Editorial - Imaging in Medicine (2022) Volume 14, Issue 11

Approaches of Nanomedicines in the Market Design of Cancer Nanomedicine

Siyoung Zhang*

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada

*Corresponding Author:
Siyoung Zhang
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Waterloo, Canada
E-mail: SiyoungZhang45@gmail.com

Received: 01-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. FMIM-22-82457; Editor assigned: 05-Nov-2022, Pre-QC No.FMIM-22-82457 (PQ); Reviewed: 19-Nov-2022, QC No. FMIM-22-82457; Revised: 24-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. FMIM-22-82457 (R); Published: 30-Nov-2022, DOI: 10.37532/1755- 5191.2022.14(11).01-03


Nanomedicines have unique biological properties that help them be more effective therapeutically, less hazardous, and deliver drugs to specific areas of the body [1]. This article offers a quick overview of nanomedicines that have recently been introduced or are undergoing clinical trials. It reveals a variety of trends in carrier types, used indications, and mechanisms of action [2]. This article provides an overview of the uses of nanomedicines for the prevention, detection, and treatment of many diseases, such as cancer, infections, blood disorders, cardiovascular diseases, diseases linked with the immune system, and diseases of the neurological system, among others [3]. To aid in the development of nanomedicines and their clinical application, the review also offers some viewpoints and concerns [4].


Nanomedicines • Nanotechnology


By adding nanoparticles with several desired and adjustable properties, nanotechnology has completely changed drug design [5]. The unique features of nanoparticles, which may be tailored for each application, including diagnostics, immunotherapy, imaging, and drug administration, are a key factor in the increased interest in developing them for cancer applications [6]. Some nanoparticles have already received clinical use approval, while others have demonstrated significant promise in preclinical research but have not yet received approval [7]. Any novel cancer nanomedicine will succeed or fail based on two crucial factors: safety and effectiveness [8]. The key components of nanomedicine's clinical effectiveness in the clinic are enhancing the safety profile and boosting the accumulation of nanoparticles at the cancer site [9]. However, the buildup of nanoparticles at the disease's location Effective monitoring of their travel and localisation is necessary for researchers and medical professionals [10]. Precise control of the in vivo transport of nanoparticles is necessary for precise administration, but this control is difficult to achieve without a deeper knowledge of how nanoparticles interact with biological systems. These complex, multipara metric and dynamic nano-bio interactions pose considerable obstacles to nanoparticle engineering. The physicochemical features of nanoparticles, interactions between elements of the biological and biochemical surroundings, and the dynamics of nano-bio interactions are factors that increase the complexity of these interactions. Some nanoparticles have already received clinical use approval, while others have demonstrated significant promise in preclinical research but have not yet received approval.


The most crucial factor in cancer applications is how deeply the nanoparticle can penetrate the tumour. Nanoparticle delivery is hindered by the aberrant biology of the tumour microenvironment, which includes dysfunctional vasculature, increased interstitial fluid pressure, and thick extracellular matrix. Numerous strategies, such as normalising the vasculature, have been devised to target the TME in order to get over these obstacles and increase penetration depth. Due to a number of restrictions and obstacles, including inadequate drug loading and unintended drug release, which can result in toxicity and undesired side effects, nanotechnology has had difficulty enhancing the performance of delivery systems. Additionally, the distribution of nanoparticles in tissues is not optimum, which results in inadequate drug concentration at the target location and early drug release, both of which have a large number of adverse effects. Therefore, there is a bigger than ever demand for cutting-edge materials and effective delivery techniques. Diverse research fields have concentrated on the development of nanomedicines, including clinical chemists who specialise in drug delivery and clinical considerations, materials scientists in the creation of new nanostructured materials, and engineers in manufacturing processes and innovation. This work is best accomplished through interdisciplinary partnerships. But generally speaking, no interdisciplinary cooperation has been developed by these disparate groupings. As a result, pipelines for highly specialised research and development may under or overestimate possible issues with the effectiveness, use, and resilience of the nanomedicine. The extravasation and accumulation of injected species into the tumour may generally be increased by lengthening the circulation period. Red blood cells reside in blood arteries. Different nanoparticle shape, size, stiffness, and surface charge factors have a significant impact on the margination dynamics under normal blood circulation circumstances, which may restrict the arrival of the nanoparticles at the endothelium surface.


The contact and adhesion between the nanoparticles and the surface of the vessel are made possible by the lateral drift of nanoparticles toward endothelial walls. In rare circumstances, the particle might passively extrude from the vessel into the interstitial without adhering to the endothelium. Particles with particular size and qualities may depart the vasculature and enter the tumour tissue as a result of the EPR effect, which is brought on by leaky endothelial junctions seen inside tumours. Despite the fact that the EPR effect makes it easier for nanoparticles to accumulate across the vesseltissue interface, penetration into the tumour is hampered by the Nanoparticles undergo cellular internalisation in the tumour interstitial where they can release their payload. The cell's plasma membrane, which is made up of a variety of lipids and proteins, forms a barrier with extremely selective permeability that regulates the flow of chemicals both within and outside the cell. The primary method by which nanoparticles pass the cell membrane is endocytosis, which is influenced by the biophysical characteristics of the particles. Sadly, even if the nanoparticle makes it into the cell, it might not stay there long enough to do any good. This is primarily because tumours actively remove foreign chemicals from the cells, which is one of their main mechanisms for avoiding treatment. The cell expels a lot of external things, including therapeutic medicines.


  1. Adabi M, Naghibzadeh M, Adabi M et al. Biocompatibility and nanostructured materials: applications in nanomedicine. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 45, 833-842 (2017).
  2. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  3. Agrahari V, Hiremath P Challenges associated and approaches for successful translation of nanomedicines into commercial products. Nanomedicine. 12, 819-823 (2017).
  4. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  5. Albanese A, Tang PS, Chan WC et al. The effect of nanoparticle size, shape, and surface chemistry on biological systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 14, 1-16 (2012).
  6. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  7. Arora S, Rajwade JM, Paknikar KM et al. Nanotoxicology and in vitro studies: the need of the hour. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 258, 151-165(2012).
  8. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  9. Arts JH, Hadi M, Keene AM, et al. A critical appraisal of existing concepts for the grouping of nanomaterials. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 70, 492-506 (2014).
  10. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  11. Arts JH, Irfan MA, Keene AM, et al. Case studies putting the decision-making framework for the grouping and testing of nanomaterials (DF4nanoGrouping) into practice. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 76, 234-261 (2016).
  12. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  13. Astier A, Barton Pai A, Bissig M, et al. How to select a nanosimilar. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1407, 50-62 (2017).
  14. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  15. Azhdarzadeh M, Saei AA, Sharifi S et al. Nanotoxicology: advances and pitfalls in research methodology. Nanomedicine. 10, 2931-2952 (2015).
  16. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  17. Bastogne T Quality-by-design of nanopharmaceuticals–a state of the art. Nanomedicine. 13, 2151-2157 (2017).
  18. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  19. Bleeker EA, de Jong WH, Geertsma RE et al. Considerations on the EU definition of a nanomaterial: science to support policy making. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 65, 119-125 (2013).
  20. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language

Google Scholar citation report
Citations : 4878

Imaging in Medicine received 4878 citations as per Google Scholar report

Imaging in Medicine peer review process verified at publons

Indexed In