Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 6, 2025

A Comprehensive Procedure to Evaluate the In Vivo Performance of Cancer Nanomedicines
Published on: March 4, 2017
What Went Wrong with Anticancer Nanomedicine Design and How to Make It Right
Duxin Sun1, Simon Zhou2, Wei Gao1
1Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, United States.
Abstract:
The three design criteria of anticancer nanomedicines to improve anticancer efficacy and to reduce toxicity have been debated for decades: (1) Nanomedicines increase drug accumulation through enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) in tumors to improve anticancer efficacy. (2) Long systemic circulation of nanomedicines with high plasma concentration reduces reticuloendothelial system (RES) clearance and decreases drug accumulation in the normal organs to reduce toxicity, and to enhance the EPR effect. (3) A universal nanodelivery platform based on EPR and long systemic circulation can be developed to deliver different anticancer drugs. Although these criteria have repeatedly been confirmed in preclinical xenograft cancers, the majority of anticancer nanomedicines have failed to improve clinical efficacy, while the clinical efficacies/safety of successful nanomedicines are inconsistent with these design criteria. First, the debate over tumor EPR may have mixed two different questions and missed more clinically relevant comparisons for nanomedicines versus free drugs. When tumors are compared with normal tissues, tumor EPR has been confirmed in both mouse xenograft tumors and human cancers. However, nanomedicines may not enhance drug accumulation in human tumors compared with free drugs, despite outstanding improvement in preclinical cancers. Heterogeneity of enhanced permeability and retention in human cancers occurs for small/large molecules and nanomedicines, which cannot fully explain the poor translation of nanomedicines' efficacy from preclinical cancer models to cancer patients. Second, long-circulation nanomedicine should not be used as a universal design criterion because it does not further improve tumor accumulation by tumor EPR in human patients nor universally reduce distribution in normal organs. In contrast, nanomedicines change the drug tissue distribution to alter anticancer efficacy/safety. Third, a universal nanodelivery platform that uses the same design criteria for different drugs is not feasible. Rather, drug-specific nanodelivery systems are required to overcome the intrinsic shortcomings of delivered drugs, which are determined by the physicochemical, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic properties of the delivered drugs and nanocarriers to improve their efficacy/safety.
Insights
Anticancer nanomedicine design criteria like enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) and long circulation do not consistently improve clinical efficacy. Drug-specific nanodelivery systems are needed for better anticancer drug performance.
Area of Science:
- Biomedical Engineering
- Nanomedicine
- Oncology
Background:
- Decades of research focused on three anticancer nanomedicine design criteria: enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) for tumor accumulation, long systemic circulation to reduce toxicity, and universal platforms for drug delivery.
- Despite preclinical success, most nanomedicines fail in clinical trials, and successful ones show inconsistent efficacy and safety profiles compared to established criteria.
Purpose of the Study:
- To critically re-evaluate the established design criteria for anticancer nanomedicines.
- To investigate the discrepancies between preclinical findings and clinical outcomes of nanomedicine efficacy and toxicity.
- To propose a revised approach for developing effective nanodelivery systems for cancer therapy.
Main Methods:
- Comparative analysis of nanomedicine versus free drug accumulation in tumors and normal organs.
- Review of clinical data on nanomedicine performance in cancer patients.
- Examination of the role of drug properties and nanocarrier interactions in determining therapeutic outcomes.
Main Results:
- Tumor EPR does not consistently enhance drug accumulation in human cancers compared to free drugs, and its heterogeneity limits predictive value.
- Long systemic circulation is not a universal criterion for improved tumor targeting or reduced toxicity in patients.
- A universal nanodelivery platform is not feasible; drug-specific systems tailored to physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties are essential.
Conclusions:
- Established nanomedicine design criteria require significant revision based on clinical evidence.
- Future nanomedicine development must prioritize drug-specific delivery strategies over universal principles.
- Tailoring nanocarriers to individual drug characteristics is crucial for improving anticancer efficacy and safety.
Related Concept Videos
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
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 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...

