosan-PEG nanoparticles delivering paclitaxel exhibited a higher cytotoxicity towards transferrin-overexpressing human non-small cell lung cancer cells (NSCLCs) (HOP-62).

Aptamers are small synthetic single-stranded RNA or DNA oligonucleotides folded into specific shapes that make them capable of binding specific targets. Farokhzad et al. reported that the use of A10 RNA aptamer conjugated to docetaxel-loaded nanoparticles significantly enhances in vitro cytotoxicity. The same aptamer has been also used to prepare quantum dot-doxorubicin conjugates.

Antibodies are currently the most exploited ligands for active targeting. These proteins have a typical ‘Y’ shape, where the two arms are responsible for the selective interaction with the antigen. Antibodies can be used as immunoconjugates, when conjugated to a drug or nanoparticle, or naked. In the first case, their function is mainly to target a specific antigen overexpressed on cancer cells. Antibodies used for this purpose include those ones that bind to the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), the transferrin receptor (TfR) and the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). Rapamycin-PLGA nanoparticle conjugated to EGFR antibody exhibited higher cellular uptake by human breast adenocarcinoma cells (MCF-7), with enhanced apoptotic activity. Loperamide-loaded human serum albumin nanoparticles conjugated to antibodies that specifically bind transferrin receptor successfully crossed the BBB and delivered the drug to the desired site.

Naked antibodies or immunoconjugates can also be used in immunotherapy, which is a cancer treatment that aims at stimulating or restoring the immune system of the patient against cancer cells. Antibodies can act as markers for cancer cells to make them more vulnerable to the immune system response (non-specific immune stimulation), or as inhibitors for immune checkpoint proteins on cancer cell surface, that can modulate the action of T-cells. Several antibodies have been already tested and accepted by FDA for immunotherapy, such as rituximab (1997,), ibritumomab tiuxetan (2002,), trastuzumab emtansine (2013,), nivolumab (2014,) and pembrolizumab (2014,).

Immunotherapy can be achieved by another strategy called adoptive cell transfer (ACT) and it consists of isolating T-lymphocytes (T-cells) with the highest activity against cancer directly from the patient’s blood, expanding them ex vivo, and reinfusing them again into the patient. Autologous T-cells can be genetically engineered in vitro to express a chimaeric antigen receptor (CAR), which makes them more specific against cancer cell antigens. Different CARs can be designed to be directed against a certain cancer antigen. The genetic modification of T-cells can be achieved by different methods such as viral transduction, non-viral methods like DNA-based transposons, CRISPR/Cas9 or other plasmid DNA and mRNA transfer techniques (i.e., electroporation, encapsulation in nanoparticles). ACT protocols have been already adopted in clinical practice for advanced or recurrent acute lymphoblastic leukaemia and for some aggressive forms of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. For example, it has been shown that the treatment of end-stage patients affected by acute lymphocytic leukaemia with CAR T-cells led to a full recovery in up to 92% of patients. Despite these very promising results, much research is currently devoted to understanding the long-term side effects of CAR T-cell therapies and their fate within tumours, and to improving CAR T-cell expansion technologies.

Gene therapy for cancer treatment

Gene therapy is intended as the introduction of a normal copy of a defective gene in the genome in order to cure specific diseases. The first application dates back to 1990 when a retroviral vector was exploited to deliver the adenosine deaminase (ADA) gene to T-cells in patients with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Further research demonstrated that gene therapy could be applied in many human rare and chronic disorders and, most importantly, in cancer treatment. Approximately 2,900 gene therapy clinical trials are currently ongoing, 66.6% of which are related to cancer. Different strategies are under evaluation for cancer gene therapy: 1) expression of pro-apoptotic and chemo-sensitising genes; 2) expression of wild type tumour suppressor genes; 3) expression of genes able to solicit specific antitumour immune responses and 4) targeted silencing of oncogenes.

One approach relied on thymidine kinase (TK) gene delivery, followed by administration of prodrug ganciclovir to activate its expression and induce specific cytotoxicity. This has been clinically translated for the treatment of prostate cancer and glioma. In recent decades, different vectors carrying the p53 tumour suppressor gene have been evaluated for clinical applications. ONYX-015 has been tested in NSCLC patients and gave a high response rate when administered alone or together with chemotherapy. Gendicine, a recombinant adenovirus carrying wild-type p53 in head and neck squamous cell cancer had a similar success, inducing complete disease regression when combined with radiotherapy.

Despite many achievements, there are still some challenges to face when dealing with gene therapy, such as the selection of the right conditions for optimal expression levels and the choice of the best delivery system to univocally target cancer cells. Gene therapy also presents some drawbacks linked to genome integration, limited efficacy in specific subsets of patients and high chances of being neutralised by the immune system. Therefore, particular interest has been elicited by targeted gene silencing approaches.

RNA interference (RNAi) has been recently established as an efficient technology both for basic research and medical translation. Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) consist of double-stranded RNAs able to produce targeted gene silencing. This process is intracellularly mediated by the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC), responsible for cleaving the messenger RNA (mRNA), thus leading to interference with protein synthesis. This physiological mechanism has been demonstrated in many eukaryotes, including animals. A few years after RNAi discovery, the first clinical application for wet-age related macular degeneration treatment entered phase I clinical trial. Since cancer is triggered by precise molecular mechanisms, siRNAs can be rationally designed to block desired targets responsible for cell proliferation and metastatic invasion. This strategy relies on siRNA-mediated gene silencing of anti-apoptotic proteins, transcription factors (i.e., c-myc gene) or cancer mutated genes (i.e., K-RAS). Most of the clinical trials currently ongoing are based on local administration of siRNA oligonucleotides in a specific tissue/organ or on systemic delivery throughout the entire body. Using siRNA-based drugs has several advantages: 1) safety, since they do not interact with the genome; 2) high efficacy, because only small amounts can produce a dramatic gene downregulation; 3) possibility of being designed for any specific target; 4) fewer side effects when compared to conventional therapies and 5) low costs of production. However, siRNAs are relatively unstable in vivo and can be phagocytosed during blood circulation, excreted by renal filtration, or undergo enzymatic degradation. Occasionally, they can induce off-target effects or elicit innate immune responses, followed by specific inflammation. Since naked siRNAs are negatively charged hydrophilic molecules, they cannot spontaneously cross cell membranes. Consequently, different delivery strategies are currently under study, such as chemical modification, encapsulation into lipid or polymeric carriers or conjugation with organic molecules (polymers, peptides, lipids, antibodies, small molecules, for efficient targeting). Chemical modifications include the insertion of a phosphorothioate at 3’ end to reduce exonuclease degradation, the introduction of 2’ O-methyl group to obtain longer half-life in plasma and the modification by 2,4-dinitrophenol to favour membrane permeability. Nevertheless, the degradation of modified siRNAs often elicits cytotoxic effects; therefore, it is preferable to design ad hoc nanocarriers.

Different cationic lipid nanoparticles, such as liposomes, micelles and solid lipid nanoparticles, have been exploited for siRNA loading. Cationic liposomes interact with negatively charged nucleic acids, which can be easily transfected by simple electrostatic interactions. They can be constituted by 1,2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium propane (DOTAP) and N-{1-(2,3-dioleoyloxy) propyl]-N,N,N-trimethylammonium methyl sulphate (DOTMA). A theranostic agent consisting of an anticancer survivin siRNA entrapped in PEGylated liposomes has been developed to achieve simultaneous localisation inside tumour cells by means of entrapped MR agents and fluorophores and reduction of proliferation in vivo.

Neutral liposomes based on 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphatidylcholine (DOPC) have shown high efficacy in mice models of ovarian carcinoma and colorectal cancer. A phase I clinical trial is currently recruiting patients for evaluating the safety of siRNA-EphA2-DOPC when administered to patients with advanced and recurrent cancer.

Stable nucleic acid lipid particles (SNALPs) have been evaluated in non-human primates. SiRNAs have been encapsulated in a mixture of cationic lipids coated with a shell of polyethylene glycol (PEG). SNALPs entered a phase I clinical trial in patients affected by advanced solid tumours with liver involvement and a phase I/II trial for treating neuroendocrine tumours and adrenocortical carcinoma patients refractory to standard therapy.

SiRNAs can be condensed in cationic polymers such as chitosan, cyclodextrin and polyethylenimine (PEI). Chitosan is a natural polysaccharide that, due to its cationic charge, has been exploited as carrier for nucleic acids in vitro and in vivo. Specifically, a targeted siRNA has been delivered in mice xenografts of breast cancer. Cyclodextrin polymers coated with PEG, conjugated with human transferrin and carrying a siRNA called CALAA-01, inhibit tumour growth by reducing the expression of M2 subunit of ribonucleotide reductase (R2), and have entered a phase I clinical trial. PEI is able to form small cationic nanoparticles containing siRNAs and it has been exploited as antitumoural, upon loading with HER-2 receptor-specific siRNA. A phase II clinical trial is presently starting to evaluate siG12D LODER directed to mutated KRAS oncogene and encapsulated into a biodegradable polymeric matrix for locally treating advanced pancreatic cancer patients in combination with chemotherapy.

SiRNAs may be conjugated to peptides, antibodies and aptamers in order to improve their stability during circulation and to enhance cellular uptake. A success is represented by siRNAs targeting PSMA, overexpressed in this type of cancer.

The introduction of nanocarriers has largely improved siRNAs stability, pharmacokinetics and biodistribution properties, and the targeting specificity. Smart nanomaterials responsive to external (i.e., magnetic field, ultrasounds) and tumour-specific stimuli (i.e., acidic pH, redox conditions) are currently under the development for controlled release and reduction of undesired negative effects. Nanocarriers delivering siRNAs undergo a series of pH variations from blood circulation to intracellular environment and, for this reason, many pH responsive materials have been designed to favour cargo release under specific pH conditions. Poly(allylamine) phosphate nanocarriers, stable at physiological pH, have been developed to release siRNAs in the cytoplasm after disassembly at low endosomal pH.

Although there have been many successes, some questions remain open and make the clinical translation of the siRNA-based approach very challenging, such as the correct doses to be delivered to patients and the many variabilities observed between individuals and different stages of disease. Further research towards controlled release to reach only specific targets, and the set-up of the best personalised therapy for cancer patients will be necessary in the near future.

Thermal ablation and magnetic hyperthermia

Thermal ablation of tumours includes a series of techniques that exploit heat (hyperthermia) or cold (hypothermia) to destroy neoplastic tissues. It is known that cell necrosis occurs at temperatures lower than -40°C or higher than 60°C. Long exposures to temperatures between 41°C and 55°C are also effective for tumour cell damage. Moreover, it has been shown that cancer cells are more sensitive to high temperatures than healthy ones.

Hypothermic ablation is due to the formation of ice crystals upon cooling, which destroy cell membranes and finally kill cells. Argon gas is the preferred cooling agent because it can cool down the surrounding tissues to -160°C. Also, gases at their critical point, such as nitrogen, can be exploited since they have a higher heat capacity than argon. However, the technology to control and direct them is not well developed yet.

Hyperthermic ablation currently comprises radiofrequency (RF), microwave and laser ablation.

RF ablation is the most used in clinics, because it is effective and safe. An alternated current of RF waves is applied to a target zone by an insulated electrode tip, while a second electrode, needed to close the circuit, is placed on the skin surface. The interaction with the current causes the oscillation of ions in the extracellular fluid, which, in turns, produces heat. The more conductive the medium, the more effective the process. For this reason, RF ablation works very well in the liver and in other areas with a high content of water and ions, whereas it has a poor effect in lungs. Moreover, the efficiency of the treatment decreases with the size of the lesion, giving the best results for areas not larger than 3 cm2.

Microwave ablation is based on the electromagnetic interaction between microwaves and the polar molecules in tissues, like water, that causes their oscillation and the consequent increase in temperature. Unlike the electrical current in RF ablation, microwaves can propagate through any kind of tissue, and this allows high temperatures to be reached in a short amount of time, to have a deeper penetration and to treat larger areas of tumours.

Laser therapy exploits the properties of laser beams of being very narrow and extremely focused at a specific wavelength. This makes the treatment very powerful and precise, thus a promising alternative to conventional surgery. The absorption of the light emitted by the laser results in the heating and subsequent damage of the treated area. Depending on the specific application, different kinds of lasers can be used. Neodymium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Nd:YAG) lasers (wavelength of 1064 nm) and diode lasers (wavelength of 800–900 nm) are used to treat internal organs, since they have a penetration depth up to 10 cm. Conversely, CO2 lasers (10,600 nm), with a penetration depth of 10 μm up to 1 mm maximum are used for superficial treatments. Laser therapy is receiving a lot of attention in research because of its advantages compared to other ablation techniques, such as a higher efficacy, safety and precision, and a shorter treatment session needed to achieve the same results. Moreover, the fibres to transmit laser light are compatible with MRI, allowing for a precise measure of the temperature and the thermal dose. However, there are still some limitations to overcome, such as the need of a very skilled operator to place the fibre in the correct position.

Finally, a new way to heat tumour tissues, currently under study, is through magnetic hyperthermia. This technique exploits superparamagnetic or ferromagnetic nanoparticles that can generate heat after stimulation with an alternating magnetic field. The most studied systems in nanomedicine are SPIONs. The production of heat, in this case, is due to the alignment of magnetic domains in the particles when the magnetic field is applied, and the subsequent relaxation processes (Brownian and/or Neel relaxations) during which heat is released, when the magnetic field is removed and the magnetisation of the particles reverts to zero. Magnetic hyperthermia can reach any area of the body and SPIONs can also act as MRI contrast agents to follow their correct localisation before the stimulation. The particles can be coated with biocompatible polymers and/or lipid and functionalized with specific ligands to impart targeting properties. As already mentioned, until now, just a formulation of 15-nm iron oxide nanoparticles coated with aminosilane (Nanotherm) obtained approval for the treatment of glioblastoma. SPIONs have also been successfully encapsulated in lipid nanocarriers together with a chemotherapeutic agent to combine chemotherapy and hyperthermia.

Recent innovations in cancer therapy: Radiomics and pathomics

Efficient cancer therapy currently relies on surgery and, in approximately 50% of patients, on radiotherapy, that can be delivered by using an external beam source or by inserting locally a radioactive source (in this case, the approach is named brachytherapy), thus obtaining focused irradiation. Currently, localisation of the beam is facilitated by image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT), where images of the patient are acquired during the treatment allowing the best amount of radiation to be set. Thanks to the introduction of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), radiation fields of different intensities can be created, helping to reduce doses received by healthy tissues and thus limiting adverse side effects. Finally, by means of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), it has become feasible to convey an ablative dose of radiation only to a small target volume, significantly reducing undesired toxicity.

Unfortunately, radioresistance can arise during treatment, lowering its efficacy. This has been linked to mitochondrial defects; thus, targeting specific functions have proven to be helpful in restoring anti-cancer effects. A recent study has shown, for example, that radioresistance in an oesophageal adenocarcinoma model is linked to an abnormal structure and size of mitochondria, and the measurement of the energy metabolism in patients has allowed discrimination between treatment resistant and sensitive patients. Targeting mitochondria with small molecules acting as radiosensitizers is being investigated for gastrointestinal cancer therapy.

Cancer is a complex disease and its successful treatment requires huge efforts in order to merge the plethora of information acquired during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The ability to link the data collected from medical images and molecular investigations has allowed an overview to be obtained of the whole tridimensional volume of the tumour by non-invasive imaging techniques. This matches with the main aim of precision medicine, which is to minimise therapy-related side effects, while optimising its efficacy to achieve the best individualised therapy.

Radiomics and pathomics are two promising and innovative fields based on accumulating quantitative image features from radiology and pathology screenings as therapeutic and prognostic indicators of disease outcome. Many artificial intelligence technologies, such as machine learning application, have been introduced to manage and elaborate the massive amount of collected datasets and to accurately predict the treatment efficacy, the clinical outcome and the disease recurrence. Prediction of the treatment response can help in finding an ad hoc adaptation for the best prognosis and outcome. Nowadays, personalised medicine requires an integrated interpretation of the results obtained by multiple diagnostic approaches, and biomedical images are crucial to provide real-time monitoring of disease progression, being strictly correlated to cancer molecular characterisation.

Radiomics is intended as the high throughput quantification of tumour properties obtained from the analysis of medical images. Pathomics, on the other side, relies on generation and characterisation of high-resolution tissue images. Many studies are focusing on the development of new techniques for image analysis in order to extrapolate information by quantification and disease characterisation. Flexible databases are required to manage big volumes of data coming from gene expression, histology, 3D tissue reconstruction (MRI) and metabolic features (positron emission tomography, PET) in order to identify disease phenotypes.

Currently, there is an urgent need to define univocal data acquisition guidelines. Some initiatives to establish standardised procedures and facilitate clinical translation have been already undertaken, such as quantitative imaging network or the German National Cohort Consortium. Precise description of the parameters required for image acquisition and for the creation and use of computational and statistical methods are necessary to set robust protocols for the generation of models in radiation therapy. According to the US National Library of Medicine, approximately 50 clinical trials involving radiomics are currently recruiting patients, and a few have already been completed.

Conclusions and future perspectives

In recent years, research into cancer medicine has taken remarkable steps towards more effective, precise and less invasive cancer treatments (Figure 1). While nanomedicine, combined with targeted therapy, helped improving the biodistribution of new or already tested chemotherapeutic agents around the specific tissue to be treated, other strategies, such as gene therapy, siRNAs delivery, immunotherapy and antioxidant molecules, offer new possibilities to cancer patients. On the other hand, thermal ablation and magnetic hyperthermia are promising alternatives to tumour resection. Finally, radiomics and pathomics approaches help the management of big data sets from cancer patients to improve prognosis and outcome.

At the moment, the most frequent entries concerning cancer therapies in the database of clinical trials (www.clinicaltrials.gov) involve the terms targeted therapy, immunotherapy and gene therapy, highlighting that these are the most popular methodologies under investigation, especially because, as already mentioned before, they have been shown to be very promising and effective (Figure 2A). However, Figure 2B shows that the clinical trials started in the past decade on different therapies mentioned in this review (except for liposomes-based therapies) have increased in number, showing how the interest on these new approaches is quickly growing in order to replace and/or improve conventional therapies. In particular, radiomics, immunotherapy and exosomes are the entries whose number has increased the most in the last 10 years.

The current scenario for cancer research is wide, offering many possibilities for the constant improvement of treatment, considering not only patient recovery but also caring for their well-being during therapy. As summarised in Table 1, these new approaches offer many advantages compared to conventional therapies. However, some disadvantages still have to be overcome to improve their performances. Much progress has been made, but many others are likely to come in the near future, producing more and more ad hoc personalised therapies.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding declaration

This work was partially supported by the Fondazione CaRiPLo, grant no. 2018-0156 (Nanotechnological countermeasures against Oxidative stress in muscle cells Exposed to Microgravity—NOEMI) and by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement N°709613, SLaMM).

Authors’ contributions

Carlotta Pucci and Chiara Martinelli contributed equally to this work.

References 240

  1. 1.

    Dagogo-Jack I, Shaw AT. Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to cancer therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(2):81-94.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.166

  2. 2.
  3. 3.

    Kumar B, Garcia M, Murakami JL, et al. Exosome-mediated microenvironment dysregulation in leukemia. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016;1863(3):464-470.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbamcr.2015.09.017

  4. 4.

    Chikara S, Nagaprashantha LD, Singhal J, et al. Oxidative stress and dietary phytochemicals: role in cancer chemoprevention and treatment. Cancer Lett. 2018;413:122-134.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2017.11.002

  5. 5.
  6. 6.

    Bazak R, Houri M, El Achy S, et al. Cancer active targeting by nanoparticles: a comprehensive review of literature. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141(5):769-784.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00432-014-1767-3

  7. 7.

    Lebedeva IV, Su ZZ, Sarkar D, et al. Restoring apoptosis as a strategy for cancer gene therapy: focus on p53 and mda-7. Semin Cancer Biol. 2003;13(2):169-178.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1044-579x(02)00134-7

  8. 8.

    Shanker M, Jin J, Branch CD, et al. Tumor suppressor gene-based nanotherapy: from test tube to the clinic. J Drug Deliv. 2011.

    Not in our library10.1155/2011/465845

  9. 9.
  10. 10.

    Brace C. Thermal tumor ablation in clinical use. IEEE Pulse. 2011;2(5):28-38.

    Not in our library10.1109/mpul.2011.942603

  11. 11.

    Hervault A, Thanh NTK. Magnetic nanoparticle-based therapeutic agents for thermo-chemotherapy treatment of cancer. Nanoscale. 2014;6(20):11553-11573.

    Not in our library10.1039/c4nr03482a

  12. 12.
  13. 13.

    Aerts HJWL. The potential of radiomic-based phenotyping in precision medicine a review. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(12):1636-1642.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2631

  14. 14.
  15. 15.

    Aerts HJWL, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RTH, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun. 2014;5:4006.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms5006

  16. 16.

    Kong J, Cooper LAD, Wang F, et al. Machine-based morphologic analysis of glioblastoma using whole-slide pathology images uncovers clinically relevant molecular correlates. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e81049.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0081049

  17. 17.

    Tinkle S, Mcneil SE, Mühlebach S, et al. Nanomedicines: addressing the scientific and regulatory gap. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014;1313:35-56.

    Not in our library10.1111/nyas.12403

  18. 18.

    Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WCW. The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2012;14:1-16.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150124

  19. 19.

    Maeda H. Toward a full understanding of the EPR effect in primary and metastatic tumors as well as issues related to its heterogeneity. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2015;91:3-6.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.002

  20. 20.

    Gerlowski LE, Jain RK. Microvascular permeability of normal and neoplastic tissues. Microvasc Res. 1986;31(3):288-305.

    Not in our library10.1016/0026-2862(86)90018-x

  21. 21.

    Shi J, Kantoff PW, Wooster R, et al. Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(1):20-37.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2016.108

  22. 22.

    Shi J, Votruba AR, Farokhzad OC, et al. Nanotechnology in drug delivery and tissue engineering: from discovery to applications. Nano Lett. 2010;10(9):3223-3230.

    Not in our library10.1021/nl102184c

  23. 23.

    Sinha R. Nanotechnology in cancer therapeutics: bioconjugated nanoparticles for drug delivery. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006;5(8):1909-1917.

    Not in our library10.1158/1535-7163.mct-06-0141

  24. 24.

    Bregoli L, Movia D, Gavigan-Imedio JD, et al. Nanomedicine applied to translational oncology: a future perspective on cancer treatment. Nanomed. 2016;12(1):81-103.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2015.08.006

  25. 25.

    Kim EM, Jeong HJ. Current status and future direction of nanomedicine: focus on advanced biological and medical applications. Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;51(2):106-117.

    Not in our library10.1007/s13139-016-0435-8

  26. 26.

    May JP, Li S-D. Hyperthermia-induced drug targeting. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2013;10(4):511-527.

    Not in our library10.1517/17425247.2013.758631

  27. 27.

    Matea CT, Mocan T, Tabaran F, et al. Quantum dots in imaging, drug delivery and sensor applications. Int J Nanomed. 2017;12:5421-5431.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s138624

  28. 28.

    Gao J, Chen K, Miao Z, et al. Affibody-based nanoprobes for HER2-expressing cell and tumor imaging. Biomaterials. 2011;32(8):2141-2148.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.11.053

  29. 29.

    Leiner T, Gerretsen S, Botnar R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of atherosclerosis. European Radiology. 2005;15(6):1087-1099.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00330-005-2646-8

  30. 30.

    Boyer C, Whittaker MR, Bulmus V, et al. The design and utility of polymer-stabilized iron-oxide nanoparticles for nanomedicine applications. NPG Asia Materials. 2010;2:23-30.

    Not in our library10.1038/asiamat.2010.6

  31. 31.

    Sanchez C, Belleville P, Popall M, et al. Applications of advanced hybrid organic-inorganic nanomaterials: from laboratory to market. Chem Soc Rev. 2011;40(2):696-753.

    Not in our library10.1039/c0cs00136h

  32. 32.

    Sun T, Zhang YS, Pang B, et al. Engineered nanoparticles for drug delivery in cancer therapy. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2014;53(46):12320-12464.

    Not in our library10.1002/anie.201403036

  33. 33.

    Connor EE, Mwamuka J, Gole A, et al. Gold nanoparticles are taken up by human cells but do not cause acute cytotoxicity. Small. 2005;1(3):325-327.

    Not in our library10.1002/smll.200400093

  34. 34.

    Abadeer NS, Murphy CJ. Recent progress in cancer thermal therapy using gold nanoparticles. J Phys Chem C. 2016;120(9):4691-4716.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b11232

  35. 35.

    Zhong J, Wen L, Yang S, et al. Imaging-guided high-efficient photoacoustic tumor therapy with targeting gold nanorods. Nanomed. 2015;11(6):1499-1509.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2015.04.002

  36. 36.

    Stuchinskaya T, Moreno M, Cook MJ, et al. Targeted photodynamic therapy of breast cancer cells using antibody-phthalocyanine-gold nanoparticle conjugates. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2011;10(5):822-831.

    Not in our library10.1039/c1pp05014a

  37. 37.

    Gubernator J. Active methods of drug loading into liposomes: recent strategies for stable drug entrapment and increased in vivo activity. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2011;8(5):565-580.

    Not in our library10.1517/17425247.2011.566552

  38. 38.

    Narang AS, Delmarre D, Gao D. Stable drug encapsulation in micelles and microemulsions. Int J Pharm. 2007;345(1–2):9-25.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijpharm.2007.08.057

  39. 39.

    Barenholz Y. Doxil—the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J Control Release. 2012;160(2):117-134.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.03.020

  40. 40.

    Markman M. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of cancers of the breast and ovary. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2006;7(11):1469-1474.

    Not in our library10.1517/14656566.7.11.1469

  41. 41.

    Hofheinz RD, Gnad-Vogt SU, Beyer U, et al. Liposomal encapsulated anti-cancer drugs. Anticancer Drugs. 2005;16(7):691-707.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.cad.0000167902.53039.5a

  42. 42.

    Malam Y, Loizidou M, Seifalian AM. Liposomes and nanoparticles: nanosized vehicles for drug delivery in cancer. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2009;30(11):592-599.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tips.2009.08.004

  43. 43.

    Nasir A, Kausar A, Younus A. A review on preparation, properties and applications of polymeric nanoparticle-based materials. Polym-Plast Technol Eng. 2015;54(4):325-341.

    Not in our library10.1080/03602559.2014.958780

  44. 44.

    Waghmare AS, Grampurohit ND, Gadhave MV, et al. Solid lipid nanoparticles: a promising drug delivery system. Int Res J Pharmacy. 2012;3(4):100-107.

    Not in our library

  45. 45.

    Liu J, Xiao Y, Allen C. Polymer-drug compatibility: a guide to the development of delivery systems for the anticancer agent, ellipticine. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(1):132-143.

    Not in our library10.1002/jps.10533

  46. 46.

    Ganesan P, Narayanasamy D. Lipid nanoparticles: different preparation techniques, characterization, hurdles, and strategies for the production of solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers for oral drug delivery. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy. 2017;6:37-56.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.scp.2017.07.002

  47. 47.

    Müller RH, Radtke M, Wissing SA. Nanostructured lipid matrices for improved microencapsulation of drugs. Int J Pharm. 2002;242(1-2):121-128.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0378-5173(02)00180-1

  48. 48.

    Kreuter J, Ramge P, Petrov V, et al. Direct evidence that polysorbate-80-coated poly(butylcyanoacrylate) nanoparticles deliver drugs to the CNS via specific mechanisms requiring prior binding of drug to the nanoparticles. Pharm Res. 2003;20(3):409-416.

    Not in our library10.1023/a:1022604120952

  49. 49.

    Grillone A, Riva ER, Mondini A, et al. Active targeting of sorafenib: preparation, characterization, and in vitro testing of drug-loaded magnetic solid lipid nanoparticles. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4(11):1681-1690.

    Not in our library10.1002/adhm.201500235

  50. 50.

    Tapeinos C, Marino A, Battaglini M, et al. Stimuli-responsive lipid-based magnetic nanovectors increase apoptosis in glioblastoma cells through synergic intracellular hyperthermia and chemotherapy. Nanoscale. 2018;11(1):72-88.

    Not in our library10.1039/c8nr05520c

  51. 51.

    Gillies ER, Fréchet JMJ. Dendrimers and dendritic polymers in drug delivery. Drug Discov Today. 2005;10(1):35-43.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1359-6446(04)03276-3

  52. 52.

    Kesharwani P, Jain K, Jain NK. Dendrimer as nanocarrier for drug delivery. Prog Polym Sci. 2014;39(2):268-307.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2013.07.005

  53. 53.

    Al-jamal KT, Rubio N, Buddle J, et al. Cationic poly‑l‑lysine dendrimer complexes doxorubicin and delays tumor growth in vitro and in vivo. ACS Nano. 2013;7(3):1905-1917.

    Not in our library10.1021/nn305860k

  54. 54.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  55. 55.

    Colombo M, Raposo G, Théry C. Biogenesis, secretion, and intercellular interactions of exosomes and other extracellular vesicles. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2014;30:255-289.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-cellbio-101512-122326

  56. 56.

    Vlassov AV, Magdaleno S, Setterquist R, et al. Exosomes: current knowledge of their composition, biological functions, and diagnostic and therapeutic potentials. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1820(7):940-948.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.03.017

  57. 57.

    Thery C. Exosomes: secreted vesicles and intercellular communications. F1000 Biol Rep. 2011;3:15.

    Not in our library10.3410/b3-15

  58. 58.
  59. 59.

    Luga V, Wrana JL. Tumor-stroma interaction: revealing fibroblast-secreted exosomes as potent regulators of Wnt-planar cell polarity signaling in cancer metastasis. Cancer Res. 2013;73(23):6843-6847.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-1791

  60. 60.

    Suetsugu A, Honma K, Saji S, et al. Imaging exosome transfer from breast cancer cells to stroma at metastatic sites in orthotopic nude-mouse models. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(3):383-390.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2012.08.007

  61. 61.
  62. 62.

    Martinelli C. Exosomes: new biomarkers for targeted cancer therapy. Molecular Oncology: Underlying Mechanisms and Translational Advancements. 2017;129-157.

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    Siravegna G, Marsoni S, Siena S, et al. Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(9):531-548.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.14

  64. 64.
  65. 65.

    Thakur BK, Zhang H, Becker A, et al. Double-stranded DNA in exosomes: a novel biomarker in cancer detection. Cell Res. 2014;24(6):766-769.

    Not in our library10.1038/cr.2014.44

  66. 66.

    Kahlert C, Melo SA, Protopopov A, et al. Identification of double stranded genomic dna spanning all chromosomes with mutated KRAS and P53 DNA in the serum exosomes of patients with pancreatic cancer. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(7):3869-3875.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.c113.532267

  67. 67.

    Valadi H, Ekström K, Bossios A, et al. Exosome-mediated transfer of mRNAs and microRNAs is a novel mechanism of genetic exchange between cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2007;9(6):654-659.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb1596

  68. 68.

    Simpson RJ, Lim JWE, Moritz RL, et al. Exosomes: proteomic insights and diagnostic potential. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2009;6(3):267-283.

    Not in our library10.1586/epr.09.17

  69. 69.

    Yang S, Che SPY, Kurywchak P, et al. Detection of mutant KRAS and TP53 DNA in circulating exosomes from healthy individuals and patients with pancreatic cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2017;18(3):158-165.

    Not in our library10.1080/15384047.2017.1281499

  70. 70.

    Allenson K, Castillo J, San Lucas FA, et al. High prevalence of mutant KRAS in circulating exosome-derived DNA from early-stage pancreatic cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(4):741-747.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdx004

  71. 71.

    Del Re M, Biasco E, Crucitta S, et al. The detection of androgen receptor splice variant 7 in plasma-derived exosomal rna strongly predicts resistance to hormonal therapy in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):680-687.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.012

  72. 72.

    McKiernan J, Donovan MJ, O’Neill V, et al. A novel urine exosome gene expression assay to predict high-grade prostate cancer at initial biopsy. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(7):882-889.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0097

  73. 73.
  74. 74.

    Cazzoli R, Buttitta F, Di Nicola M, et al. MicroRNAs derived from circulating exosomes as noninvasive biomarkers for screening and diagnosing lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(9):1156-1162.

    Not in our library10.1097/jto.0b013e318299ac32

  75. 75.

    Melo SA, Luecke LB, Kahlert C, et al. Glypican-1 identifies cancer exosomes and detects early pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2015;523(7559):177-182.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature14581

  76. 76.

    Costa-Silva B, Aiello NM, Ocean AJ, et al. Pancreatic cancer exosomes initiate pre-metastatic niche formation in the liver. Nat Cell Biol. 2015;17(6):816-826.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncb3169

  77. 77.

    Skotland T, Ekroos K, Kauhanen D, et al. Molecular lipid species in urinary exosomes as potential prostate cancer biomarkers. Eur J Cancer. 2017;70:122-132.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2016.10.011

  78. 78.

    Sun D, Zhuang X, Xiang X, et al. A novel nanoparticle drug delivery system: the anti-inflammatory activity of curcumin is enhanced when encapsulated in exosomes. Mol Ther. 2010;18(9):1606-1614.

    Not in our library10.1038/mt.2010.105

  79. 79.

    Kim MS, Haney MJ, Zhao Y, et al. Development of exosome-encapsulated paclitaxel to overcome MDR in cancer cells. Nanomed. 2016;12(3):655-664.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2015.10.012

  80. 80.

    Qi H, Liu C, Long L, et al. Blood exosomes endowed with magnetic and targeting properties for cancer therapy. ACS Nano. 2016;10(3):3323-3333.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsnano.5b06939

  81. 81.

    Jang SC, Kim OY, Yoon CM, et al. Bioinspired exosome-mimetic nanovesicles for targeted delivery of chemotherapeutics to malignant tumors. ACS Nano. 2013;7(9):7698-7710.

    Not in our library10.1021/nn402232g

  82. 82.

    Yang T, Martin P, Fogarty B, et al. Exosome delivered anticancer drugs across the blood-brain barrier for brain cancer therapy in Danio Rerio. Pharm Res. 2015;32(6):2003-2014.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11095-014-1593-y

  83. 83.

    Kim MS, Haney MJ, Zhao Y, et al. Engineering macrophage-derived exosomes for targeted paclitaxel delivery to pulmonary metastases: in vitro and in vivo evaluations. Nanomed. 2018;14(1):195-204.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nano.2017.09.011

  84. 84.

    Hadla M, Palazzolo S, Corona G, et al. Exosomes increase the therapeutic index of doxorubicin in breast and ovarian cancer mouse models. Nanomed (Lond). 2016;11(18):2431-2441.

    Not in our library10.2217/nnm-2016-0154

  85. 85.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  86. 86.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  88. 88.

    Mizrak A, Bolukbasi MF, Ozdener GB, et al. Genetically engineered microvesicles carrying suicide mRNA/protein inhibit schwannoma tumor growth. Mol Ther. 2013;21(1):101-108.

    Not in our library10.1038/mt.2012.161

  89. 89.

    Ohno SI, Takanashi M, Sudo K, et al. Systemically injected exosomes targeted to EGFR deliver antitumor microrna to breast cancer cells. Mol Ther. 2013;21(1):185-191.

    Not in our library10.1038/mt.2012.180

  90. 90.

    Cho JA, Yeo DJ, Son HY, et al. Exosomes: a new delivery system for tumor antigens in cancer immunotherapy. Int J Cancer. 2005;114(4):613-622.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.20757

  91. 91.

    Lapierre V, Théry C, Virault-Rocroy P, et al. Updated technology to produce highly immunogenic dendritic cell-derived exosomes of clinical grade. J Immunother. 2010;34(1):65-75.

    Not in our library10.1097/cji.0b013e3181fe535b

  92. 92.

    Besse B, Charrier M, Lapierre V, et al. Dendritic cell-derived exosomes as maintenance immunotherapy after first line chemotherapy in NSCLC. Oncoimmunology. 2016;5(4):e1071008.

    Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2015.1071008

  93. 93.

    Dai S, Wei D, Wu Z, et al. Phase I clinical trial of autologous ascites-derived exosomes combined with GM-CSF for colorectal cancer. Mol Ther. 2008;16(4):782-790.

    Not in our library10.1038/mt.2008.1

  94. 94.

    Boriachek K, Islam MN, Möller A, et al. Biological functions and current advances in isolation and detection strategies for exosome nanovesicles. Small. 2018;14(6).

    Not in our library10.1002/smll.201702153

  95. 95.

    Cadet J, Douki T, Ravanat JL. Artifacts associated with the measurement of oxidized DNA bases. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105(10):1034-1039.

    Not in our library10.1289/ehp.105-1470384

  96. 96.

    Floyd RA, Watson JJ, Wong PK, et al. Hydroxyl free radical adduct of deoxyguanosine: sensitive detection and mechanisms of formation. Free Radic Res Commun. 1986;1(3):163-172.

    Not in our library10.3109/10715768609083148

  97. 97.

    Gupta RK, Patel AK, Shah N, et al. Oxidative stress and cancer: an overview. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(11):4405-4409.

    Not in our library10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.11.4405

  98. 98.

    Gille G, Sigler K. Oxidative stress and living cells. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 1995;40(2):131-152.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02815413

  99. 99.

    Halliwell B. Oxidative stress and cancer: have we moved forward? Biochem J. 2006;401(1):1-11.

    Not in our library10.1042/bj20061131

  100. 100.

    Katz L, Baltz RH. Natural product discovery: past, present, and future. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2016;43(2–3):155-176.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10295-015-1723-5

  101. 101.

    Bernardini S, Tiezzi A, Laghezza Masci V, et al. Natural products for human health: an historical overview of the drug discovery approaches. Nat Prod Res. 2018;32(16):1926-1950.

    Not in our library10.1080/14786419.2017.1356838

  102. 102.

    Iqbal J, Abbasi BA, Mahmood T, et al. Plant-derived anticancer agents: a green anticancer approach. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed. 2017;7(12):1129-1150.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.apjtb.2017.10.016

  103. 103.

    González-Vallinas M, González-Castejón M, Rodríguez-Casado A, et al. Dietary phytochemicals in cancer prevention and therapy: a complementary approach with promising perspectives. Nutr Rev. 2013;71(9):585-599.

    Not in our library10.1111/nure.12051

  104. 104.

    Kocaadam B, Şanlier N. Curcumin, an active component of turmeric (Curcuma longa), and its effects on health. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(13):2889-2895.

    Not in our library10.1080/10408398.2015.1077195

  105. 105.

    Imran M, Ullah A, Saeed F, et al. Cucurmin, anticancer, & antitumor perspectives: a comprehensive review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018;58(8):1271-1293.

    Not in our library10.1080/10408398.2016.1252711

  106. 106.

    Perrone D, Ardito F, Giannatempo G, et al. Biological and therapeutic activities, and anticancer properties of curcumin. Exp Ther Med. 2015;10(5):1615-1623.

    Not in our library10.3892/etm.2015.2749

  107. 107.

    Sordillo PP, Helson L. Curcumin and cancer stem cells: curcumin has asymmetrical effects on cancer and normal stem cells. Anticancer Res. 2015;35(2):599-614.

    Not in our library

  108. 108.

    Kumar G, Mittal S, Sak K, et al. Molecular mechanisms underlying chemopreventive potential of curcumin: current challenges and future perspectives. Life Sci. 2016;148:312-328.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.lfs.2016.02.022

  109. 109.

    Kunnumakkara AB, Bordoloi D, Harsha C, et al. Curcumin mediates anticancer effects by modulating multiple cell signaling pathways. Clin Sci (Lond). 2017;131(15):1781-1799.

    Not in our library10.1042/cs20160935

  110. 110.

    Wang YJ, Pan MH, Cheng AL, et al. Stability of curcumin in buffer solutions and characterization of its degradation products. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1997;15(12):1867-1876.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0731-7085(96)02024-9

  111. 111.

    Rahimi HR, Nedaeinia R, Sepehri Shamloo A, et al. Novel delivery system for natural products: nano-curcumin formulations. Avicenna J Phytomed. 2016;6(4):383-398.

    Not in our library

  112. 112.

    Liu W, Zhai Y, Heng X, et al. Oral bioavailability of curcumin: problems and advancements. J Drug Target. 2016;24(8):694-702.

    Not in our library10.3109/1061186x.2016.1157883

  113. 113.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  114. 114.

    Farooqi AA, Qureshi MZ, Khalid S, et al. Regulation of cell signaling pathways by berberine in different cancers: searching for missing pieces of an incomplete jig-saw puzzle for an effective cancer therapy. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(4).

    Not in our library10.3390/cancers11040478

  115. 115.

    Mohammadinejad R, Ahmadi Z, Tavakol S, et al. Berberine as a potential autophagy modulator. J Cell Physiol. 2019.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.28325

  116. 116.

    Bianchi S, Giovannini L. Inhibition of mTOR/S6K1/4E-BP1 signaling by nutraceutical sirt1 modulators. Nutr Cancer. 2018;70(3):490-501.

    Not in our library10.1080/01635581.2018.1446093

  117. 117.

    Wang ZP, Wu JB, Chen T-S, et al. In vitro and in vivo antitumor efficacy of berberine-nanostructured lipid carriers against H22 tumor. Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging—Proceedings of SPIE. 2015;9324.

    Not in our library10.1117/12.2079107

  118. 118.

    Kabary DM, Helmy MW, Abdelfattah E-ZA, et al. Inhalable multi-compartmental phospholipid enveloped lipid core nanocomposites for localized mTOR inhibitor/herbal combined therapy of lung carcinoma. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018;130:152-164.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejpb.2018.06.027

  119. 119.

    Shen R, Kim JJ, Yao M, et al. Development and evaluation of vitamin E D-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate-mixed polymeric phospholipid micelles of berberine as an anticancer nanopharmaceutical. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:1687-1700.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s103332

  120. 120.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  121. 121.

    Liu Y, Tang ZG, Lin Y, et al. Effects of quercetin on proliferation and migration of human glioblastoma U251 cells. Biomed Pharmacother. 2017;92:33-38.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2017.05.044

  122. 122.

    Murakami A, Ashida H, Terao J. Multitargeted cancer prevention by quercetin. Cancer Lett. 2008;269(2):315-325.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2008.03.046

  123. 123.

    Yang F, Song L, Wang H, et al. Quercetin in prostate cancer: Chemotherapeutic and chemopreventive effects, mechanisms and clinical application potential (review). Oncol Rep. 2015;33(6):2659-2668.

    Not in our library10.3892/or.2015.3886

  124. 124.

    Shih H, Pickwell GV, Quattrochi LC. Differential effects of flavonoid compounds on tumor promoter-induced activation of the human CYP1A2 enhancer. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2000;373(1):287-294.

    Not in our library10.1006/abbi.1999.1550

  125. 125.

    Brito AF, Ribeiro M, Abrantes AM, et al. Quercetin in cancer treatment, alone or in combination with conventional therapeutics? Curr Med Chem. 2015;22(26):305-339.

    Not in our library10.2174/0929867322666150812145435

  126. 126.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  127. 127.

    Alasvand N, Urbanska AM, Rahmati M, et al. Therapeutic nanoparticles for targeted delivery of anticancer drugs. Multifunctional Systems for Combined Delivery, Biosensing and Diagnostics. 2017;245-259.

    Not in our library10.1016/b978-0-323-52725-5.00013-7

  128. 128.

    Barua S, Mitragotri S. Challenges associated with penetration of nanoparticles across cell and tissue barriers: A review of current status and future prospects. Nano Today. 2014;9(2):223-243.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.nantod.2014.04.008

  129. 129.

    Xu S, Olenyuk BZ, Okamoto CT, et al. Targeting receptor-mediated endocytotic pathways with nanoparticles: rationale and advances. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(1):121-138.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.041

  130. 130.

    Hymel D, Peterson BR. Synthetic cell surface receptors for delivery of therapeutics and probes. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2012;64(9):797-810.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2012.02.007

  131. 131.

    Senol S, Ceyran AB, Aydin A, et al. Folate receptor α expression and significance in endometrioid endometrium carcinoma and endometrial hyperplasia. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(5):5633-5641.

    Not in our library

  132. 132.

    Tao W, Zhang J, Zeng X, et al. Blended nanoparticle system based on miscible structurally similar polymers: a safe, simple, targeted, and surprisingly high efficiency vehicle for cancer therapy. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4(8):1203-1214.

    Not in our library10.1002/adhm.201400751

  133. 133.

    Byrne JD, Betancourt T, Brannon-Peppas L, et al. Active targeting schemes for nanoparticle systems in cancer therapeutics. Advanced Drug Delivery Rev. 2008;60(15):1615-1626.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2008.08.005

  134. 134.

    Yu B, Tai HC, Xue W, et al. Receptor-targeted nanocarriers for therapeutic delivery to cancer. Mol Membr Biol. 2010;27(7):286-298.

    Not in our library10.3109/09687688.2010.521200

  135. 135.

    Demeule M, Currie JC, Bertrand Y, et al. Involvement of the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein in the transcytosis of the brain delivery vector Angiopep-2. J Neurochem. 2008;106(4):1534-1544.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1471-4159.2008.05492.x

  136. 136.

    Huang S, Li J, Han L, et al. Dual targeting effect of Angiopep-2-modified, DNA-loaded nanoparticles for glioma. Biomaterials. 2011;32(28):6832-6838.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.05.064

  137. 137.

    Kulhari H, Pooja D, Shrivastava S, et al. Peptide conjugated polymeric nanoparticles as a carrier for targeted delivery of docetaxel. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2014;117:166-173.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.02.026

  138. 138.

    Cornelio DB, Roesler R, Schwartsmann G. Gastrin-releasing peptide receptor as a molecular target in experimental anticancer therapy. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(9):1457-1466.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdm058

  139. 139.

    Recht L, Torres CO, Smith TW, et al. Transferrin receptor in normal and neoplastic brain tissue: implications for brain-tumor immunotherapy. J Neurosurg. 1990;72(6):941-945.

    Not in our library10.3171/jns.1990.72.6.0941

  140. 140.

    Daniels TR, Bernabeu E, Rodríguez JA, et al. The transferrin receptor and the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents against cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2012;1820(3):291-317.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbagen.2011.07.016

  141. 141.

    Muhamad N, Plengsuriyakarn T, Na-Bangchang K. Application of active targeting nanoparticle delivery system for chemotherapeutic drugs and traditional/herbal medicines in cancer therapy: a systematic review. Int J Nanomedicine. 2018;13:3921-3935.

    Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s165210

  142. 142.

    Ni X, Castanares M, Mukherjee A, et al. Nucleic acid aptamers: clinical applications and promising new horizons. Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(27):4206-4214.

    Not in our library10.2174/092986711797189600

  143. 143.

    Farokhzad OC, Cheng J, Teply BA, et al. Targeted nanoparticle-aptamer bioconjugates for cancer chemotherapy in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(16):6315-20.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0601755103

  144. 144.

    Bagalkot V, Zhang L, Levy-Nissenbaum E, et al. Quantum dot-aptamer conjugates for synchronous cancer imaging, therapy, and sensing of drug delivery based on Bi-fluorescence resonance energy transfer. Nano Lett. 2007;7(10):3065-3070.

    Not in our library10.1021/nl071546n

  145. 145.

    Sharkey RM, Goldenberg DM. Targeted therapy of cancer: new prospects for antibodies and immunoconjugates. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;56(4):226-243.

    Not in our library10.3322/canjclin.56.4.226

  146. 146.

    Acharya S, Dilnawaz F, Sahoo SK. Targeted epidermal growth factor receptor nanoparticle bioconjugates for breast cancer therapy. Biomaterials. 2009;30(29):5737-5750.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.008

  147. 147.

    Ulbrich K, Hekmatara T, Herbert E, et al. Transferrin- and transferrin-receptor-antibody-modified nanoparticles enable drug delivery across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;71(2):251-256.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.08.021

  148. 148.

    McCune JS. Rapid advances in immunotherapy to treat cancer. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;103(4):540-544.

    Not in our library10.1002/cpt.985

  149. 149.

    U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

    Not in our library

  150. 150.

    U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

    Not in our library

  151. 151.

    U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

    Not in our library

  152. 152.

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

    Not in our library

  153. 153.

    U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

    Not in our library

  154. 154.

    Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP, Yang JC, et al. Adoptive cell transfer: a clinical path to effective cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(4):299-308.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrc2355

  155. 155.

    Miliotou AN, Papadopoulou LC. CAR t-cell therapy: a new era in cancer immunotherapy. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2018;19(1):5-18.

    Not in our library10.2174/1389201019666180418095526

  156. 156.

    Friedmann T. A brief history of gene therapy. Nat Genet. 1992;2(2):93-98.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng1092-93

  157. 157.

    Rosenberg SA, Aebersold P, Cornetta K, et al. Gene transfer into humans–immunotherapy of patients with advanced melanoma, using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes modified by retroviral gene transduction. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(9):570-578.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejm199008303230904

  158. 158.

    Ginn SL, Amaya AK, Alexander IE, et al. Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2017: an update. J Gene Med. 2018;20(5):e3015.

    Not in our library10.1002/jgm.3015

  159. 159.

    Roth JA, Nguyen D, Lawrence DD, et al. Retrovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer to tumors of patients with lung cancer. Nat Med. 1996;2(9):985-991.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm0996-985

  160. 160.

    Griffith TST, Stokes B, Kucaba TA, et al. TRAIL gene therapy: from preclinical development to clinical application. Curr Gene Ther. 2009;9(1):9-19.

    Not in our library10.2174/156652309787354612

  161. 161.

    Freeman SM, Abboud C, Freeman SM, et al. The “bystander effect”: tumor regression when a fraction of the tumor mass is genetically modified. Cancer Res. 1993;53(21):5274-5283.

    Not in our library

  162. 162.

    Nasu Y, Saika T, Ebara S, et al. Suicide gene therapy with adenoviral delivery of HSV-tK gene for patients with local recurrence of prostate cancer after hormonal therapy. Mol Ther. 2007;15(4):834-840.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.mt.6300096

  163. 163.

    Natsume A, Yoshida J. Gene therapy for high-grade glioma: current approaches and future directions. Cell Adh Migr. 2008;2(3):186-191.

    Not in our library10.4161/cam.2.3.6278

  164. 164.

    Westphal M, Ylä-Herttuala S, Martin J, et al. Adenovirus-mediated gene therapy with sitimagene ceradenovec followed by intravenous ganciclovir for patients with operable high-grade glioma (ASPECT): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(9):823-833.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70274-2

  165. 165.

    Ahrendt SA, Hu Y, Buta M, et al. p53 mutations and survival in stage I non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a prospective study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(13):961-970.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/95.13.961

  166. 166.

    Raty J, Pikkarainen J, Wirth T, et al. Gene therapy: the first approved gene-based medicines, molecular mechanisms and clinical indications. Curr Mol Pharmacol. 2010;1(1):13-23.

    Not in our library10.2174/1874467210801010013

  167. 167.

    Elbashir SM, Harborth J, Lendeckel W, et al. Duplexes of 21-nucleotide RNAs mediate RNA interference in cultured mammalian cells. Nature. 2001;411(6836):494-498.

    Not in our library10.1038/35078107

  168. 168.

    Weiss B, Davidkova G, Zhou LW. Antisense RNA gene therapy for studying and modulating biological processes. Cell Mol Life Sci. 1999;55(3):334-358.

    Not in our library10.1007/s000180050296

  169. 169.

    Whelan J. First clinical data on RNAi. Drug Discov Today. 2005;10(15):1014-1015.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1359-6446(05)03547-6

  170. 170.

    Jia LT, Chen SY, Yang AG. Cancer gene therapy targeting cellular apoptosis machinery. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38(7):868-876.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.06.008

  171. 171.

    Putney SD, Brown J, Cucco C, et al. Enhanced anti-tumor effects with microencapsulated c-myc antisense oligonucleotide. Antisense Nucleic Acid Drug Dev. 1999;9(5):451-458.

    Not in our library10.1089/oli.1.1999.9.451

  172. 172.

    Vita M, Henriksson M. The Myc oncoprotein as a therapeutic target for human cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2006;16(4):318-330.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2006.07.015

  173. 173.

    Fleming JB. Molecular consequences of silencing mutant k-ras in pancreatic cancer cells: justification for k-ras-directed therapy. Mol Cancer Res. 2005;3(7):413-423.

    Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-04-0206

  174. 174.

    Scanlon K. Anti-genes: sirna, ribozymes and antisense. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2005;5(5):415-420.

    Not in our library10.2174/1389201043376689

  175. 175.

    Fire AZ. Gene silencing by double-stranded RNA. Cell Death Differ. 2007;14(12):1998.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.cdd.4402253

  176. 176.

    Bora RS, Gupta D, Mukkur TKS, et al. RNA interference therapeutics for cancer: challenges and opportunities (review). Mol Med Rep. 2012;6(1):9-15.

    Not in our library10.3892/mmr.2012.871

  177. 177.

    Van De Water FM, Boerman OC, Wouterse AC, et al. Intravenously administered short interfering RNA accumulates in the kidney and selectively suppresses gene function in renal proximal tubules. Drug Metab Dispos. 2006;34(8):1393-1397.

    Not in our library10.1124/dmd.106.009555

  178. 178.

    Jackson AL, Linsley PS. Recognizing and avoiding siRNA off-target effects for target identification and therapeutic application. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(1):57-67.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrd3010

  179. 179.

    Hornung V, Guenthner-Biller M, Bourquin C, et al. Sequence-specific potent induction of IFN-α by short interfering RNA in plasmacytoid dendritic cells through TLR7. Nat Med. 2005;11(3):263-270.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm1191

  180. 180.

    Judge AD, Sood V, Shaw JR, et al. Sequence-dependent stimulation of the mammalian innate immune response by synthetic siRNA. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(4):457-462.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt1081

  181. 181.

    Martina MS, Nicolas V, Wilhelm C, et al. The in vitro kinetics of the interactions between PEG-ylated magnetic-fluid-loaded liposomes and macrophages. Biomaterials. 2007;28(28):4143-4153.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.05.025

  182. 182.

    Whitehead KA, Langer R, Anderson DG. Knocking down barriers: advances in siRNA delivery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8(2):129-138.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrd2742

  183. 183.

    Xu C fei, Wang J. Delivery systems for siRNA drug development in cancer therapy. Asian J Pharm Sci. 2015;10(1):1-12.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajps.2014.08.011

  184. 184.

    Czauderna F, Fechtner M, Dames S, et al. Structural variations and stabilising modifications of synthetic siRNAs in mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31(11):2705-2716.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkg393

  185. 185.

    Liao H, Wang JH. Biomembrane-permeable and ribonuclease-resistant siRNA with enhanced activity. Oligonucleotides. 2005;15(3):196-205.

    Not in our library10.1089/oli.2005.15.196

  186. 186.

    Hall AHS, Wan J, Shaughnessy EE, et al. RNA interference using boranophosphate siRNAs: structure-activity relationships. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(20):5991-6000.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkh936

  187. 187.

    Elouahabi A, Ruysschaert JM. Formation and intracellular trafficking of lipoplexes and polyplexes. Mol Ther. 2005;11(3):336-347.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ymthe.2004.12.006

  188. 188.

    Sarisozen C, Salzano G, Torchilin VP. Recent advances in siRNA delivery. Biomol Concepts. 2015;6(5–6):321-341.

    Not in our library10.1515/bmc-2015-0019

  189. 189.

    Kim HS, Song IH, Kim JC, et al. In vitro and in vivo gene-transferring characteristics of novel cationic lipids, DMKD (O,O’-dimyristyl-N-lysyl aspartate) and DMKE (O,O’-dimyristyl-N-lysyl glutamate). J Control Release. 2006;115(2):234-241.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.08.003

  190. 190.

    Kenny GD, Kamaly N, Kalber TL, et al. Novel multifunctional nanoparticle mediates siRNA tumour delivery, visualisation and therapeutic tumour reduction in vivo. J Control Release. 2011;149(2):111-116.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.09.020

  191. 191.

    Halder J, Kamat AA, Landen CN, et al. Focal adhesion kinase targeting using in vivo short interfering RNA delivery in neutral liposomes for ovarian carcinoma therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(16):4916-4924.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0021

  192. 192.

    Gray MJ, Van Buren G, Dallas NA, et al. Therapeutic targeting of neuropilin-2 on colorectal carcinoma cells implanted in the murine liver. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(2):109-120.

    Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djm279

  193. 193.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  194. 194.

    Soutschek J, Akinc A, Bramlage B, et al. Therapeutic silencing of an endogenous gene by systemic administration of modified siRNAs. Nature. 2004;432(7014):173-178.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature03121

  195. 195.

    Rossi JJ. RNAi therapeutics: SNALPing siRNAs in vivo. Gene Ther. 2006;13(7):583-584.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.gt.3302661

  196. 196.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  197. 197.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  198. 198.

    Mao S, Sun W, Kissel T. Chitosan-based formulations for delivery of DNA and siRNA. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2010;62(1):12-27.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.addr.2009.08.004

  199. 199.

    Pillé J-YY, Li H, Blot E, et al. Intravenous delivery of anti-RhoA small interfering RNA loaded in nanoparticles of chitosan in mice: safety and efficacy in xenografted aggressive breast cancer. Hum Gene Ther. 2006;17(10):1019-1026.

    Not in our library10.1089/hum.2006.17.1019

  200. 200.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  201. 201.

    Urban-Klein B, Werth S, Abuharbeid S, et al. RNAi-mediated gene-targeting through systemic application of polyethylenimine (PEI)-complexed siRNA in vivo. Gene Ther. 2005;12(5):461-466.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.gt.3302425

  202. 202.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

  203. 203.

    Jeong JH, Mok H, Oh YK, et al. SiRNA conjugate delivery systems. Bioconjug Chem. 2009;20(1):5-14.

    Not in our library10.1021/bc800278e

  204. 204.

    McNamara JO, Andrechek ER, Wang Y, et al. Cell type-specific delivery of siRNAs with aptamer-siRNA chimeras. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(8):1005-1015.

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt1223

  205. 205.

    Gallas A, Alexander C, Davies MC, et al. Chemistry and formulations for siRNA therapeutics. Chem Soc Rev. 2013;42(20):7983-7997.

    Not in our library10.1039/c3cs35520a

  206. 206.

    Williford J-MM, Wu J, Ren Y, et al. Recent advances in nanoparticle-mediated sirna delivery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2014;16:347-370.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071813-105119

  207. 207.

    Zhou J, Wu Y, Wang C, et al. pH-sensitive nanomicelles for high-efficiency sirna delivery in vitro and in vivo: an insight into the design of polycations with robust cytosolic release. Nano Lett. 2016;16(11):6916-6923.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b02915

  208. 208.

    Sun CY, Shen S, Xu CF, et al. Tumor acidity-sensitive polymeric vector for active targeted sirna delivery. J Am Chem Soc. 2015;137(48):15217-15224.

    Not in our library10.1021/jacs.5b09602

  209. 209.

    Truong NP, Gu W, Prasadam I, et al. An influenza virus-inspired polymer system for the timed release of siRNA. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1902.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms2905

  210. 210.

    Andreozzi P, Diamanti E, Py-Daniel KR, et al. Exploring the pH sensitivity of poly(allylamine) phosphate supramolecular nanocarriers for intracellular siRNA delivery. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9(44):38242-38254.

    Not in our library10.1021/acsami.7b11132

  211. 211.

    van der Zee J. Heating the patient: a promising approach? Ann Oncol. 2002;13(8):1173-1184.

    Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdf280

  212. 212.

    Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. 2005;42(5):1208-1236.

    Not in our library10.1002/hep.20933

  213. 213.

    Lencioni R, Crocetti L. Image-guided thermal ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2008;66(3):200-207.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.critrevonc.2008.01.003

  214. 214.

    Kudo M. Local ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and future perspectives. J Gastroenterol. 2004;39(3):205-214.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00535-003-1280-y

  215. 215.

    Brace CL. Radiofrequency and microwave ablation of the liver, lung, kidney, and bone: what are the differences? Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38(3):135-143.

    Not in our library10.1067/j.cpradiol.2007.10.001

  216. 216.

    Schramm W, Yang D, Haemmerich D. Contribution of direct heating, thermal conduction and perfusion during radiofrequency and microwave ablation. Open Biomed Eng J. 2007;1:47-52.

    Not in our library10.2174/1874120700701010047

  217. 217.

    Sartori S, Tombesi P, Di Vece F. Radiofrequency, microwave, and laser ablation of liver tumors: time to move toward a tailored ablation technique? Hepatoma Res. 2015;1:52-57.

    Not in our library10.4103/2394-5079.155697

  218. 218.

    Schena E, Saccomandi P, Fong Y. Laser ablation for cancer: past, present and future. J Funct Biomater. 2017;8(2).

    Not in our library10.3390/jfb8020019

  219. 219.

    Izzo F. Other thermal ablation techniques: microwave and interstitial laser ablation of liver tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(5):491-497.

    Not in our library10.1245/aso.2003.07.016

  220. 220.

    Giorgio A, Tarantino L, De Stefano G, et al. Interstitial laser photocoagulation under ultrasound guidance of liver tumors: Results in 104 treated patients. Eur J Ultrasound. 2000;11(3):181-188.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0929-8266(00)00086-0

  221. 221.

    Francica G, Iodice G, Delle Cave M, et al. Factors predicting complete necrosis rate after ultrasound-guided percutaneous laser thermoablation of small hepatocellular carcinoma tumors in cirrhotic patients: A multivariate analysis. Acta Radio. 2007;48(5):514-519.

    Not in our library10.1080/02841850701199942

  222. 222.

    Puls R, Langner S, Rosenberg C, et al. Laser ablation of liver metastases from colorectal cancer with MR thermometry: 5-year survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(2):225-234.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jvir.2008.10.018

  223. 223.

    Dennis CL, Ivkov R. Physics of heat generation using magnetic nanoparticles for hyperthermia. Int J Hyperthermia. 2013;29(8):715-729.

    Not in our library10.3109/02656736.2013.836758

  224. 224.

    Giustini AJ, Petryk AA, Cassim SM, et al. Magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia in cancer treatment. Nano Life. 2010;1(1n02).

    Not in our library10.1142/s1793984410000067

  225. 225.

    A guide to modern radiotherapy. 2013.

    Not in our library

  226. 226.

    Gogvadze V, Orrenius S, Zhivotovsky B. Mitochondria in cancer cells: what is so special about them? Trends Cell Biol. 2008;18(4):165-173.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tcb.2008.01.006

  227. 227.

    Lynam-Lennon N, Maher SG, Maguire A, et al. Altered mitochondrial function and energy metabolism is associated with a radioresistant phenotype in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e100738.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0100738

  228. 228.

    Liao X, Chaudhary P, Qiu G, et al. The role of propranolol as a radiosensitizer in gastric cancer treatment. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2018;12:639-645.

    Not in our library10.2147/dddt.s160865

  229. 229.

    Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):793-795.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmp1500523

  230. 230.

    Gutman DA, Cooper LAD, Hwang SN, et al. MR imaging predictors of molecular profile and survival: multi-institutional study of the tcga glioblastoma data set. Radiol. 2013;267(2):560-569.

    Not in our library10.1148/radiol.13120118

  231. 231.

    Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, et al. Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(4):441-446.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036

  232. 232.

    Fuchs TJ, Buhmann JM. Computational pathology: challenges and promises for tissue analysis. Comput Med Imaging and Graph. 2011;35(7):515-530.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.compmedimag.2011.02.006

  233. 233.

    Foran DJ, Yang L, Chen W, et al. ImageMiner: A software system for comparative analysis of tissue microarrays using content-based image retrieval, high-performance computing, and grid technology. J Am Med Informa Assoc. 2011;18(4):403-415.

    Not in our library10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000170

  234. 234.

    Clarke LP, Croft BS, Nordstrom R, et al. Quantitative imaging for evaluation of response to cancer therapy. Transl Oncol. 2014;2(4):195-197.

    Not in our library10.1593/tlo.09217

  235. 235.

    Cooper LAD, Kong J, Gutman DA, et al. Integrated morphologic analysis for the identification and characterization of disease subtypes. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(2):317-323.

    Not in our library10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000700

  236. 236.

    Romo-Bucheli D, Janowczyk A, Gilmore H, et al. Automated tubule nuclei quantification and correlation with oncotype dx risk categories in ER+ breast cancer whole slide images. Sci Rep. 2016;6:32706.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep32706

  237. 237.

    Lewis JS, Ali S, Luo J, et al. A quantitative histomorphometric classifier (QuHbIC) identifies aggressive versus indolent p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(1):128-137.

    Not in our library10.1097/pas.0000000000000086

  238. 238.

    Kalpathy-Cramer J, Freymann JB, Kirby JS, et al. Quantitative imaging network: data sharing and competitive algorithmvalidation leveraging the cancer imaging archive. Transl Oncol. 2014;7(1):147-152.

    Not in our library10.1593/tlo.13862

  239. 239.

    Schlett CL, Hendel T, Weckbach S, et al. Population-based imaging and radiomics: rationale and perspective of the german national cohort MRI study. RoFo. 2016;188(7):652-661.

    Not in our library10.1055/s-0042-104510

  240. 240.

    ClinicalTrials.gov. US National Library of Medicine.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 8

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.