A systematic review of nanocarriers for treatment of urologic cancers.

Amy J Y Wang, Cathy Yan, Moritz J Reike, Peter C Black, Alberto Contreras-Sanz
Author Information
  1. Amy J Y Wang: The Vancouver Prostate Centre and Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  2. Cathy Yan: The Vancouver Prostate Centre and Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  3. Moritz J Reike: The Vancouver Prostate Centre and Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  4. Peter C Black: The Vancouver Prostate Centre and Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.. Electronic address: peter.black@ubc.ca.
  5. Alberto Contreras-Sanz: The Vancouver Prostate Centre and Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.. Electronic address: acontreras@prostatecentre.com.

Abstract

Nanocarriers (NCs) are a form of nanotechnology widely investigated in cancer treatment to improve the safety and efficacy of systemic therapies by increasing tumor specificity. Numerous clinical trials have explored the use of NCs in urologic cancers since the approval of the first NCs for cancer treatment over 20 years ago. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness and safety of NCs in treating urological cancers. This paper summarizes the state of the field by investigating peer-reviewed, published results from 43 clinical trials involving the use of NCs in bladder, prostate, and kidney cancer patients with a focus on safety and efficacy data. Among the 43 trials, 16 were phase I, 20 phase II, and 4 phase I/II. No phase III trials have been reported. While both novel and classic NCs have been explored in urologic cancers, NCs already approved for the treatment of other cancers were more widely represented. Trials in prostate cancer and mixed trials involving both urologic and non-urologic cancer patients were the most commonly reported trials. Although NCs have demonstrable efficacy with adequate safety in non-urologic cancer patient populations, current clinical stage NC options appear to be less beneficial in the urologic cancer setting. For example, nab-paclitaxel and liposomal doxorubicin have proven ineffective in the treatment of urologic cancers despite successes in other cancers. However, several ongoing pre-clinical studies using targeted and locally applied improved NCs may eventually improve their utility.

Keywords

MeSH Term

Humans
Urologic Neoplasms
Nanoparticles
Male
Drug Carriers
Antineoplastic Agents
Clinical Trials as Topic

Chemicals

Drug Carriers
Antineoplastic Agents

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0NCscancercancerstrialsurologictreatmentsafetyphaseefficacyclinicalwidelyimproveexploreduse20systematicreview43involvingprostatepatientsreportednon-urologicNanocarriersformnanotechnologyinvestigatedsystemictherapiesincreasingtumorspecificityNumeroussinceapprovalfirstyearsagoobjectiveexamineeffectivenesstreatingurologicalpapersummarizesstatefieldinvestigatingpeer-reviewedpublishedresultsbladderkidneyfocusdataAmong16II4I/IIIIInovelclassicalreadyapprovedrepresentedTrialsmixedcommonlyAlthoughdemonstrableadequatepatientpopulationscurrentstageNCoptionsappearlessbeneficialsettingexamplenab-paclitaxelliposomaldoxorubicinprovenineffectivedespitesuccessesHoweverseveralongoingpre-clinicalstudiesusingtargetedlocallyappliedimprovedmayeventuallyutilitynanocarriersClinicaltrialNanocarrierNanomedicineUrologic

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)