Abstract
Anticancer nanomedicines are designed to improve anticancer efficacy by increasing drug accumulation in tumors through enhanced permeability retention (EPR) effect, and to reduce toxicity by decreasing drug accumulation in normal organs through long systemic circulation. However, the inconsistent efficacy/safety of nanomedicines in cancer patients versus preclinical cancer models have provoked debate for nanomedicine design criteria. In this study, we investigate nanomedicine design criteria in three types of preclinical cancer models using five clinically used nanomedicines, which identifies the factors for better clinical translations of their observed clinical efficacy/safety compared to free drug or clinical micelle formulation. When those nanomedicines were compared with drug solution or clinical micelle formulation in breast tumors, long and short-circulating nanomedicines did not enhance tumor accumulation by EPR effect in transgenic spontaneous breast cancer model regardless of their size or composition, although they improved tumor accumulations in subcutaneous and orthotopic breast cancer models. However, when tumors were compared to normal breast tissue, nanomedicines, drug solution and clinical micelle formulation showed enhanced tumor accumulation regardless of the breast cancer models. In addition, long-circulating nanomedicines did not further increase tumor accumulation in transgenic mouse spontaneous breast cancer nor universally decrease drug accumulations in normal organs; they decreased or increased accumulation in different organs, potentially changing the clinical efficacy/safety. In contrast, short-circulating nanomedicines decreased blood concentration and altered drug distribution in normal organs, which are correlated with their clinical efficacy/safety. A reappraisal of current nanomedicine design criteria is needed to ensure consistent clinical translation for improvement of their clinical efficacy/safety in cancer patients.