Search

To improve the clinical translation of anti-cancer nanomedicines, it is necessary to begin building specific insights into the broad concept of the Enhanced Permeability and Retention (EPR) effect, using detailed investigations of the accumulation, distribution and retention of nanomedicines in solid tumors. Nanomedicine accumulation in preclinical tumors has been extensively studied; however, treatment efficacy will be heavily influenced by both the quantity of drug-loaded nanomedicines reaching the tumor as well as their spatial distribution throughout the tumor. It remains a challenge to image the heterogeneity of nanomedicine distribution in 3 dimensions within solid tumors with a high degree of spatial resolution using standard imaging approaches. Methods: To achieve this, an ex vivo micro computed tomography (µCT) imaging approach was developed to visualize the intratumoral distribution of contrast agent-loaded PEGylated liposomes. Using this semi-quantitative method, whole 3-dimensional (3D) tumor liposome distribution was determined with 17 µm resolution in a phenotypically diverse panel of four preclinical xenograft and patient-derived explant (PDX) tumor models. Results: High-resolution ex vivo µCT imaging revealed striking differences in liposome distribution within tumors in four models with different vascular patterns and densities, stromal contents, and microenvironment morphologies. Following intravenous dosing, the model with the highest density of pericyte-supported vessels showed the greatest liposome accumulation, while the model with vessels present in regions of high α-smooth muscle actin (αSMA) content presented with a large proportion of the liposomes at depths beyond the tumor periphery. The two models with an unsupported vascular network demonstrated a more restricted pattern of liposome distribution. Conclusion: Taken together, vessel distribution and support (the latter indicative of functionality) appear to be key factors determining the accumulation and distribution pattern of liposomes in tumors. Our findings demonstrate that high-resolution 3D visualization of nanomedicine distribution is a useful tool for preclinical nanomedicine research, providing valuable insights into the influence of the tumor vasculature and microenvironment on nanomedicine localization.

Lipid nanoparticles have great potential for delivering nucleic acid-based therapeutics, but low efficiency limits their broad clinical translation. Differences in transfection capacity between in vitro models used for nanoparticle pre-clinical testing is poorly understood. To address this, using a clinically relevant lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivering mRNA we highlight specific endosomal characteristics in in vitro tumour models that impact on protein expression. A 30-cell line LNP-mRNA transfection screen identified three cells lines having low, medium and high transfection that correlated with protein expression when they were analysed in tumour models. Endocytic profiling of these cell lines identified major differences in endolysosomal morphology, localisation, endocytic uptake, trafficking, recycling, and endolysosomal pH, identified using a novel pH probe. High transfecting cells showed rapid LNP uptake and trafficking through an organised endocytic pathway to lysosomes or rapid exocytosis. Low transfecting cells demonstrated slower endosomal LNP trafficking to lysosomes, and defective endocytic organisation and acidification. Our data establishes that efficient LNP-mRNA transfection relies on an early and narrow endosomal escape window prior to lysosomal sequestration and/or exocytosis. Endocytic profiling should form an important pre-clinical evaluation step for nucleic acid delivery systems to inform model selection and guide delivery system design for improved clinical translation.

Synthetic polymers containing quaternary phosphonium salts are an emerging class of materials for the delivery of oligo/polynucleotides. In this work, cationic phosphonium salt-containing polymethacrylates –and their corresponding ammonium analogues– were synthesized by RAFT polymerization. Both the nature of the charged heteroatom (N vs. P) and the length of the spacer separating the cationic units along the polymer backbone (oxyethylene vs. trioxyethylene) were systematically varied. Polymers efficiently bound siRNA at N+/P- or P+/P- ratios of 2 and above. At a 20:1 ratio, small polyplexes (Rh: 4-15 nm) suitable for cellular uptake were formed that displayed low cytotoxicity. Whilst siRNA polyplexes from both ammonium and phosphonium polymers were efficiently internalised by GFP-expressing 3T3 cells, no knockdown of GFP expression was observed. However, 65% Survivin gene knockdown was observed when short interfering RNA (siRNA) was replaced with novel, multimerised long interfering liRNA (liRNA) in HeLa cells, demonstrating the importance of RNA macromolecular architecture on RNA-mediated gene silencing.

Successfully translating anti-cancer nanomedicines from pre-clinical proof of concept to demonstration of therapeutic value in the clinic is challenging. Having made significant advances with drug delivery technologies, we must learn from other areas of oncology drug development, where patient stratification and target-driven design have improved patient outcomes. We should evolve our nanomedicine development strategies to build the patient and disease into the line of sight from the outset. The success of small molecule targeted therapies has been significantly improved by employing a specific decision-making framework, such as AstraZeneca's 5R principle: right target/efficacy, right tissue/exposure, right safety, right patient, and right commercial potential. With appropriate investment and collaboration to generate a platform of evidence supporting the end clinical application, a similar framework can be established for enhancing nanomedicine translation and performance. Building informative data packages to answer these questions requires the following: (I) an improved understanding of the heterogeneity of clinical cancers and of the biological factors influencing the behaviour of nanomedicines in patient tumours; (II) a transition from formulation-driven research to disease-driven development; (III) the implementation of more relevant animal models and testing protocols; and (IV) the pre-selection of the patients most likely to respond to nanomedicine therapies. These challenges must be overcome to improve (the cost-effectiveness of) nanomedicine development and translation, and they are key to establishing superior therapies for patients.

Theranostics 10(2), 880-897 (2020). doi:10.7150/thno.37178, Published by Ivyspring, Wyoming, NSW

Advanced drug delivery reviews 108, 25-38 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.addr.2016.04.025, Published by Elsevier Science, Amsterdam [u.a.]

The chemistry and structure of Poly (glycerol adipate) facilitate its substitution with various pendant functional groups leading to modifications of the physicochemical properties of the polymer. Modified backbones then can be selected based upon the properties of the compound to be incorporated. Thus, this could be explored as a drug delivery system without many of the limitations of commercially available polymers. The aim of this study was investigate whether various polymers and drugs interact in a specific manner and whether the nature of these interactions influence the physicochemical characteristics of the particles and their drug loading and release profile. By investigating drugs belonging to various classes and with different properties it has been possible to correlate properties associated with drugs and pendant functional groups of the polymer which are ultimately responsible for the drug loading and release characteristics. For some drug polymer formulations, good loading and controlled release rates have been achieved. Compared to various conventional polymer systems reported for nanoparticle formulations, poly (glycerol adipate) polymers have also demonstrated the ability to control rate of release of highly water soluble drugs, even from the most hydrophilic polymer backbone in its unsubstituted form. From the various drug loading and release profiles it has been demonstrated that, unlike reported literature, particle size is not the primary factor influencing drug release over the relatively small range of particle sizes seen in this study. Neither is the water solubility of either the drug or the polymer alone responsible for the rapid and uncontrolled release profile from nanoparticles. Thus, Drug polymer interactions are more likely to influence drug loading and release and unlike common reports in the literature, hydrophilicity, molecular weight or concentration of polymer / drug are less likely to affect these parameters in isolation.