Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Smart cancer nanomedicine

Nature Nanotechnology volume 14, pages 1007–1017 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Nanomedicines are extensively employed in cancer therapy. We here propose four strategic directions to improve nanomedicine translation and exploitation. (1) Patient stratification has become common practice in oncology drug development. Accordingly, probes and protocols for patient stratification are urgently needed in cancer nanomedicine, to identify individuals suitable for inclusion in clinical trials. (2) Rational drug selection is crucial for clinical and commercial success. Opportunistic choices based on drug availability should be replaced by investments in modular (pro)drug and nanocarrier design. (3) Combination therapies are the mainstay of clinical cancer care. Nanomedicines synergize with pharmacological and physical co-treatments, and should be increasingly integrated in multimodal combination therapy regimens. (4) Immunotherapy is revolutionizing the treatment of cancer. Nanomedicines can modulate the behaviour of myeloid and lymphoid cells, thereby empowering anticancer immunity and immunotherapy efficacy. Alone and especially together, these four directions will fuel and foster the development of successful cancer nanomedicine therapies.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Smart strategies and materials to advance and refine cancer nanomedicine treatments.
Fig. 2: Smart strategies for patient stratification in cancer nanomedicine.
Fig. 3: Smart drug selection in cancer nanomedicine.
Fig. 4: Smart cancer nanomedicine-based combination therapies.
Fig. 5: Smart immunomodulation involving cancer nanomedicine.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Peer, D. et al. Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotechnol. 2, 751–760 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shi, J., Kantoff, P. W., Wooster, R. & Farokhzad, O. C. Cancer nanomedicine: progress, challenges and opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer 17, 20–37 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Björnmalm, M., Thurecht, K. J., Michael, M., Scott, A. M. & Caruso, F. Bridging bio-nano science and cancer nanomedicine. ACS Nano 11, 9594–9613 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van der Meel, R., Lammers, T. & Hennink, W. E. Cancer nanomedicines: oversold or underappreciated? Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 14, 1–5 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anchordoquy, T. J. et al. Mechanisms and barriers in cancer nanomedicine: addressing challenges, looking for solutions. ACS Nano 11, 12–18 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cobleigh, M. A. et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 2639–48 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baselga, J. et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 109–119 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Verma, S. et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1783–1791 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Le, D. T. et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 357, 409–413 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Autio, K. A. et al. Safety and efficacy of BIND-014, a docetaxel nanoparticle targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a phase 2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 4, 1344–1351 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Voss, M. H. et al. A randomized phase II trial of CRLX101 in combination with bevacizumab versus standard of care in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Ann. Oncol. 28, 2754–2760 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fujiwara, Y. et al. A multi-national, randomised, open-label, parallel, phase III non-inferiority study comparing NK105 and paclitaxel in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer patients. Br. J. Cancer 120, 475–480 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Petersen, G. H., Alzghari, S. K., Chee, W., Sankari, S. S. & La-Beck, N. M. Meta-analysis of clinical and preclinical studies comparing the anticancer efficacy of liposomal versus conventional non-liposomal doxorubicin. J. Control. Release 232, 255–264 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lammers, T., Rizzo, L. Y., Storm, G. & Kiessling, F. Personalized nanomedicine. Clin. Cancer Res. 18, 4889–4894 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Bravaccini, S. et al. PSMA expression: a potential ally for the pathologist in prostate cancer diagnosis. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–8 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Han, S., Woo, S., Kim, Y. J. & Suh, C. H. Impact of 68Ga-PSMA PET on the management of patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 74, 179–190 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kunjachan, S. et al. Passive versus active tumor targeting using RGD- and NGR-modified polymeric nanomedicines. Nano Lett. 14, 972–981 (2014).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Juweid, M. et al. Micropharmacology of monoclonal antibodies in solid tumors: direct experimental evidence for a binding site barrier. Cancer Res. 52, 5144–53 (1992).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Allen, T. M. & Cullis, P. R. Liposomal drug delivery systems: from concept to clinical applications. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 65, 36–48 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tsvetkova, Y. et al. Balancing passive and active targeting to different tumor compartments using riboflavin-functionalized polymeric nanocarriers. Nano Lett. 17, 4665–4674 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Choi, C. H. J., Alabi, C. A., Webster, P. & Davis, M. E. Mechanism of active targeting in solid tumors with transferrin-containing gold nanoparticles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1235–40 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kirpotin, D. B. et al. Antibody targeting of long-circulating lipidic nanoparticles does not increase tumor localization but does increase internalization in animal models. Cancer Res. 66, 6732–6740 (2006).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Miller, M. A., Arlauckas, S. & Weissleder, R. Prediction of anti-cancer nanotherapy efficacy by imaging. Nanotheranostics 1, 296–312 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chen, H., Zhang, W., Zhu, G., Xie, J. & Chen, X. Rethinking cancer nanotheranostics. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 17024 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller, M. A. et al. Predicting therapeutic nanomedicine efficacy using a companion magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 314ra183 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ramanathan, R. K. et al. Correlation between ferumoxytol uptake in tumor lesions by MRI and response to nanoliposomal irinotecan in patients with advanced solid tumors: a pilot study. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 3638–3648 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Perez-Medina, C. et al. Nanoreporter PET predicts the efficacy of anti-cancer nanotherapy. Nat. Commun. 7, 11838 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Vander Heiden, M. G., Cantley, L. C. & Thompson, C. B. Understanding the Warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation. Science 324, 1029–33 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hsu, P. P. & Sabatini, D. M. Cancer cell metabolism: Warburg and beyond. Cell 134, 703–707 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jørgensen, J. T., Norregaard, K., Martín, M. S., Oddershede, L. B. & Kjaer, A. Non-invasive early response monitoring of nanoparticle-assisted photothermal cancer therapy using 18F-FDG, 18F-FLT, and 18F-FET PET/CT imaging. Nanotheranostics 2, 201–210 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Phillips, E. et al. Clinical translation of an ultrasmall inorganic optical-PET imaging nanoparticle probe. Sci. Transl. Med. 6, 260ra149 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Altman, B. J., Stine, Z. E. & Dang, C. V. From Krebs to clinic: glutamine metabolism to cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 16, 619–634 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Garcia-Bermudez, J. et al. Aspartate is a limiting metabolite for cancer cell proliferation under hypoxia and in tumours. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 775–781 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Knott, S. R. V. et al. Asparagine bioavailability governs metastasis in a model of breast cancer. Nature 554, 378–381 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee, H. et al. 64Cu-MM-302 positron emission tomography quantifies variability of enhanced permeability and retention of nanoparticles in relation to treatment response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 4190–4202 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Edmonds, S. et al. Exploiting the metal-chelating properties of the drug cargo for in vivo positron emission tomography imaging of liposomal nanomedicines. ACS Nano 10, 10294–10307 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Barenholz, Y. Doxil® - the first FDA-approved nano-drug: lessons learned. J. Control. Release 160, 117–134 (2012).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller, M. A. et al. Tumour-associated macrophages act as a slow-release reservoir of nano-therapeutic Pt(IV) pro-drug. Nat. Commun. 6, 8692 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Karageorgis, A. et al. An MRI-based classification scheme to predict passive access of 5 to 50-nm large nanoparticles to tumors. Sci. Rep. 6, 21417 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sulheim, E. et al. Multi-modal characterization of vasculature and nanoparticle accumulation in five tumor xenograft models. J. Control. Release 279, 292–305 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Theek, B. et al. Histidine-rich glycoprotein-induced vascular normalization improves EPR-mediated drug targeting to and into tumors. J. Control. Release 282, 25–34 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Hare, J. I. et al. Challenges and strategies in anti-cancer nanomedicine development: an industry perspective. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 108, 25–38 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Szebeni, J., Simberg, D., González-Fernández, Á., Barenholz, Y. & Dobrovolskaia, M. A. Roadmap and strategy for overcoming infusion reactions to nanomedicines. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 1100–1108 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Qi, R. et al. Nanoparticle conjugates of a highly potent toxin enhance safety and circumvent platinum resistance in ovarian cancer. Nat. Commun. 8, 2166 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ashton, S. et al. Aurora kinase inhibitor nanoparticles target tumors with favorable therapeutic index in vivo. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 325ra17 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Adams, D. et al. Patisiran, an RNAi therapeutic, for hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 11–21 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Sahin, U. & Türeci, Ö. Personalized vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Science 359, 1355–1360 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Pardi, N., Hogan, M. J., Porter, F. W. & Weissman, D. mRNA vaccines - a new era in vaccinology. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17, 261–279 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Pardi, N. et al. Administration of nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding broadly neutralizing antibody protects humanized mice from HIV-1 challenge. Nat. Commun. 8, 14630 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kranz, L. M. et al. Systemic RNA delivery to dendritic cells exploits antiviral defence for cancer immunotherapy. Nature 534, 396–401 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kreiter, S. et al. Mutant MHC class II epitopes drive therapeutic immune responses to cancer. Nature 520, 692–696 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Oberli, M. A. et al. Lipid nanoparticle assisted mRNA delivery for potent cancer immunotherapy. Nano Lett. 17, 1326–1335 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Sahin, U. et al. Personalized RNA mutanome vaccines mobilize poly-specific therapeutic immunity against cancer. Nature 547, 222–226 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang, Y., Li, N., Suh, H. & Irvine, D. J. Nanoparticle anchoring targets immune agonists to tumors enabling anti-cancer immunity without systemic toxicity. Nat. Commun. 9, 6 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Charych, D. H. et al. NKTR-214, an engineered cytokine with biased IL2 receptor binding, increased tumor exposure, and marked efficacy in mouse tumor models. Clin. Cancer Res. 22, 680–690 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Bentebibel, S.-E. et al. A first-in-human study and biomarker analysis of NKTR-214, a novel IL2Rβγ-biased cytokine, in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Cancer Discov. 9, 711–721 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cern, A., Marcus, D., Tropsha, A., Barenholz, Y. & Goldblum, A. New drug candidates for liposomal delivery identified by computer modeling of liposomes’ remote loading and leakage. J. Control. Release 252, 18–27 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhao, Y. et al. Augmenting drug–carrier compatibility improves tumour nanotherapy efficacy. Nat. Commun. 7, 11221 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Hu, Q. et al. Complete regression of breast tumour with a single dose of docetaxel-entrapped core-cross-linked polymeric micelles. Biomaterials 53, 370–378 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Cristal Therapeutics. Efficacy study of CPC634 (CriPec® docetaxel) in platinum resistant ovarian cancer (CINOVA) ClinicalTrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03742713 (2018).

  61. Wang, H. et al. New generation nanomedicines constructed from self-assembling small-molecule prodrugs alleviate cancer drug toxicity. Cancer Res. 77, 6963–6974 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Miller, M. A. et al. Modular nanoparticulate prodrug design enables efficient treatment of solid tumors using bioorthogonal activation. ACS Nano 12, 12814–12826 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hrkach, J. et al. Preclinical development and clinical translation of a PSMA-targeted docetaxel nanoparticle with a differentiated pharmacological profile. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 128ra39 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wang, E. T. et al. Barcoded nanoparticles for high throughput in vivo discovery of targeted therapeutics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 2060–2065 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sago, C. D. et al. Nanoparticles that deliver RNA to bone marrow identified by in vivo directed evolution. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 140, 17095–17105 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Yaari, Z. et al. Theranostic barcoded nanoparticles for personalized cancer medicine. Nat. Commun. 7, 13325 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang-Gillam, A. et al. Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet 387, 545–557 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Chen, L. T. et al. Final results of NAPOLI-1: a phase 3 study of nal-IRI (MM-398) ± 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (5-FU/LV) vs 5-FU/LV in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPAC) previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy. Ann. Oncol. 27, 622PD–622PD (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Schmid, P. et al. Atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 379, 2108–2121 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Chauhan, V. P. et al. Angiotensin inhibition enhances drug delivery and potentiates chemotherapy by decompressing tumour blood vessels. Nat. Commun. 4, 2516 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Diop-Frimpong, B., Chauhan, V. P., Krane, S., Boucher, Y. & Jain, R. K. Losartan inhibits collagen I synthesis and improves the distribution and efficacy of nanotherapeutics in tumors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 2909–2914 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Murphy, J. E. et al. Potentially curative combination of TGF-b1 inhibitor losartan and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC): R0 resection rates and preliminary survival data from a prospective phase II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 4116 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Murphy, J. E. et al. Total neoadjuvant therapy with FOLFIRINOX in combination with losartan followed by chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. JAMA Oncol. 5, 1020 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Abumanhal-Masarweh, H. et al. Sodium bicarbonate nanoparticles modulate the tumor pH and enhance the cellular uptake of doxorubicin. J. Control. Release 296, 1–13 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Lancet, J. E. et al. CPX-351 (cytarabine and daunorubicin) liposome for injection versus conventional cytarabine plus daunorubicin in older patients with newly diagnosed secondary acute myeloid leukemia. J. Clin. Oncol. 36, 2684–2692 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Davies, C. D. L. et al. Radiation improves the distribution and uptake of liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in human osteosarcoma xenografts. Cancer Res. 64, 547–553 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Lammers, T. et al. Image-guided and passively tumour-targeted polymeric nanomedicines for radiochemotherapy. Br. J. Cancer 99, 900–910 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Miller, M. A. et al. Radiation therapy primes tumors for nanotherapeutic delivery via macrophage-mediated vascular bursts. Sci. Transl. Med. 9, eaal0225 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Min, Y. et al. Antigen-capturing nanoparticles improve the abscopal effect and cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 877–882 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Snipstad, S. et al. Sonopermeation to improve drug delivery to tumors: from fundamental understanding to clinical translation. Expert Opin. Drug Deliv. 15, 1249–1261 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Dimcevski, G. et al. A human clinical trial using ultrasound and microbubbles to enhance gemcitabine treatment of inoperable pancreatic cancer. J. Control. Release 243, 172–181 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Carpentier, A. et al. Clinical trial of blood-brain barrier disruption by pulsed ultrasound. Sci. Transl. Med. 8, 343re2 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Mainprize, T. et al. Blood-brain barrier opening in primary brain tumors with non-invasive MR-guided focused ultrasound: a clinical safety and feasibility study. Sci. Rep. 9, 321 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Tak, W. Y. et al. Phase III HEAT study adding lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin to radiofrequency ablation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma lesions. Clin. Cancer Res. 24, 73–83 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Celsion. Study of ThermoDox with standardized radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (OPTIMA). ClinicalTrial.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02112656 (2014).

  86. Kim, A. A phase I study of lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin and MR-HIFU for pediatric refractory solid tumors. ClinicalTrial.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02536183?term=thermodox&rank=10 (2015).

  87. Ribas, A. & Wolchok, J. D. Cancer immunotherapy using checkpoint blockade. Science 359, 1350–1355 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. June, C. H. et al. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science 359, 1361–1365 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Jain, R. K. et al. Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy. Nat. Med. 24, 541–550 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Riley, R. S., June, C. H., Langer, R. & Mitchell, M. J. Delivery technologies for cancer immunotherapy. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 18, 175–196 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Sun, Q. et al. Nanomedicine and macroscale materials in immuno-oncology. Chem. Soc. Rev. 48, 351–381 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Mulder, W. J. M., Ochando, J., Joosten, L. A. B., Fayad, Z. A. & Netea, M. G. Therapeutic targeting of trained immunity. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 18, 553–566 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Jiang, W. et al. Designing nanomedicine for immuno-oncology. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 1, 0029 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Friedman, C. F., Proverbs-Singh, T. A. & Postow, M. A. Treatment of the immune-related adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2, 1346–1353 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Pfirschke, C. et al. Immunogenic chemotherapy sensitizes tumors to checkpoint blockade therapy. Immunity 44, 343–354 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Prendergast, G. C., Malachowski, W. P., DuHadaway, J. B. & Muller, A. J. Discovery of IDO1 inhibitors: from bench to bedside. Cancer Res. 77, 6795–6811 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Lu, J. et al. Nano-enabled pancreas cancer immunotherapy using immunogenic cell death and reversing immunosuppression. Nat. Commun. 8, 1811 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Lu, J. et al. Breast cancer chemo-immunotherapy through liposomal delivery of an immunogenic cell death stimulus plus interference in the IDO-1 pathway. ACS Nano 12, 11041–11061 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Hwang, W. L., Pike, L. R. G., Royce, T. J., Mahal, B. A. & Loeffler, J. S. Safety of combining radiotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibition. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15, 477–494 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Ngwa, W. et al. Using immunotherapy to boost the abscopal effect. Nat. Rev. Cancer 18, 313–322 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Borden, E. C. Interferons α and β in cancer: therapeutic opportunities from new insights. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 18, 219–234 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Netea, M. G., Latz, E., Mills, K. H. G. & O’Neill, L. A. J. Innate immune memory: a paradigm shift in understanding host defense. Nat. Immunol. 16, 675–679 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Netea, M. G. et al. Trained immunity: A program of innate immune memory in health and disease. Science 352, aaf1098 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Chen, Q., Sun, L. & Chen, Z. J. Regulation and function of the cGAS-STING pathway of cytosolic DNA sensing. Nat. Immunol. 17, 1142–1149 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Shae, D. et al. Endosomolytic polymersomes increase the activity of cyclic dinucleotide STING agonists to enhance cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 269–278 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Faria, M. et al. Minimum information reporting in bio–nano experimental literature. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 777–785 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

R.v.d.M. is supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO; Veni STW grant no. 14385). E.S. is supported by the Central Norway Regional Health Authority (no. 46084000). Y.S. and T.L. acknowledge support by the European Union (European Fund for Regional Development: I3-STM (no. 0800387)). F.K. and T.L. are supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG; GRK 2375 (no. 331065168)). W.J.M.M. is supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01 HL118440, R01 HL125703, P01 HL131478) and by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO; ZonMW Vici grant no. 016.176.622). T.L. is supported by the European Research Council (no. 309495, no. 680882 and no. 813086), the European Commission (ERA-NET: NSC4DIPG), the German Research Foundation (DFG; SFB1066, SFB/TRR57) and the Aachen Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research (IZKF; no. O3-2).

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Roy van der Meel, Einar Sulheim and Yang Shi.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Chemical Biology, Department of Biomedical Engineering and Institute for Complex Molecular Systems, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Roy van der Meel & Willem J. M. Mulder

  2. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Roy van der Meel & Willem J. M. Mulder

  3. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Haematology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Roy van der Meel

  4. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Roy van der Meel

  5. Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Einar Sulheim

  6. Department of Biotechnology and Nanomedicine, SINTEF AS, Trondheim, Norway

    Einar Sulheim

  7. Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Einar Sulheim

  8. Institute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany

    Yang Shi, Fabian Kiessling & Twan Lammers

  9. Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA

    Willem J. M. Mulder

  10. Department of Targeted Therapeutics, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Twan Lammers

  11. Department of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Twan Lammers

Authors
  1. Roy van der Meel
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Einar Sulheim
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yang Shi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabian Kiessling
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Willem J. M. Mulder
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Twan Lammers
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Twan Lammers.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Meel, R., Sulheim, E., Shi, Y. et al. Smart cancer nanomedicine. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 1007–1017 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0567-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0567-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research