-
Lancet (London, England) Oct 2023Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC).
METHODS
NAPOLI 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 187 community and academic sites in 18 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients with mPDAC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m, oxaliplatin 60 mg/m, leucovorin 400 mg/m, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m, administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Balanced block randomisation was stratified by geographical region, performance status, and liver metastases, managed through an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated when at least 543 events were observed across the two treatment groups. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04083235.
FINDINGS
Between Feb 19, 2020 and Aug 17, 2021, 770 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 383; nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, 387; median follow-up 16·1 months [IQR 13·4-19·1]). Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 10·0-12·1) with NALIRIFOX versus 9·2 months (8·3-10·6) with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine (hazard ratio 0·83; 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·036). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 322 (87%) of 370 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 326 (86%) of 379 patients receiving nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine; treatment-related deaths occurred in six (2%) patients in the NALIRIFOX group and eight (2%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group.
INTERPRETATION
Our findings support use of the NALIRIFOX regimen as a possible reference regimen for first-line treatment of mPDAC.
FUNDING
Ipsen.
TRANSLATION
For the plain language summary see Supplementary Materials section.
Topics: Humans; Gemcitabine; Paclitaxel; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Albumins; Adenocarcinoma; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 37708904
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01366-1 -
Journal of Controlled Release :... Feb 2022Modern drug delivery technology began in 1952 with the advent of the Spansule® sustained-release capsule technology, which can deliver a drug for 12 h after oral...
Modern drug delivery technology began in 1952 with the advent of the Spansule® sustained-release capsule technology, which can deliver a drug for 12 h after oral administration through an initial immediate dose followed by the remaining released gradually. Until the 1980s, oral and transdermal formulations providing therapeutic durations up to 24 h for small molecules dominated the drug delivery field and the market. The introduction of Lupron Depot® in 1989 opened the door for long-acting injectables and implantables, extending the drug delivery duration from days to months and occasionally years. Notably, the new technologies allowed long-term delivery of peptide and protein drugs, although limited to parenteral administration. The introduction of the first PEGylated protein, Adagen®, in 1990 marked the new era of PEGylation, resulting in Doxil® (doxorubicin in PEGylated liposome) in 1995, Movantik® (PEGylated naloxone - naloxegol) in 2014, and Onpattro® (Patisiran - siRNA in PEGylated lipid nanoparticle) in 2018. Drug-polymer complexes were introduced, e.g., InFed® (iron-dextran complex injection) in 1974 and Abraxane® (paclitaxel-albumin complex) in 2005. In 2000, both Mylotarg™ (antibody-drug conjugate - gemtuzumab ozogamicin) and Rapamune® (sirolimus nanocrystal formulation) were introduced. The year 2000 also marked the launching of the National Nanotechnology Initiative by the U.S. government, which was soon followed by the rest of the world. Extensive work on nanomedicine, particularly formulations designed to escape from endosomes after being taken by tumor cells, along with PEGylation technology, ultimately resulted in the timely development of lipid nanoparticle formulations for COVID-19 vaccine delivery in 2020. While the advances in drug delivery technologies for the last seven decades are breathtaking, they are only the tip of an iceberg of technologies that have yet to be utilized in an approved formulation or even to be discovered. As life expectancy continues to increase, more people require long-term care for various diseases. Filling the current and future unmet needs requires innovative drug delivery technologies to overcome age-old familiar hurdles, e.g., improving water-solubility of poorly soluble drugs, overcoming biological barriers, and developing more efficient long-acting depot formulations. The lessons learned from the past are essential assets for developing future drug delivery technologies implemented into products. As the development of COVID-19 vaccines demonstrated, meeting the unforeseen crisis of the uncertain future requires continuous cumulation of failures (as learning experiences), knowledge, and technologies. Conscious efforts of supporting diversified research topics in the drug delivery field are urgently needed more than ever.
Topics: COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Drug Delivery Systems; Humans; Liposomes; Nanoparticles; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34971694
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.12.030 -
Lancet (London, England) Feb 2022Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Trametinib versus standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous ovarian cancer (GOG 281/LOGS): an international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial.
BACKGROUND
Low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum is characterised by MAPK pathway aberrations and its reduced sensitivity to chemotherapy relative to high-grade serous carcinoma. We compared the MEK inhibitor trametinib to physician's choice standard of care in patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma.
METHODS
This international, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 2/3 trial was done at 84 hospitals in the USA and UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma and measurable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, had received at least one platinum-based regimen, but not all five standard-of-care drugs, and had received an unlimited number of previous regimens. Patients with serous borderline tumours or tumours containing low-grade serous and high-grade serous carcinoma were excluded. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral trametinib 2 mg once daily (trametinib group) or one of five standard-of-care treatment options (standard-of-care group): intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 40-50 mg/m by body surface area once every 4 weeks; intravenous topotecan 4 mg/m by body surface area on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle; oral letrozole 2·5 mg once daily; or oral tamoxifen 20 mg twice daily. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region (USA or UK), number of previous regimens (1, 2, or ≥3), performance status (0 or 1), and planned standard-of-care regimen. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival while receiving randomised therapy, as assessed by imaging at baseline, once every 8 weeks for 15 months, and then once every 3 months thereafter, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02101788, and is active but not recruiting.
FINDINGS
Between Feb 27, 2014, and April 10, 2018, 260 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the trametinib group (n=130) or the standard-of-care group (n=130). At the primary analysis, there were 217 progression-free survival events (101 [78%] in the trametinib group and 116 [89%] in the standard-of-care group). Median progression-free survival in the trametinib group was 13·0 months (95% CI 9·9-15·0) compared with 7·2 months (5·6-9·9) in the standard-of-care group (hazard ratio 0·48 [95% CI 0·36-0·64]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the trametinib group were skin rash (17 [13%] of 128), anaemia (16 [13%]), hypertension (15 [12%]), diarrhoea (13 [10%]), nausea (12 [9%]), and fatigue (ten [8%]). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the standard-of-care group were abdominal pain (22 [17%]), nausea (14 [11%]), anaemia (12 [10%]), and vomiting (ten [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths.
INTERPRETATION
Trametinib represents a new standard-of-care option for patients with recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma.
FUNDING
NRG Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Target Ovarian Cancer, and Novartis.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial; Female; Humans; MAP Kinase Kinase 1; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Progression-Free Survival; Pyridones; Pyrimidinones; Standard of Care; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom; United States
PubMed: 35123694
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02175-9 -
The Lancet. Oncology May 2020State-of-the art therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer suitable for platinum-based re-treatment includes bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, bevacizumab combined... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
State-of-the art therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer suitable for platinum-based re-treatment includes bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, bevacizumab combined with carboplatin-paclitaxel or carboplatin-gemcitabine) or the most active non-bevacizumab regimen: carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The aim of this head-to-head trial was to compare a standard bevacizumab-containing regimen versus carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin combined with bevacizumab.
METHODS
This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 159 academic centres in Germany, France, Australia, Austria, and the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma with first disease recurrence more than 6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were stratified by platinum-free interval, residual tumour, previous antiangiogenic therapy, and study group language, and were centrally randomly assigned 1:1 using randomly permuted blocks of size two, four, or six to receive six intravenous cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, day 1) plus carboplatin (area under the concentration curve [AUC] 4, day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m, days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks or six cycles of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, days 1 and 15) plus carboplatin (AUC 5, day 1) plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (30 mg/m, day 1) every 4 weeks, both followed by maintenance bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks in both groups) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. There was no masking in this open-label trial. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy data were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01837251.
FINDINGS
Between Aug 1, 2013, and July 31, 2015, 682 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 345 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-bevacizumab (experimental group) and 337 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin-gemcitabine-bevacizumab (standard group). Median follow-up for progression-free survival at data cutoff (July 10, 2018) was 12·4 months (IQR 8·3-21·7) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·0-18·4) in the standard group. Median progression-free survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·7-14·2) in the experimental group versus 11·6 months (11·0-12·7) in the standard group (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·68-0·96; p=0·012). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (88 [27%] of 332 patients in the experimental group vs 67 [20%] of 329 patients in the standard group) and neutropenia (40 [12%] vs 73 [22%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 33 (10%) of 332 patients in the experimental group and 28 (9%) of 329 in the standard group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one patient in the experimental group (<1%; large intestine perforation) and two patients in the standard group (1%; one case each of osmotic demyelination syndrome and intracranial haemorrhage).
INTERPRETATION
Carboplatin-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-bevacizumab is a new standard treatment option for platinum-eligible recurrent ovarian cancer.
FUNDING
F Hoffmann-La Roche.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Australia; Austria; Bevacizumab; Carboplatin; Doxorubicin; Fallopian Tube Neoplasms; Female; France; Humans; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Ovarian Neoplasms; Paclitaxel; Platinum; Polyethylene Glycols
PubMed: 32305099
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30142-X -
Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica. B Nov 2020In many ways, cancer cells are different from healthy cells. A lot of tactical nano-based drug delivery systems are based on the difference between cancer and healthy... (Review)
Review
In many ways, cancer cells are different from healthy cells. A lot of tactical nano-based drug delivery systems are based on the difference between cancer and healthy cells. Currently, nanotechnology-based delivery systems are the most promising tool to deliver DNA-based products to cancer cells. This review aims to highlight the latest development in the lipids and polymeric nanocarrier for siRNA delivery to the cancer cells. It also provides the necessary information about siRNA development and its mechanism of action. Overall, this review gives us a clear picture of lipid and polymer-based drug delivery systems, which in the future could form the base to translate the basic siRNA biology into siRNA-based cancer therapies.
PubMed: 33304780
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2020.10.005 -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
Journal of Aerosol Medicine and... Mar 2008Regional chemotherapy has been proposed as a treatment modality in a number of cancer settings. In primary or metastatic lung cancer, administration of chemotherapy via... (Review)
Review
Regional chemotherapy has been proposed as a treatment modality in a number of cancer settings. In primary or metastatic lung cancer, administration of chemotherapy via inhalation could increase exposure of lung tumor to the drug, while minimizing systemic side effects. Several proof of concept studies in animal models of metastatic or primary lung cancer have demonstrated the safety, pharmacokinetic advantage, and antitumor effect of aerosol administration of several chemotherapeutic agents including doxorubicin, gemcitabine and liposome-encapsulated formulations of paclitaxel and 9-nitrocamptothecin (9-NC). Recent phase I studies have demonstrated the feasibility of aerosol delivery of doxorubicin and liposomal formulations of 9-NC and cisplatin in patients with primary and metastatic lung cancer with a limited pharmacokinetic profile consistent with the observed low systemic toxicity. Further studies integrating safety, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy considerations are required to determine whether there is a place for local administration of chemotherapy via inhalation in lung cancer.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Aerosols; Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Disease Models, Animal; Drug Delivery Systems; Humans; Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Tissue Distribution
PubMed: 18518832
DOI: 10.1089/jamp.2007.0656 -
Cancers Nov 2021Hyperproliferative skin diseases (HSD) are a group of diseases that include cancers, pre-cancerous lesions and diseases of unknown etiology that present different skin... (Review)
Review
Hyperproliferative skin diseases (HSD) are a group of diseases that include cancers, pre-cancerous lesions and diseases of unknown etiology that present different skin manifestations in terms of the degree and distribution of the injuries. Anti-proliferative agents used to treat these diseases are so diverse, including 5-aminolevulinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, imiquimod, methotrexate, paclitaxel, podophyllotoxin, realgar, and corticosteroids in general. These drugs usually have low aqueous solubility, which consequently decreases skin permeation. Thus, their incorporation in lipid nanocarriers has been proposed with the main objective to increase the effectiveness of topical treatment and reduce side effects. This manuscript aims to describe the advantages of using lipid nanoparticles and liposomes that can be used to load diversity of chemically different drugs for the treatment of HSD.
PubMed: 34830774
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225619 -
Journal of Advanced Research Jul 2023Inherent or acquired resistance to paclitaxel (PTX) is a pivotal challenge for chemotherapy treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) breast cancer. Although various...
INTRODUCTION
Inherent or acquired resistance to paclitaxel (PTX) is a pivotal challenge for chemotherapy treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) breast cancer. Although various targeted drug-delivery systems, including nanoparticles and liposomes, are effective for MDR cancer treatment, their efficacy is restricted by immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME).
METHODS
Ginsenosides Rg3 was used to formulate unique Rg3-based liposomes loaded with PTX to establish Rg3-PTX-LPs, which were prepared by the thin-film hydration method. The stability of the Rg3-PTX-LPs was evaluated by particle size analysis through dynamic light scattering. The active targeting effect of Rg3-based liposomes was examined in an MCF-7/T xenograft model by an in a vivo imaging system. To evaluate the antitumor activity and mechanism of Rg3-PTX-LP, MTT, apoptosis assays, TAM regulation, and TME remodeling were performed in MCF-7/T cells in vitro and in vivo.
RESULTS
Rg3-PTX-LPs could specifically distribute to MCF7/T cancer cells and TME simultaneously, mainly through the recognition of GLUT-1. The drug resistance reversing capability and in vivo antitumor effect of Rg3-PTX-LPs were significantly improved compared with conventional cholesterol liposomes. The TME remodeling mechanisms of Rg3-PTX-LPs included inhibiting IL-6/STAT3/p-STAT3 pathway activation to repolarize protumor M2 macrophages to antitumor M1 phenotype, suppressing myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), decreasing tumor-associated fibroblasts (TAFs) and collagen fibers in TME, and promoting apoptosis of tumor cells. Hence, through the dual effects of targeting tumor cells and TME remodeling, Rg3-PTX-LPs achieved a high tumor inhibition rate of 90.3%.
CONCLUSION
Our multifunctional Rg3-based liposome developed in the present study offered a promising strategy for rescuing the drug resistance tumor treatment.
Topics: Humans; Paclitaxel; Liposomes; Ginsenosides; Tumor Microenvironment; Lipopolysaccharides; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36167294
DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2022.09.007 -
European Journal of Cardio-thoracic... Jul 2016Nanotechnology is an emerging, rapidly evolving field with the potential to significantly impact care across the full spectrum of cancer therapy. Of note, several recent... (Review)
Review
Nanotechnology is an emerging, rapidly evolving field with the potential to significantly impact care across the full spectrum of cancer therapy. Of note, several recent nanotechnological advances show particular promise to improve outcomes for thoracic surgical patients. A variety of nanotechnologies are described that offer possible solutions to existing challenges encountered in the detection, diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Nanotechnology-based imaging platforms have the ability to improve the surgical care of patients with thoracic malignancies through technological advances in intraoperative tumour localization, lymph node mapping and accuracy of tumour resection. Moreover, nanotechnology is poised to revolutionize adjuvant lung cancer therapy. Common chemotherapeutic drugs, such as paclitaxel, docetaxel and doxorubicin, are being formulated using various nanotechnologies to improve drug delivery, whereas nanoparticle (NP)-based imaging technologies can monitor the tumour microenvironment and facilitate molecularly targeted lung cancer therapy. Although early nanotechnology-based delivery systems show promise, the next frontier in lung cancer therapy is the development of 'theranostic' multifunctional NPs capable of integrating diagnosis, drug monitoring, tumour targeting and controlled drug release into various unifying platforms. This article provides an overview of key existing and emerging nanotechnology platforms that may find clinical application in thoracic surgery in the near future.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Antineoplastic Agents; Dendrimers; Drug Delivery Systems; Gene Transfer Techniques; Humans; Liposomes; Lung Neoplasms; Lymph Nodes; Lymphatic Metastasis; Micelles; Nanoparticles; Nanotechnology; Nanotubes, Carbon; Quantum Dots; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Thoracic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26843431
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw002