Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 18, 2026

A Comprehensive Procedure to Evaluate the In Vivo Performance of Cancer Nanomedicines
Published on: March 4, 2017
Cancer nanomedicines: so many papers and so few drugs!
Vincent J Venditto1, Francis C Szoka
1Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 94143-0912, USA.
Abstract:
This review identifies a timeline to nanomedicine anticancer drug approval using the business model of inventors, innovators and imitators. By evaluating the publication record of nanomedicine cancer therapeutics we identified a trend of very few publications prior to FDA approval. We first enumerated the publications related to cancer involving polymers, liposomes or monoclonal antibodies and determined the number of citations per publication as well as the number of published clinical trials among the publications. Combining these data with the development of specific nanomedicines, we are able to identify an invention phase consisting of seminal papers in basic science necessary for the development of a specific nanomedicine. The innovation phase includes the first report, the development and the clinical trials involving that nanomedicine. Finally, the imitation phase begins after approval when others ride the wave of success by using the same formulation for new drugs or using the same drug to validate other nanomedicines. We then focused our analysis on nanomedicines containing camptothecin derivatives, which are not yet approved including two polymers considered innovations and one liposomal formulation in the imitation phase. The conclusion that may be drawn from the analysis of the camptothecins is that approved drugs reformulated in polymeric and liposomal cancer nanomedicines have a more difficult time navigating through the approval process than the parent molecule. This is probably due to the fact that for most currently approved drugs, reformulating them in a nanocarrier provides a small increase in performance that large pharmaceutical companies do not consider being worth the time, effort and expense of development. It also appears that drug carriers have a more difficult path through the clinic than monoclonal antibodies. The added complexity of nanocarriers also deters their use to deliver new molecular entities. Thus, the new drug candidates that might be most improved by drug delivery in nanocarriers are not formulated in this fashion.
Insights
Analyzing nanomedicine anticancer drug approval reveals a timeline from invention to imitation. Approved drugs reformulated into nanomedicines face challenges, with drug carriers having a harder clinical path than monoclonal antibodies.
Area of Science:
- Nanomedicine
- Drug Discovery
- Oncology
Background:
- Nanomedicine offers potential for targeted cancer therapy.
- Understanding the drug approval process is crucial for nanomedicine development.
- Existing business models of invention, innovation, and imitation can be applied to nanomedicine timelines.
Purpose of the Study:
- To establish a timeline for nanomedicine anticancer drug approval.
- To analyze the publication and clinical trial trends for nanomedicine therapeutics.
- To evaluate the challenges faced by reformulated drugs and novel nanomedicines.
Main Methods:
- Publication record analysis of nanomedicine cancer therapeutics (polymers, liposomes, monoclonal antibodies).
- Citation and clinical trial data assessment.
- Case study analysis of camptothecin derivative nanomedicines.
Main Results:
- A trend of minimal publications before FDA approval for nanomedicines was observed.
- Invention, innovation, and imitation phases were identified in nanomedicine development.
- Approved drugs reformulated into nanomedicines, particularly polymeric and liposomal formulations, face significant approval hurdles compared to parent molecules.
Conclusions:
- Reformulating existing drugs into nanomedicines may not offer sufficient performance gains for large pharmaceutical investment.
- Drug carriers face greater clinical challenges than monoclonal antibodies.
- The complexity of nanocarriers discourages their use for new molecular entities, potentially hindering the development of promising candidates.
More Related Videos
08:09Validation of Nanobody and Antibody Based In Vivo Tumor Xenograft NIRF-imaging Experiments in Mice Using Ex Vivo Flow Cytometry and Microscopy
Published on: April 6, 2015
07:54Surface-enhanced Resonance Raman Scattering Nanoprobe Ratiometry for Detecting Microscopic Ovarian Cancer via Folate Receptor Targeting
Published on: March 25, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against specific...
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against specific...
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Cancer
Treatment Resistant Cancers
Cancer Therapies
However, cancer treatments can pose several challenges, as therapies used to kill cancer cells are generally also toxic to normal cells. Moreover, cancer cells mutate rapidly and can develop resistance to chemical agents or radiation therapy. Besides, all types of cancer cells may not respond to the same therapy. Some cancer cells respond to one...