Seite - 85 - in Cancer Nanotheranostics - What Have We Learnd So Far?
Bild der Seite - 85 -
Text der Seite - 85 -
Conniotet al. Nanocarriers for immunecell targetingand tracking
TheSPIONPsareknownas safe systemsdue to theirbiodegrad-
ability nature and usual rapidmetabolization in vivo (Yu et al.,
2012). Therefore, the SPIO-based cell labeling is mostly suit-
able for short-term studies. On the other hand, false positives
maybedetectedafter the accumulationof thedetectionagent in
macrophages after thedestructionof labeled cells (Ahrens et al.,
2003; Thorek and Tsourkas, 2008). This disadvantage is in fact
commontodifferent imagingreagent-labeled techniques.
The 19FMRI is a highly sensitive technique that allows the
direct quantification of labeled immune cells, as T cells and
phagocytic cells, either in vivo or ex vivo (Srinivas et al., 2009;
Helferetal.,2010).UnlikeSPIONPs,this labelingmethodusually
doesnotdetectfalsepositivesand,onceisnotmetabolized invivo,
constitutes a suitable approach for long-termstudies (Janjic and
Ahrens,2009;Srinivasetal., 2012).
The droplet surface of these PFC colloidal systems has been
changedwithchargedentities topotentiate theirefficientdelivery
atintracellularlevel.Therefore,thesafetyoftheselabelingsystems
is increased,whichhasbeenshownusingdifferent immunecells,
asDCsandTcells(Ahrensetal.,2005;Srinivasetal.,2009;Helfer
etal., 2010;AhrensandBulte,2013).
Recent studies have shown thepromising combinationof 19F
labeling techniques with fluorescence orNIR probes, as well as
withnuclearmagneticresonance(NMR)(Pateletal.,2013).Even
though, theuseof these colloidal system for cell tracking is con-
siderablyrecentandfurtherstudiesareurged inorder toconfirm
these indications.
ANIMALMODELSFORTHETRANSLATIONOF
IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICAPPROACHES
The successful translation of alternative immune-based
approaches for cancer therapy into theclinic ishighlydependent
onthedevelopmentofpreclinical animalmodels that adequately
mimic human disease progression. Several models have been
developed and successfully used to study cancer mechanisms
of disease and the efficacy of conventional therapeutic options
(Budhuetal., 2014).
Accordingly, models currently used to evaluate therapeutic
antitumorefficacyatpreclinical levelarebasedontransgenicsys-
tems and the transplantation of in vitro grown cancer cells into
healthyanimalsor inhumanizedmousemodels—humantumor
xenograftmodels (Ostrand-Rosenberg, 2004). The implantation
of human cell lines dictates the use of immunocompromised
mice–T-cell deficient—toallow the establishmentof cancer dis-
ease. Besides beingoneof themost usedmodels to study cancer
disease and the effect of cytotoxic therapies, those are definitely
not suitable to test the efficacy of immunotherapeutic strategies
as it is not possible to evaluate the effect of adaptive immune
response in tumordevelopment (Legrandet al., 2009).However,
different approaches are currently being explored to improve
theirapplicationtowardthereconstitutionoftheimmunesystem
using human cells (Carpenito et al., 2009; Legrand et al., 2009;
Pedroza-Gonzalez et al., 2011). Still, the evaluation of the out-
comeof different immunotherapeutic options has beenpossible
due to development of differentmouse cancer cell lines, which
can be furthermodified if needed: B16melanoma, CT26 colon
carcinoma, TRAMP (transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostatemodel) prostate cancer, 4T1 breast cancer, EL4 T lym-
phoma (Greenberg et al., 1995). Even tough, there is usually a
rapid tumor growth after the subcutaneous administration of
those cells and therefore thesemodels do notmimic the long-
lasting host-tumor interactions resultant from the spontaneous
implementation of this disease. On the other hand, the trans-
plantable tumors are very versatile for prophylactic studies as it
allows establishment of different vaccination settings, allowing
an immune response before the inductionof cancer disease and
consequent immunosuppressiveoutcomes.
The spontaneousandmulti-step tumordevelopment, includ-
ing the cross-talkbetweencellswithin tumormicroenvironment
is possible in genetic modified animals (Dougan et al., 2011).
However, these animals need to be evaluated for longer periods
of time. In addition, the presence of mutations in a perma-
nent manner, in contrast to what happens in cancer disease,
has been associated with higher variability and tolerance and
consequently, lowereffectivenessofdifferent immunotherapeutic
options(Hurwitzetal., 2000;Ercolinietal., 2005).
Asaresult, thereisanurgentneedforanimalmodelsrecapitu-
latingcancerdisease,andall results shouldbediscussedhavingin
considerationanimalmodelspecificitiesandlimitations. Inaddi-
tion,different typesofanimalmodelsshouldbetestedinorderto
better characterize the obtained antitumor evidences for clinical
translation.
CONCLUSIONSANDFUTUREPERSPECTIVES
Despite the improvement observed in chemotherapy and radio-
therapy forcancer treatment, thebattleagainst thisdisease seems
tohavemorechances tobeachieved throughthecombinationof
different therapeuticmodalities. Immunotherapeuticapproaches
have emerging as promising tools to address the heterogene-
ity of this disease, namely those immune cell mediated cancer
therapies. It is possible to underline the advances obtainedwith
the approval of anti-CTL4 monoclonal antibody by the FDA,
and great expectations have arisen from the use of different
approaches to modulate the function of immune cells within
tumor site. Among those strategies, the outcome of cancer vac-
cines canbehighlighted.Tomonitor andguide thedevelopment
ofcellulartherapiesandthe insitumanipulationofimmunecells,
the improvement of non-invasive imaging strategies to obtain
detailed information regarding the biological processes within
the complex tumor microenvironment is imperative. We fore-
see the use of non-toxic nanotechnology-based systems able to
combine the specific (i) targeting of immune cells, promoting
thecontrolleddeliveryofdifferentmolecularentities tomodulate
the cell-cell interactions; and (ii) tracking through the inclu-
sion of different probes to improve safety, specificity and sen-
sitivity of cell-labelingmethods and imaging approaches. These
immunotheranostics are expected to enable a rational definition
oftreatmentplansforaparticularpatient,resultinginbetterclin-
icaloutcomesandenhancedcontrolofthedisease,whichcanalso
promote their translation intomarketedsystems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia, Ministério da Ciência e da Tecnologia, Portugal
Frontiers inChemistry | ChemicalEngineering November2014 |Volume2 |Article105 | 85
Cancer Nanotheranostics
What Have We Learnd So Far?
- Titel
- Cancer Nanotheranostics
- Untertitel
- What Have We Learnd So Far?
- Autoren
- João Conde
- Pedro Viana Baptista
- Jesús M. De La Fuente
- Furong Tian
- Herausgeber
- Frontiers in Chemistry
- Datum
- 2016
- Sprache
- englisch
- Lizenz
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-2-88919-776-7
- Abmessungen
- 21.0 x 27.7 cm
- Seiten
- 132
- Schlagwörter
- Nanomedicine, Nanoparticles, nanomaterials, Cancer, heranostics, Immunotherapy, bioimaging, Drug delivery, Gene Therapy, Phototherapy
- Kategorien
- Naturwissenschaften Chemie