• Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
REVIEW
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 154-161

Nanoparticle drug delivery systems and three-dimensional cell cultures in cancer treatments and research


1 Key Laboratory of Bio resource and Eco-environment of Ministry of Education, College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China
2 Tissue Engineering Labs, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA; Department of Orthopedics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Date of Submission19-Apr-2016
Date of Acceptance20-Aug-2016
Date of Web Publication24-Oct-2016

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Wanting Niu
Department of Orthopedics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2395-3977.192933

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Being a great threat to human health, with no permanent cure yet, better treatment and further research in cancer are inevitable. Nanoparticle drug delivery systems (NDDSs), especially pH-sensitive NDDSs, such as lipid-based, polymeric, and mesoporous silica nanoparticles have played a significant role in cancer treatments. Further, three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures models, which include tumor spheroid models, microfluidic systems, and matrix/scaffolds-based 3D tumor, better mimic the tumor microenvironment than the conventional two-dimensional cultures, making it possible to better understand the disease while serving as a useful in vitro model for future research. The present review mainly focuses on such 3D cell cultures and drug delivery systems that are applied in cancer research and treatments.

Keywords: Cancer research and treatments, nanoparticle drug delivery systems, three-dimensional cell cultures, tissue engineering techniques


How to cite this article:
Shi W, Weng D, Niu W. Nanoparticle drug delivery systems and three-dimensional cell cultures in cancer treatments and research. Cancer Transl Med 2016;2:154-61

How to cite this URL:
Shi W, Weng D, Niu W. Nanoparticle drug delivery systems and three-dimensional cell cultures in cancer treatments and research. Cancer Transl Med [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Dec 11];2:154-61. Available from: http://www.cancertm.com/text.asp?2016/2/5/154/192933


  Introduction Top


It has been reported that malignant tumors are the leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for about 25% in the US alone.[1] Hence, it is crucial to improve the efficacy of drug delivery systems in cancer, which itself poses a big challenge. Currently, there are many anticancer drugs showing feeble effects on the treatment of solid tumors because of the characteristics of tumor microenvironments. Hence, it is important to develop effective drug delivery systems to improve the effectiveness of such anticancer drugs. Early nanoparticle (NP)-based drug delivery systems, such as polymeric NPs reported in 1979,[2] are shown to improve the efficacy of the drug, which have been applied in the cancer treatments for a long time.

In terms of evaluating the efficacy of drug delivery systems, the three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models which mimic the native complex tumor microenvironment in vitro have been studied for a long time.[3],[4],[5],[6] In 1970, Sutherland et al.[7] developed a spheroid cell culture system. In 1986, Kleinman et al.,[8] for the first time, illustrated the basement membrane activity from mouse tumor in cell cultures. In 1994, researchers tried to understand the 3D cell culture models and the impact of growth factors on them.[9] In addition, 3D cell cultures serve better models than conventional two-dimensional (2D) cell cultures, in diagnostic, pathogenesis, and drug discovery studies.


  Nanoparticle Drug Delivery System Top


There are many anticancer drugs showing feeble effects on the treatment of solid tumors, such as taxanes.[10] The blood vessels supplying the tumors, due to their increased rate of proliferation, travel long distances from the parent vessels than found in normal tissues to reach the normal site. This reduces the efficacy of many traditional anticancer drugs to reach the tumor because of their lower penetrating abilities.[11],[12] To overcome this disadvantage, nanoparticle drug delivery systems (NDDSs) are introduced, which are discussed below.

NDDS have been widely applied in the field of cancer therapy since two decades[13] while it was introduced to pharmacology back in 1970s.[14] NP size ranges from 1 to 100 nm in general. Moreover, NPs in tiny sizes cause toxicities for organisms. They can accumulate in kidney, liver, and even brain due to the possibility of passing through the blood-brain barrier.[15] Apart from the surface area, composition and charge of NPs can also cause undesired toxicities, which can be reduced or avoided by masking the NPs and adding targeting moieties to the NPs.[16] NDDS includes polymeric NPs, lipid-based carriers, mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs),[17] dendrimers, carbon nanotubes, and metal-based NPs which are advantageous in drug distribution compared with conventional drug delivery systems.[14] In addition, NDDS, compared to conventional drug delivery systems, can prevent the degradation of the drug from increasing its local concentration and control the releasing time.[14] Furthermore, NDDS reduces immunogenicity, increases bioavailability and solubility of drugs, modifies pharmacokinetics, and improves the half-life of the drug.[18] Cancer drug delivery systems require precision targeting ability so that the drug can be targeted specifically to the tumor tissue, thereby minimizing its adverse effects on the adjacent healthy tissue.

Lipid-based, polymeric, and mesoporous silica nanoparticle drug delivery system

Lipid-based NDDSs have various types, such as liposomes, micelles, nano-(micro) emulsions, and solid lipid NPs. Among these, liposome NPs have been approved by the food and drug administration for their application in cancer therapies.[13] Parhi and Sahoo[19] formulated a multifunctional nanotheranostic system for breast cancer therapy and imaging based on glyceryl monooleate lipid NPs. The trastuzumab (Tmab), a humanized monoclonal antibody, was conjugated to the surface of NPs to target human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (Her-2) positive breast cancer cells, whereas the anticancer drug rapamycin (rapa) and imaging agent (quantum dots, QDs) were embedded inside the lipid NPs. When the Tmab-QDs-rapa-NPs combined with Her-2 receptors on the cancer cell surface, they could enter the cell through receptor-mediated endocytosis. This system was tested effective on Her-2 positive SKBR 3 breast cancer cell line both in monolayer and 3D tumor spheroid models.[20] It is reported that lipid-based NPs contribute to the treatment of various EGFR positive cancers.[19]

Polymeric NDDSs are extremely common materials of nanoscale drug delivery systems; the earliest cancer therapy application was reported in 1979.[2] Some tumor cells and tumor endothelial cells express CD13, which also behaves as a receptor of Asn-Gly-Arg (NGR) motifs containing peptide. Gupta et al.[21] conjugated cyclic NGR on the polyethylene glycol (PEG) end of poly (D, L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA)-PEG copolymer, then encapsulated docetaxel, a potent anticancer moiety by emulsion/solvent evaporation method to form therapeutic NPs. The in vitro results showed that cNGR-functionalized PEG-PLGA-NPs can strengthen the efficacy of antitumor drug delivery tested cytotoxicity, cell apoptosis, and cell cycle analysis.[21] Another study reported that when beclin1 self-assembled into poly(β-amino ester) micelles, the formed NPs could enhance cytotoxicity to MCF-7 breast cancer cells through the induction of autophagy. Compared to unshelled small molecule drugs, the polymer encapsulated beclin1 was more stable, more specific in targetin, and thus had elevated delivery efficiency to tumors tissues.[22]

Mesoporous silica NDDSs have attracted much attention in the application of cancer therapies due to their microstructure and high-specific surface area. The first mesoporous silica NDDS, MCM-41 type MSNs, was reported in 2001.[17],[23] Hanafi-Bojd et al.[24] showed that epirubicin hydrochloride carried by functionalized MSNs was more effective than free epirubicin hydrochloride on a C-26 colon carcinoma model.[24] Cheng et al.[25] encapsulated anticancer drug doxorubicin (DOX) in MSNs then sealed the surface pores of MSNs with tumor-targeting cellular membrane-penetrating peptides and mitochondria-targeting therapeutic peptides (TPP) through sulfide bonds. These trifunctional NPs could enter cells as endosomes and then release TPP and DOX in cytoplasm. This novel design promoted NPDDSs for synergistic cancer therapy.[25]

In general, polymeric NDDSs can provide more versatile structures than lipid-based NDDSs[13] while mesoporous silica NDDSs are more flexible and versatile than polymeric NDDSs and lipid-based NDDSs.[17] Both lipid-based NDDSs and mesoporous silica NDDSs have more suitable and lower cost scale-up production methods than polymeric NDDSs.[13],[17] In the aspect of in vivo stability, mesoporous silica NDDSs and polymeric NDDSs are more stable compared with lipid-based NDDSs. In terms of toxicity, polymeric NDDSs have the highest toxicity among the three mentioned NDDSs, especially the poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and PLGA-based NPs.[26]

Drug delivery systems based on biodegradable and biocompatible polymers are the most successful ones of sustained drug release for brain cancer.[27] The most common NPs contain polymeric drug micelles and liposomes in the treatments of breast cancer.[28] Meanwhile, NDDSs play an important role in the treatment of myeloma. For example, the NPs containing PLGA, PEG, and bisphosphonate effectively inhibit myeloma progression as drug delivery system, which solves the difficulty of drug off-target and low drug concentrations in tumor.[29]

pH-sensitive nanoparticle drug delivery systems

NDDSs, which can respond to stimuli, have properties that can steer away from biological barriers and deliver anticancer drugs to tumor cells of target. There are various stimuli existing in human bodies, biological stimuli such as enzymes[30] and glucose,[31] chemical stimuli such as pH[32] and ionic[33] , and physical stimuli such as temperature[34] and electricity.[35] Moreover, NDDSs capable of responding to these stimuli have been developed to effectively delivery anticancer drugs. Among the different types of stimulus mentioned above, pH-sensitive NDDSs have been widely used to design sensitive nanosystems for drug delivery in cancer therapy, which have been approved by the food and drug administration (FDA).[36] Such NDDSs can be released in the acidic microenvironment and hence are more advantageous to human because the tumor microenvironment is more acidic than the normal microenvironment. Apart from that, as a result of abnormal active metabolism, the pH of the tumor microenvironment is around 5.7-5.8 whereas the pH of normal microenvironment is about 7.4 [Figure 1]a. pH-sensitive NDDSs can be obtained in some ways. One of them is using acid-labile chemical bonds to covalently attach drug molecules onto the surfaces of nanocarriers. Acetal, orthoester, hydrazone, imine, and cis-aconyl bonds are the acid-labile linkers, which are stable at neutral pH but are hydrolyzed or degraded in acidic microenvironment [Figure 1]b.[37] Importing ionizable chemical groups is another method to obtain pH-sensitive NDDSs. Amines, phosphoric acids, and carboxylic acids are ionizable chemical groups and they can accept or release protons in response to changes in the pH of the environment to release the drug.[38] Incorporating carbon dioxide-generating precursors to NPs can also produce pH-sensitive NDDSs.[39] Sodium bicarbonate[40] and ammonium bicarbonate[39] can generate CO2 .[36]
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of drugs released from acid-labile chemical bond-based nanoparticle drug delivery systems. (a) Acid-labile chemical bond-based nanoparticle drug delivery systems would not release the drug in the blood vessel since its pH is about 7.4. In contrast, they release the anticancer drug in the tumor tissues where the pH is about 5.7. (b) In acid-labile chemical bond-based nanoparticle drug delivery systems, drugs are conjugated to nanocarriers by acid-labile chemical bonds. When pH decreases from 7.4 to 5.7, the acid-labile chemical bonds break and release the drug

Click here to view


It is a promising strategy that pH-sensitive NDDSs are associated with lipid-based,[41],[42] polymeric,[43],[44],[45],[46] and MSNs.[47],[48],[49] It has been reported that pH-sensitive lipoprotein-mimic nanocarriers are highly effective in targeting tumors for delivering paclitaxel.[41] pH-sensitive polymeric NPs were also used to deliver doxorubicin to overcome its severe side effects.[43] Moreira et al.[47] showed that pH-responsive MSN with a calcium carbonate-based coating is an effective strategy to deliver the drug.


  Three-Dimensional Cell Cultures Top


Three-dimensional vs. two-dimensional cell cultures

Although 2D cell cultures can explain some cancer cell behaviors and related hypothetical mechanisms,[50] 3D tumor cell cultures in vitro better mimic the native and complex tumor microenvironment, gene expression profiles, cellular signaling pathways,[51] and the interactions between cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM).[50] It has been reported that hypoxia was only observed in the dense 3D multicellular spheroids,[52] which has not been observed in 2D cell cultures. Therefore, 3D cell cultures better mimic the hypoxia condition of breast cancer compared to 2D cell cultures. In addition, outcomes of some studies using 2D vs. 3D cell cultures are different. For example, as reported by Colley et al.,[53] to damage head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells, it is required to deliver the drugs deep into the center of the spheroid in 3D tumor models while only a short contact was required in 2D monolayer cultures. Sprague et al.[54] reported that dendritic cells can mimic the microenvironments of ovarian and breast cancer in 3D cell cultures through their interaction with collagen proteins but not in 2D cell cultures. Furthermore, 3D in vitro models have many advantages compared with animal models for cancer researches including immunodeficient mice, chemical carcinogenesis mouse model, and radiation carcinogenesis mouse model that are complex, unpredictable, and have ethical issues.[50] For instance, Zheng et al.[55] created a novel human gastric tissue-derived orthotopic and metastatic mouse model of human gastric cancer, but after human gastric tissue was implanted, its normal function in mouse was difficult to achieve. Therefore, 3D cell cultures are widely applied in a variety of fields in cancer research, including diagnostic and therapeutic application, pathogenesis study, drug testing,[56] and drug discovery.[57]

In vitro three-dimensional cancer models

In vitro 3D cancer models can be classified into spheroids in suspension, microfluidic systems, gel embedding, scaffold-based models, and cell printing.[50] Kimlin et al.[58] classified 3D culture models into cells cultured as multicellular aggregates, cells cultured on inserts, and cells embedded in matrices. Here, we detail in vitro 3D cancer models including multicellular tumor spheroid model, microfluidic system, matrix/scaffold-derived 3D tumor model, and scaffold-based model [Table 1].
Table 1. The advantages of three in vitro three-dimensional cancer models


Click here to view


Tumor spheroid

Tumor spheroids are masses of polymeric cells to simulate the characteristics of tumors in vitro.[59] The tumor spheroids can be formed in a few ways such as liquid overlay, spinner flasks, gyratory rotation systems, hanging drop, and suspension cultures.[60] The multicellular tumor spheroid models are widely applied in oncology. Moreover, the multicellular tumor spheroid with fluorescent readouts and high-content imaging are effective to improve the potential of antidrug discovery and the accuracy of high-throughput screenings.[61]

There are some experiments that compare multicellular 3D tumor spheroid models and 2D monolayer cultures which demonstrate that the former is advantageous for its similarity to the in vivo tumor microenvironment and other aspects.[62],[63],[64] Terashima et al.[65] compared the regulations of the expression of genes encoding the drug-metabolizing enzymes CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 in the human hepatocellular carcinoma cells in 3D tumor spheroids and 2D monolayer cultures and found that the expression of CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 in the 3D tumor spheroids was higher than that in 2D cultured cells.

The tumor spheroid model is appropriate in the investigation of different types of tumors such as brain tumors,[66] ovarian cancer,[67] and lung cancer.[63] Vinci et al.[66] developed an invasion assay method to use 3D tumor spheroids in a human glioblastoma cell line. These 3D tumor spheroids can better simulate the invasion of some cancers in vitro, especially brain tumors and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck without distant metastases.[66] Similarly, Raghavan et al.[67] developed 3D ovarian cancer spheroids using hanging drop arrays, whose advantage was the need of very small number of ovarian cancer cells at the initiation. The multicellular tumor spheroid model was used to estimate the rate of oxygen consumption.[67] In addition, this system has been used for ovarian cancer spheroid biology researches and preclinical drug sensitivity assays.[67] Multicellular tumor spheroids are also applied in anti-lung cancer drug testing.[64]

Microfluidic systems

Microfluidic systems have been developed rapidly since microfluidics emerged as a tool in biological research in the early 1990s.[68] The systems are designed to handle fluids in microchannels, with size ranging from 1 to 1000 μm.[69] Microfluidic systems have many advantages to become a valuable tool for diagnosing and investigating cancer, including small amount of samples and reagents consumption, intensive spatio-temporal control, high sensitivity, and high throughput.[68],[69] In addition, the microfluidic system can be applied in quantitative detection of mutations,[70] drug testing,[71],[72] and high-throughput screening of anticancer drugs.[73],[74]

As the microfluidic systems work at the microlevel, they are capable of simultaneously handling a large quantity of sample and hence provide high throughput. Xu et al.[75] created a microfluidic chip-based 3D coculture system to form a valid drug sensitivity test platform. On this platform, sensitivities of many anticancer drugs were tested at the same time, and finally, the precise doses of anticancer drugs were screened, and individualized treatments were designed for eight patients with lung cancer.[75] A patient-specific 3D microfluidic system was used to mimic the dynamic physiological microenvironment in bone marrow, assess drugs, investigate multiple myeloma, and evaluate individualized treatments for multiple myeloma patients.[76] Analogously, Bruce et al.[77] used 3D microfluidic triculture model to simulate the bone marrow microenvironment to investigate acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Matrix/scaffold-based three-dimensional tumor models

Matrix-based 3D tumor models are needed because the biochemical, mechanical, and architectural properties of the ECM play a critical role in cancer progression.[78] With the development of tissue engineering, matrix/scaffold-based 3D tumor models are created to better understand the dynamic interactions between the solid tumors and their surrounding microenvironments, especially the natural ECMs [Table 2].[61],[79]
Table 2. The advantages of materials used in matrix/scaffold-based three-dimensional tumor models


Click here to view


Basement membrane extractions, collagen type I, silk fibroin biomaterial, alginates, and hyaluronic acid (HA) all belong to naturally derived matrices, with which tumor cells can interact and thus simulate tumor microenvironment.[59] The basement membrane is associated with many tissues, which can be used to investigate differentiation, apoptosis, cancer growth, invasion, and angiogenesis. Moreover, basement membrane can be applied in various cancer investigations, such as breast cancer,[80],[81] ovarian cancer,[82] and endometrial cancer.[83] When breast cancer cells were cultured on basement membrane protein matrices, the cell invasion into the surrounding environment and correlative mechanisms can be identified.[80] The constituents of Matrigel are similar to that of other basement membrane proteins including laminins, collagen IV, entactin, heparan sulfate proteoglycan, or non-ECM proteins.[84] Matrigel is widely used in cancer investigations, such as breast tumor,[85],[86],[87] colorectal cancer,[88],[89] and lung cancer,[90] study of tumor colony formation, tumor cell metastasis, tumor-normal cell interaction,[88] and detection of invasion kinetics of individual cells.[90]

Type I collagen has also been applied in 3D cancer models.[91] Magdeldin et al.[92] produced a colorectal cancer model with collagen type I hydrogels, which was used as an in vitro drug screening platform to observe the morphology of colorectal cancer cells and test the efficacy of Cetuximab on HT29 and HCT116 cell lines.[92] Compared with basement membrane extractions, type I collagen has an advantage of manufacturing reproducibility. In addition, basement membrane extractions have residual growth factors and undefined components. However, Type I collagen is sensitive to temperature, pH, and ionic concentrations, which lead to different results from different laboratories.[79]

In comparison to the two types of naturally derived matrices described above, silk fibroin biomaterials have more advantages due to their particular mechanical properties, good biocompatibility, and degradability that can be easily controlled, which make silk fibroin biomaterials widely used in the field of tissue regenerations, such as vascular regeneration, neural tissue repair, skin reconstruction, and musculoskeletal tissue reformation.[93]

Alginate and HA are also naturally derived matrices broadly used in constructing 3D cell culture systems. Alginates could be used as biodegradable hydrogels with controlled mechanical properties and pore sizes,[59] which can be applied in screening anticancer drugs of nonsmall cell lung cancer,[94] real-time monitoring of cell proliferation and apoptosis,[95] and characterization of human head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.[96] Alginates do not involve in cancer growth and progression, which are observed with HA.[97] HA is a simple linear polysaccharide interacting with proteins and proteoglycans, such as cell surface receptors, which regulate tumor progression and metastasis.[97] Therefore, HA hydrogels are applied in tumor progression and metastasis investigations, especially for HA-rich connective tissue models. With the purpose of studying HA interactive proteins in prostate cancer (PCa) motility, invasive PCa cells were seeded in HA hydrogels to form "invadopodia." The number of invadopodia, cluster size, and morphology, as well as convergence, provide quantitative parameters for evaluating invasive potential.[98] In another study, human renal cell carcinoma subline, 786-O cells survived longer but with lower proliferation rate in HA gels compared to its counterpart 2D cultures. Importantly, some adhesion-related molecules, angiogenesis factors, and osteolytic factors which are related to bone metastasis were found upregulated compared to the 2D cultures.[99]

The development of synthetic matrices and scaffolds also helps to stimulate critical characteristics of ECMs such as matrix morphology and porosity, which are significantly involved in burgeoning approaches in tissue engineering.[79] Moreover, compared with natural polymers, synthetic matrices provide controlled conditions due to their designed biochemical, mechanical, and degradable properties. There are various synthetic matrices and scaffolds, such as polyacrylamide hydrogel, PLA, poly(glycolic acid) (PGA), PLGA, and PEG porous scaffolds.[78]

Although polyacrylamide hydrogel contributes to cancer investigation, its usage in 3D culture studies is limited due to its cytotoxicity while PLA and PGA have better cell compatibility and hence have been broadly applied in 3D cell cultures.[100] Porous scaffolds are also widely applied in tissue engineering. PEG could easily form a 3D polymeric network and its swelling degree could be adjusted under physiological conditions.[79] In addition, PEG is an FDA-approved hydrophilic polymer widely studied both in vitro and in vivo.[100]


  Conclusion and Future Perspectives Top


Drug delivery system, especially implantable biodegradable DDS and NDDSs, plays a crucial role in the treatment of cancer. Among NDDSs, pH-responsive NDDSs have been most widely used to design sensitive nanosystems for drug delivery in cancer therapy, which have been approved by the FDA. NPs contain various kinds of materials, such as lipid-based, polymeric, and mesoporous silica NDDS which have different characteristics. Excitingly, cancer immunotherapy drugs formulated using NPs are more efficient than the original drugs.[101] Therefore, NDDSs can be used to enhance the efficacy of cancer immunotherapies.

3D cell cultures have many advantages over 2D cell cultures and animal models. They mimic the native complex tumor microenvironments and other aspects and thus are widely applied in the field of cancer therapeutics, which include tumor spheroid models, microfluidic systems, and matrix/scaffold-based 3D tumor models. Recent clinical trials have shown that cancer immunotherapies, e.g. checkpoint blockade antibodies, are beneficial and efficacious in cancer treatments.[102],[103] Because of their advantages, 3D cell cultures are increasingly being applied for the evaluation of new therapies, especially cancer immunotherapies.[104] Microfluidic systems can also be used in the evaluation of individualized cancer therapies, such as cancer immunotherapies using cells or tissues from patients.[75]

Notably, to fully develop reliable 3D tumor models for drug discovery, screening, and testing, some disease-specific factors need to be evaluated further and optimized in large-scale studies.[103] Although the interaction between cancer and stromal cells is essential for tumorigenesis and progression, cells of the innate, and adaptive immune system can enhance the processes, which include monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, neutrophils, and lymphocytes. Moreover, in recent years, cancer immune microenvironment has been shown to play a major role in tumorigenesis, development, and metastasis. Therefore, 3D models should elucidate and simulate these interactions in vitro. It is a challenge to engineer immunocompetent 3D cancer systems.[105] To understand the differences of employing different cell lines and primary cells in the same study is another challenging field.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63 (1): 11-30.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Bolhassani A, Javanzad S, Saleh T, Hashemi M, Aghasadeghi MR, Sadat SM. Polymeric nanoparticles: potent vectors for vaccine delivery targeting cancer and infectious diseases. Hum Vaccines Immunother 2014; 10 (2): 321-32.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Thoma CR, Zimmermann M, Agarkova I, Kelm JM, Krek W. 3D cell culture systems modeling tumor growth determinants in cancer target discovery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2014; 69-70: 29-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Eritja N, Dolcet X, Matias-Guiu X. Three-dimensional epithelial cultures: a tool to model cancer development and progression. Histol Histopathol 2013; 28 (10): 1245-56.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Weigelt B, Ghajar CM, Bissell MJ. The need for complex 3D culture models to unravel novel pathways and identify accurate biomarkers in breast cancer. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2014; 69-70: 42-51.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Benien P, Swami A. 3D tumor models: history, advances and future perspectives. Future Oncol Lond Engl 2014; 10 (7): 1311-27.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Sutherland RM, Inch WR, McCredie JA, Kruuv J. A multi-component radiation survival curve using an in vitro tumour model. Int J Radiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med 1970; 18 (5): 491-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kleinman HK, McGarvey ML, Hassell JR, Star VL, Cannon FB, Laurie GW, Martin GR. Basement membrane complexes with biological activity. Biochemistry (Mosc) 1986; 25 (2): 312-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Bellusci S, Moens G, Gaudino G, Comoglio P, Nakamura T, Thiery JP, Jouanneau J. Creation of an hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor autocrine loop in carcinoma cells induces invasive properties associated with increased tumorigenicity. Oncogene 1994; 9 (4): 1091-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Kyle AH, Huxham LA, Yeoman DM, Minchinton AI. Limited tissue penetration of taxanes: a mechanism for resistance in solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13 (9): 2804-10.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Nacev A, Kim SH, Rodriguez-Canales J, Tangrea MA, Shapiro B, Emmert-Buck MR. A dynamic magnetic shift method to increase nanoparticle concentration in cancer metastases: a feasibility study using simulations on autopsy specimens. Int J Nanomedicine 2011; 6: 2907-23.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Khawar IA, Kim JH, Kuh HJ. Improving drug delivery to solid tumors: priming the tumor microenvironment. J Control Release 2015; 201: 78-89.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Feng L, Mumper RJ. A critical review of lipid-based nanoparticles for taxane delivery. Cancer Lett 2013; 334 (2): 157-75.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ruiz ME, Gantner ME, Talevi A. Applications of nanosystems to anticancer drug therapy (Part II. Dendrimers, micelles, lipid-based nanosystems). Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov 2014; 9 (1): 99-128.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Dhawan A, Sharma V. Toxicity assessment of nanomaterials: methods and challenges. Anal Bioanal Chem 2010; 398 (2): 589-605.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Sharma A, Madhunapantula SV, Robertson GP. Toxicological considerations when creating nanoparticle-based drugs and drug delivery systems. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2012; 8 (1): 47-69.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Tang F, Li L, Chen D. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles: synthesis, biocompatibility and drug delivery. Adv Mater 2012; 24 (12): 1504-34.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Dianzani C, Zara GP, Maina G, Pettazzoni P, Pizzimenti S, Rossi F, Gigliotti CL, Ciamporcero ES, Daga M, Barrera G. Drug delivery nanoparticles in skin cancers. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 895986.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Parhi P, Sahoo SK. Trastuzumab guided nanotheranostics: a lipid based multifunctional nanoformulation for targeted drug delivery and imaging in breast cancer therapy. J Colloid Interface Sci 2015; 451: 198-211.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Benhabbour SR, Luft JC, Kim D, Jain A, Wadhwa S, Parrott MC, Liu R, DeSimone JM, Mumper RJ. In vitro and in vivo assessment of targeting lipid-based nanoparticles to the epidermal growth factor-receptor (EGFR) using a novel heptameric ZEGFR domain. J Control Release 2012; 158 (1): 63-71.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Gupta M, Chashoo G, Sharma PR, Saxena AK, Gupta PN, Agrawal GP, Vyas SP. Dual targeted polymeric nanoparticles based on tumor endothelium and tumor cells for enhanced antitumor drug delivery. Mol Pharm 2014; 11 (3): 697-715.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Wang Y, Lin YX, Qiao ZY, An HW, Qiao SL, Wang L, Rajapaksha RP, Wang H. Self-assembled autophagy-inducing polymeric nanoparticles for breast cancer interference in-vivo. Adv Mater 2015; 27 (16): 2627-34.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Baeza A, Colilla M, Vallet-Regí M. Advances in mesoporous silica nanoparticles for targeted stimuli-responsive drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2015; 12 (2): 319-37.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Hanafi-Bojd MY, Jaafari MR, Ramezanian N, Xue M, Amin M, Shahtahmassebi N, Malaekeh-Nikouei B. Surface functionalized mesoporous silica nanoparticles as an effective carrier for epirubicin delivery to cancer cells. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2015; 89: 248-58.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Cheng YJ, Zeng X, Cheng DB, Xu XD, Zhang XZ, Zhuo RX, He F. Functional mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSNs) for highly controllable drug release and synergistic therapy. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 2016; 145: 217-25.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Müller RH, Maassen S, Weyhers H, Mehnert W. Phagocytic uptake and cytotoxicity of solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) sterically stabilized with poloxamine 908 and poloxamer 407. J Drug Target 1996; 4 (3): 161-70.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Zhou J, Atsina KB, Himes BT, Strohbehn GW, Saltzman WM. Novel delivery strategies for glioblastoma. Cancer J 2012; 18 (1): 89-99.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Sharma A, Jain N, Sareen R. Nanocarriers for diagnosis and targeting of breast cancer. Biomed Res Int 2013; 2013: 960821.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Swami A, Reagan MR, Basto P, Mishima Y, Kamaly N, Glavey S, Zhang S, Moschetta M, Seevaratnam D, Zhang Y, Liu J, Memarzadeh M, Wu J, Manier S, Shi J, Bertrand N, Lu ZN, Nagano K, Baron R, Sacco A, Roccaro AM, Farokhzad OC, Ghobrial IM. Engineered nanomedicine for myeloma and bone microenvironment targeting. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014; 111 (28): 10287-92.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Liu Y, Ding X, Li J, Luo Z, Hu Y, Liu J, Dai L, Zhou J, Hou C, Cai K. Enzyme responsive drug delivery system based on mesoporous silica nanoparticles for tumor therapy in vivo. Nanotechnology 2015; 26 (14): 145102.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Sun L, Zhang X, Zheng C, Wu Z, Li C. A pH gated, glucose-sensitive nanoparticle based on worm-like mesoporous silica for controlled insulin release. J Phys Chem B 2013; 117 (14): 3852-60.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Felber AE, Dufresne MH, Leroux JC. pH-sensitive vesicles, polymeric micelles, and nanospheres prepared with polycarboxylates. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2012; 64 (11): 979-92.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Alvarez-Lorenzo C, Blanco-Fernandez B, Puga AM, Concheiro A. Crosslinked ionic polysaccharides for stimuli-sensitive drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2013; 65 (9): 1148-71.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Koppolu B, Bhavsar Z, Wadajkar AS, Nattama S, Rahimi M, Nwariaku F, Nguyen KT. Temperature-sensitive polymer-coated magnetic nanoparticles as a potential drug delivery system for targeted therapy of thyroid cancer. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2012; 8 (6): 983-90.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Zhang WL, Choi HJ. Fast and facile fabrication of a graphene oxide/titania nanocomposite and its electro-responsive characteristics. Chem Commun (Camb) 2011; 47 (45): 12286-8.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Liu J, Huang Y, Kumar A, Tan A, Jin S, Mozhi A, Liang XJ. pH-sensitive nano-systems for drug delivery in cancer therapy. Biotechnol Adv 2014; 32 (4): 693-710.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Knorr V, Russ V, Allmendinger L, Ogris M, Wagner E. Acetal linked oligoethylenimines for use as pH-sensitive gene carriers. Bioconjug Chem 2008; 19 (8): 1625-34.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Shim MS, Kwon YJ. Ketalizedpoly (amino ester) for stimuli-responsive and biocompatible gene delivery. Polym Chem UK 2012; 3: 2570-7.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Liu J, Ma H, Wei T, Liang XJ. CO2 gas induced drug release from pH-sensitive liposome to circumvent doxorubicin resistant cells. Chem Commun (Camb) 2012; 48 (40): 4869-71.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Ke CJ, Su TY, Chen HL, Liu HL, Chiang WL, Chu PC, Xia Y, Sung HW. Smart multifunctional hollow microspheres for the quick release of drugs in intracellular lysosomal compartments. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2011; 50 (35): 8086-9.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Chen C, Hu H, Qiao M, Zhao X, Wang Y, Chen K, Guo X, Chen D. Tumor-targeting and pH-sensitive lipoprotein-mimic nanocarrier for targeted intracellular delivery of paclitaxel. Int J Pharm 2015; 480 (1-2): 116-27.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Li S, Su Z, Sun M, Xiao Y, Cao F, Huang A, Li H, Ping Q, Zhang C. An arginine derivative contained nanostructure lipid carriers with pH-sensitive membranolytic capability for lysosomolytic anti-cancer drug delivery. Int J Pharm 2012; 436 (1-2): 248-57.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Meng F, Zhong Y, Cheng R, Deng C, Zhong Z. pH-sensitive polymeric nanoparticles for tumor-targeting doxorubicin delivery: concept and recent advances. Nanomedicine 2014; 9 (3): 487-99.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Lin YX, Gao YJ, Wang Y, Qiao ZY, Fan G, Qiao SL, Zhang RX, Wang L, Wang H. pH-sensitive polymeric nanoparticles with gold (I) compound payloads synergistically induce cancer cell death through modulation of autophagy. Mol Pharm 2015; 12 (8): 2869-78.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Zhang Z, Sun Q, Zhong J, Yang Q, Li H, Du C, Liang B, Shuai X. Magnetic resonance imaging-visible and pH-sensitive polymeric micelles for tumor targeted drug delivery. J Biomed Nanotechnol 2014; 10 (2): 216-26.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Liu Y, Feng L, Liu T, Zhang L, Yao Y, Yu D, Wang L, Zhang N. Multifunctional pH-sensitive polymeric nanoparticles for theranostics evaluated experimentally in cancer. Nanoscale 2014; 6 (6): 3231-42.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Moreira AF, Gaspar VM, Costa EC, de Melo-Diogo D, Machado P, Paquete CM, Correia IJ. Preparation of end-capped pH-sensitive mesoporous silica nanocarriers for on-demand drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 2014; 88 (3): 1012-25.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Zheng J, Tian X, Sun Y, Lu D, Yang W. pH-sensitive poly (glutamic acid) grafted mesoporous silica nanoparticles for drug delivery. Int J Pharm 2013; 450 (1-2): 296-303.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Xiao D, Jia HZ, Zhang J, Liu CW, Zhuo RX, Zhang XZ. A dual-responsive mesoporous silica nanoparticle for tumor-triggered targeting drug delivery. Small 2014; 10 (3): 591-8.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Wang C, Tang Z, Zhao Y, Yao R, Li L, Sun W. Three-dimensional in vitro cancer models: a short review. Biofabrication 2014; 6 (2): 22001.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Vinci M, Gowan S, Boxall F, Patterson L, Zimmermann M, Court W, Lomas C, Mendiola M, Hardisson D, Eccles SA. Advances in establishment and analysis of three-dimensional tumor spheroid-based functional assays for target validation and drug evaluation. BMC Biol 2012; 10: 29.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Imamura Y, Mukohara T, Shimono Y, Funakoshi Y, Chayahara N, Toyoda M, Kiyota N, Takao S, Kono S, Nakatsura T, Minami H. Comparison of 2D- and 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in breast cancer. Oncol Rep 2015; 33 (4): 1837-43.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Colley HE, Hearnden V, Avila-Olias M, Cecchin D, Canton I, Madsen J, MacNeil S, Warren N, Hu K, McKeating JA, Armes SP, Murdoch C, Thornhill MH, Battaglia G. Polymersome-mediated delivery of combination anticancer therapy to head and neck cancer cells: 2D and 3D in vitro evaluation. Mol Pharm 2014; 11 (4): 1176-88.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Sprague L, Muccioli M, Pate M, Singh M, Xiong C, Ostermann A, Niese B, Li Y, Li Y, Courreges MC, Benencia F. Dendritic cells: in vitro culture in two- and three-dimensional collagen systems and expression of collagen receptors in tumors and atherosclerotic microenvironments. Exp Cell Res 2014; 323 (1): 7-27.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Zheng MJ, Wang J, Chen YW, Xu L, Xue DD, Fu W, Zhang YF, Du Q, Zhao Y, Ling LJ, Ding Q, Liu XA, Zha XM, Zheng W, Xia TS, Wang S. A novel mouse model of gastric cancer with human gastric microenvironment. Cancer Lett 2012; 325 (1): 108-15.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011; 144 (5): 646-74.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Elliott NT, Yuan F. A review of three-dimensional in vitro tissue models for drug discovery and transport studies. J Pharm Sci 2011; 100 (1): 59-74.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Kimlin LC, Casagrande G, Virador VM. In vitro three-dimensional (3D) models in cancer research: an update. Mol Carcinog 2013; 52 (3): 167-82.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Xu X, Farach-Carson MC, Jia X. Three-dimensional in vitro tumor models for cancer research and drug evaluation. Biotechnol Adv 2014; 32 (7): 1256-68.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Page H, Flood P, Reynaud EG. Three-dimensional tissue cultures: current trends and beyond. Cell Tissue Res 2013; 352 (1): 123-31.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
LaBarbera DV, Reid BG, Yoo BH. The multicellular tumor spheroid model for high-throughput cancer drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2012; 7 (9): 819-30.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Hirschhaeuser F, Menne H, Dittfeld C, West J, Mueller-Klieser W, Kunz-Schughart LA. Multicellular tumor spheroids: an underestimated tool is catching up again. J Biotechnol 2010; 148 (1): 3-15.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Hoque MT, Windus LCE, Lovitt CJ, Avery VM. PCa Analyser: a 2D-image analysis based module for effective determination of prostate cancer progression in 3D culture. PLoS One 2013; 8 (11): e79865.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Lama R, Zhang L, Naim JM, Williams J, Zhou A, Su B. Development, validation and pilot screening of an in vitro multi-cellular three-dimensional cancer spheroid assay for anti-cancer drug testing. Bioorg Med Chem 2013; 21 (4): 922-31.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Terashima J, Goto S, Hattori H, Hoshi S, Ushirokawa M, Kudo K, Habano W, Ozawa S. CYP1A1 and CYP1A2 expression levels are differentially regulated in three-dimensional spheroids of liver cancer cells compared to two-dimensional monolayer cultures. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2015; 30 (6): 434-40.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Vinci M, Box C, Eccles SA. Three-dimensional (3D) tumor spheroid invasion assay. J Vis Exp 2015; (99): e52686.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Raghavan S, Ward MR, Rowley KR, Wold RM, Takayama S, Buckanovich RJ, Mehta G. Formation of stable small cell number three-dimensional ovarian cancer spheroids using hanging drop arrays for preclinical drug sensitivity assays. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 138 (1): 181-9.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Zhang Z, Nagrath S. Microfluidics and cancer: are we there yet? Biomed Microdevices 2013; 15 (4): 595-609.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Whitesides GM. The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature 2006; 442 (7101): 368-73.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Pekin D, Skhiri Y, Baret JC, Le Corre D, Mazutis L, Salem CB, Millot F, El Harrak A, Hutchison JB, Larson JW, Link DR, Laurent-Puig P, Griffiths AD, Taly V. Quantitative and sensitive detection of rare mutations using droplet-based microfluidics. Lab Chip 2011; 11 (13): 2156-66.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Gao Y, Li P, Pappas D. A microfluidic localized, multiple cell culture array using vacuum actuated cell seeding: integrated anticancer drug testing. Biomed Microdevices 2013; 15 (6): 907-15.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Ho NT, Desai D, Zaman MH. Rapid and specific drug quality testing assay for artemisinin and its derivatives using a luminescent reaction and novel microfluidic technology. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2015; 92 (6 Suppl): 24-30.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Kim J, Taylor D, Agrawal N, Wang H, Kim H, Han A, Rege K, Jayaraman A. A programmable microfluidic cell array for combinatorial drug screening. Lab Chip 2012; 12 (10): 1813-22.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Wlodkowic D, Cooper JM. Tumors on chips: oncology meets microfluidics. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2010; 14 (5): 556-67.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Xu Z, Gao Y, Hao Y, Li E, Wang Y, Zhang J, Wang W, Gao Z, Wang Q. Application of a microfluidic chip-based 3D co-culture to test drug sensitivity for individualized treatment of lung cancer. Biomaterials 2013; 34 (16): 4109-17.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Zhang W, Lee WY, Siegel DS, Tolias P, Zilberberg J. Patient-specific 3D microfluidic tissue model for multiple myeloma. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2014; 20 (8): 663-70.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Bruce A, Evans R, Mezan R, Shi L, Moses BS, Martin KH, Gibson LF, Yang Y. Three-dimensional microfluidic tri-culture model of the bone marrow microenvironment for study of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. PLoS One 2015; 10 (10): e0140506.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Gill BJ, West JL. Modeling the tumor extracellular matrix: tissue engineering tools repurposed towards new frontiers in cancer biology. J Biomech 2014; 47 (9): 1969-78.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Hutmacher DW, Loessner D, Rizzi S, Kaplan DL, Mooney DJ, Clements JA. Can tissue engineering concepts advance tumor biology research? Trends Biotechnol 2010; 28 (3): 125-33.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Nguyen HT, Li C, Lin Z, Zhuang Y, Flemington EK, Burow ME, Lin Y, Shan B. The microRNA expression associated with morphogenesis of breast cancer cells in three-dimensional organotypic culture. Oncol Rep 2012; 28 (1): 117-26.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Cvetković D, Goertzen CG, Bhattacharya M. Quantification of breast cancer cell invasiveness using a three-dimensional (3D) model. J Vis Exp 2014; (88): 51341.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Chen J, Wang J, Chen D, Yang J, Yang C, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Dou J. Evaluation of characteristics of CD44+CD117+ovarian cancer stem cells in three dimensional basement membrane extract scaffold versus two dimensional monocultures. BMC Cell Biol 2013; 14: 7.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Chitcholtan K, Asselin E, Parent S, Sykes PH, Evans JJ. Differences in growth properties of endometrial cancer in three dimensional (3D) culture and 2D cell monolayer. Exp Cell Res 2013; 319 (1): 75-87.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Fridman R, Benton G, Aranoutova I, Kleinman HK, Bonfil RD. Increased initiation and growth of tumor cell lines, cancer stem cells and biopsy material in mice using basement membrane matrix protein (Cultrex or Matrigel) co-injection. Nat Protoc 2012; 7 (6): 1138-44.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Poincloux R, Collin O, Lizárraga F, Romao M, Debray M, Piel M, Chavrier P. Contractility of the cell rear drives invasion of breast tumor cells in 3D Matrigel. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011; 108 (5): 1943-8.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Holen I, Nutter F, Wilkinson JM, Evans CA, Avgoustou P, Ottewell PD. Human breast cancer bone metastasis in vitro and in vivo: a novel 3D model system for studies of tumour cell-bone cell interactions. Clin Exp Metastasis 2015; 32 (7): 689-702.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Smolina M, Goormaghtigh E. FTIR imaging of the 3D extracellular matrix used to grow colonies of breast cancer cell lines. Analyst 2016; 141 (2): 620-9.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Chandrasekaran S, Deng H, Fang Y. PTEN deletion potentiates invasion of colorectal cancer spheroidal cells through 3D Matrigel. Integr Biol 2015; 7 (3): 324-34.  Back to cited text no. 88
    
89.
Febles NK, Ferrie AM, Fang Y. Label-free single cell kinetics of the invasion of spheroidal colon cancer cells through 3D Matrigel. Anal Chem 2014; 86 (17): 8842-9.  Back to cited text no. 89
    
90.
Reno TA, Kim JY, Raz DJ. Triptolide inhibits lung cancer cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. Ann Thorac Surg 2015; 100 (5): 1817-25.  Back to cited text no. 90
    
91.
Szot CS, Buchanan CF, Freeman JW, Rylander MN. 3D in vitro bioengineered tumors based on collagen I hydrogels. Biomaterials 2011; 32 (31): 7905-12.  Back to cited text no. 91
    
92.
Magdeldin T, López-Dávila V, Villemant C, Cameron G, Drake R, Cheema U, Loizidou M. The efficacy of cetuximab in a tissue-engineered three-dimensional in vitro model of colorectal cancer. J Tissue Eng 2014; 5: 2041731414544183.  Back to cited text no. 92
    
93.
Kundu B, Rajkhowa R, Kundu SC, Wang X. Silk fibroin biomaterials for tissue regenerations. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2013; 65 (4): 457-70.  Back to cited text no. 93
    
94.
Godugu C, Singh M. AlgiMatrix™-Based 3D Cell culture system as an in vitro tumor model: an important tool in cancer research. Methods Mol Biol 2016; 1379: 117-28.  Back to cited text no. 94
    
95.
Lee SM, Han N, Lee R, Choi IH, Park YB, Shin JS, Yoo KH. Real-time monitoring of 3D cell culture using a 3D capacitance biosensor. Biosens Bioelectron 2016; 77: 56-61.  Back to cited text no. 95
    
96.
Liu C, Liu Y, Xu X, Wu H, Xie H, Chen L, Lu T, Yang L, Guo X, Sun GW, Wang W, Ma XJ, He X. Potential effect of matrix stiffness on the enrichment of tumor initiating cells under three-dimensional culture conditions. Exp Cell Res 2015; 330 (1): 123-34.  Back to cited text no. 96
    
97.
Dicker KT, Gurski LA, Pradhan-Bhatt S, Witt RL, Farach-Carson MC, Jia X. Hyaluronan: a simple polysaccharide with diverse biological functions. Acta Biomater 2014; 10 (4): 1558-70.  Back to cited text no. 97
    
98.
Gurski LA, Xu X, Labrada LN, Nguyen NT, Xiao L, van Golen KL, Jia X, Farach-Carson MC. Hyaluronan (HA) interacting proteins RHAMM and hyaluronidase impact prostate cancer cell behavior and invadopodia formation in 3D HA-based hydrogels. PLoS One 2012; 7 (11): e50075.  Back to cited text no. 98
    
99.
Pan T, Fong EL, Martinez M, Harrington DA, Lin SH, Farach-Carson MC, Satcher RL. Three-dimensional (3D) culture of bone-derived human 786-O renal cell carcinoma retains relevant clinical characteristics of bone metastases. Cancer Lett 2015; 365 (1): 89-95.  Back to cited text no. 99
    
100.
Joyce JA, Pollard JW. Microenvironmental regulation of metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer 2009; 9 (4): 239-52.  Back to cited text no. 100
    
101.
Goldberg MS. Immunoengineering: how nanotechnology can enhance cancer immunotherapy. Cell 2015; 161 (2): 201-4.  Back to cited text no. 101
    
102.
Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Wolchok JD, Hersey P, Joseph RW, Weber JS, Dronca R, Gangadhar TC, Patnaik A, Zarour H, Joshua AM, Gergich K, Elassaiss-Schaap J, Algazi A, Mateus C, Boasberg P, Tumeh PC, Chmielowski B, Ebbinghaus SW, Li XN, Kang SP, Ribas A. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2013; 369 (2): 134-44.  Back to cited text no. 102
    
103.
Gu L, Mooney DJ. Biomaterials and emerging anticancer therapeutics: engineering the microenvironment. Nat Rev Cancer 2016; 16 (1): 56-66.  Back to cited text no. 103
    
104.
Breslin S, O′Driscoll L. Three-dimensional cell culture: the missing link in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2013; 18 (5-6): 240-9.  Back to cited text no. 104
    
105.
Nyga A, Neves J, Stamati K, Loizidou M, Emberton M, Cheema U. The next level of 3D tumour models: immunocompetence. Drug Discov Today 2016; 21 (9): 1421-8.  Back to cited text no. 105
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


This article has been cited by
1 Immobilization of gold nanoparticles on folate-conjugated dendritic mesoporous silica-coated reduced graphene oxide nanosheets: a new nanoplatform for curcumin pH-controlled and targeted delivery
Samira Malekmohammadi,Hassan Hadadzadeh,Hossein Farrokhpour,Zahra Amirghofran
Soft Matter. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Evaluating nanomedicine with microfluidics
Ziyi He,Nandhini Ranganathan,Peng Li
Nanotechnology. 2018; 29(49): 492001
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Glycogen-nucleic acid constructs for gene silencing in multicellular tumor spheroids
Marcin Wojnilowicz,Quinn A. Besford,Yun-Long Wu,Xian Jun Loh,Julia A. Braunger,Agata Glab,Christina Cortez-Jugo,Frank Caruso,Francesca Cavalieri
Biomaterials. 2018; 176: 34
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Hydrogel based 3D carriers in the application of stem cell therapy by direct injection
Chengxin Luan,Ping Liu,Runzhe Chen,Baoan Chen
Nanotechnology Reviews. 2017; 6(5)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Nanoparticle Dru...
Three-Dimensiona...
Conclusion and F...
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2738    
    Printed99    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded569    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]