Cancer scientists believe nanoparticles could accurately target tumors, avoiding side effects.


In the past 40 years, scientists have learned a great deal about how cells become cancerous. Some of that knowledge has translated to new treatments, but most of the time doctors are forced to rely on standard chemotherapy and radiation, which can do nearly as much damage to the patients as they do to the tumors. This series looks at targeted treatments that are on the horizon, and what needs to be done to make them a reality.

Doxorubicin, a drug commonly used to treat leukemia and other cancers, kills tumor cells by damaging their DNA. Though the drug is effective, it can also be toxic to heart cells. In 2005, the FDA approved a new type of doxorubicin, known as Doxil. In this new formulation, the drug is wrapped in a fatty coating called a liposome, which hinders its ability to enter heart cells (and other healthy cells).

Doxil, usually prescribed for late-stage ovarian cancer, represents the first generation of cancer treatments delivered by tiny particles. Doxil particles are on the scale of millionths of a meter, but scientists are now working on nano-sized particles, which are measured in billionths of meters. Such particles could allow doctors to give larger doses of chemotherapy while sparing healthy tissue from dangerous side effects.


Sangeeta Bhatia

Several nanoparticle drugs are now in clinical trials, and many more are being developed in research labs. These particles hold great potential to improve the performance of existing cancer drugs, says physician and engineer Sangeeta Bhatia, the Wilson Professor of Health Sciences and Technology and Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT. “Chemotherapy and radiation and surgery are what we have now, but nanotechnology is emerging as an approach that complements the existing armamentarium of clinical tools to have a significant impact,” she says.

Liposomes were first discovered about 50 years ago, but more recently, scientists have realized that large synthetic molecules (polymers) such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) can be nontoxic and do not induce an immune response. PEG, which consists of a long chain of repeating units called ethers, can be attached to degradable polymers to form tiny, drug-delivering particles. Those particles are remarkably stable and can protect drugs from the body’s own immune system, which otherwise might destroy them before they reach their destination. Around 15 years ago, scientists led by MIT’s Institute Professor Robert Langer discovered that PEG also lends itself to chemical manipulation, allowing scientists to create customized drug-delivery particles.

“As nanoscience began to evolve and we became adept at creating our own nanoparticles, we found ways to specifically design nanoparticles so they had properties we wanted,” says Paula Hammond, the Bayer Professor of Chemical Engineering and member of the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT. For example, scientists can design particles to discharge their drug payload when they encounter acidic pockets inside a tumor cell.


Paula Hammond

Scientists can also target nanoparticles specifically to attack tumor cells. There are two ways to do that — one passive and one active. In the 1980s, scientists realized that the blood vessels surrounding tumors have tiny holes, up to 500 nanometers in diameter, that allow small particles to flow from the bloodstream into the fluid surrounding the tumor.

While that passive targeting gets nanoparticles to the right place, the particles wash away after about 12 to 24 hours, says Hammond. “If you want the chemotherapy to get closer to its target, then you need to do something to cause the cancer cell to take it up,” she says.

To that end, she and Bhatia are working on new ways to actively target nanoparticles by decorating them with molecules that bind to proteins found in large quantities on tumor cells. For example, they can attach proteins that bind to folate receptors, which are located in high density on cancer cells because the cells need large quantities of folate to produce new DNA as they divide. However, folate receptors are also found on healthy cells, in smaller numbers, so there is still a chance of unwanted side effects.

To help overcome that obstacle, a collaborator of Bhatia’s, Erkki Ruoslahti at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has pioneered a new way to screen libraries of proteins to identify ones that will bind exclusively to tumor cells. This approach has turned up hundreds of new candidates, says Bhatia, who is also a member of the Koch Institute and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Many uses for nanoparticles

Other nanotechnological approaches to cancer take advantage of the unique physical properties of some nanoparticles. For example, gold nanoparticles absorb different frequencies of light depending on their shape. Rod-shaped particles absorb near-infrared light, which can pass through skin. Last year, Bhatia and one of her students, Geoffrey von Maltzahn, demonstrated that they could inject gold nanorods into mice, and that such nanorods would accumulate at tumor sites. Once the nanorods were in the tumors, the researchers heated them with near-infrared light, raising the temperature to 70 degrees C, hot enough to kill the tumor cells without damaging nearby healthy tissue. The technique can also be used to image tumor cells.


MIT researchers used these gold nanorods that absorb energy from near-infrared light and emit it as heat, destroying cancer cells.
Image: Sangeeta Bhatia Laboratory; MIT

Another promising application for nanoparticles is delivering RNA interference — tiny strands of RNA that can block cells from producing the proteins encoded by cancerous genes. Building on that idea, Hammond is now working on nanoparticles that would deliver a one-two punch, alternating layers of RNA and chemotherapy drugs.

So far, Doxil is one of only two liposomal cancer drugs now approved in the United States, but other nanoparticle-delivered drugs are now in clinical trials. Clinical trials are expected to begin soon for nanoparticles engineered by Langer, a member of the Koch Institute, Harvard Medical School associate professor Omid Farokhzad and others. These nanoparticles will deliver the chemotherapy drug docetaxel to prostate-cancer patients. In animal studies, the particles showed a 20-fold increase in concentration at the tumor site with minimal side effects.

As with any new type of medical treatment, researchers are also assessing safety risks. In the past few years, a new field of nanotoxicology has sprung up to investigate any risks nanoparticles might pose for humans. At the nanoscale, materials often take on new traits — for example, nanoparticles have a much higher surface-to-volume ratio than larger particles, which is important because most of their activity takes place on the surface, says Vladimir Torchilin, director of the Center for Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Nanomedicine at Northeastern University.

However, he says, clinical trials should reveal whether any given nanoparticle is safe or hazardous, just as they do for traditional drugs. “So far, it’s pretty difficult to say, upfront, it could be dangerous because of that, that or that,” says Torchilin, who is developing nanoparticles for cancer treatment.

In 2007, an FDA task force on nanotechnology recommended that the agency form new guidelines to determine how to regulate nanotechnology products. In the meantime, clinical trials involving nanoparticles are proceeding just as any drug clinical trial would. PEG, which is the main component of many drug-delivering nanoparticles, belongs to the FDA category of substances “generally recognized as safe.”

Hammond is optimistic that nanotechnology will end up helping cancer patients, possibly within the next three to five years. “I think it provides way too many benefits for us to pull away from it,” she says.

source:MIT

MRI in acute myocardial infarction


Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can provide a wide range of clinically useful information in AMI by detecting not only location of transmural necrosis, infarct size and myocardial oedema, but also showing in vivo important microvascular pathophysiological processes associated with AMI in the reperfusion era, such as intramyocardial haemorrhage and no–reflow. The focus of this review will be on the impact of cardiac MRI in the characterization of AMI pathophysiology in vivo in the current reperfusion era, concentrating also on clinical applications and future perspectives for specific therapeutic strategies.

Subcutaneous Compared With Intravenous Administration of Amifostine in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Radiotherapy: Final Results of the GORTEC 2000-02 Phase III Randomized Trial


Purpose To compare compliance with and efficacy of intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) amifostine for the treatment of patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

Patients and Methods Patients with newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, who were eligible for radiotherapy and who were not receiving concurrent chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive either IV amifostine (200 mg/m2 daily for 3 minutes, 15 to 30 minutes before irradiation) or SC amifostine (500 mg; two sites; 20 to 60 minutes before irradiation). The primary end point was late xerostomia at 1 year as indicated by unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow rates, a patient benefit questionnaire score, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) late toxicity grade.

Results Results for IV (n = 143) versus SC (n = 148) administration were as follows. There was no significant difference in compliance (69% for IV v 71% for SC) in patients receiving a full dose of amifostine. Reasons for dose reduction were acute toxicity (25% for IV v 27% for SC; P = .51) and logistics (18% for IV v 9% for SC administration; P = .09). Acute toxicity differed significantly in terms of grade 1 to 2 hypotension (19% for IV v 8% for SC; P = .01), grade 1 to 2 skin rash (9% for IV v 21% for SC; P = .01), and local pain (0% for IV v 8% for SC; P = .003). The incidence of grade 2 or greater xerostomia was significantly higher for patients who received amifostine via SC administration (37% for IV v 62% for SC; P = .005) in the 127 patients (n = 67, IV; n = 60, SC) evaluable at 1 year but not at 2 or 3 years (36% for IV v 51% for SC administration; P = .19; 32% for IV v 41% for SC; P = .63). A generalized linear mixed-model analysis of all data revealed no significant difference in patient self-assessment of salivary function (P = .25), unstimulated or stimulated salivary flow rates (P = .054 and .82, respectively), or grade 2 or greater xerostomia (P = .23).

Conclusion SC amifostine administration was not significantly superior to IV amifostine administration in terms of patient compliance or efficacy.



Kupffer cells are associated with apoptosis, inflammation and fibrotic effects in hepatic fibrosis in rats


Hepatocellular apoptosis, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis are prominent features in chronic liver diseases. However, the linkage among these processes remains mechanistically unclear. In this study, we examined the apoptosis and activation of Kupffer cells (KCs) as well as their pathophysiological involvement in liver fibrosis process. Hepatic fibrosis was induced in rats by dimethylnitrosamine (DMN) or carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) treatment. KCs were isolated from normal rats and incubated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or from fibrotic rats. The KCs were stained immunohistochemically with anti-CD68 antibody, a biomarker for KC. The level of expression of CD68 was analyzed by western blot and real-time PCR methods. The apoptosis and pathophysiological involvement of KCs in the formation of liver fibrosis were studied using confocal microscopy. The mRNA and protein expression of CD68 were significantly increased in DMN- and CCL4-treated rats. Confocal microscopy analysis showed that CD68-positive KCs, but not α-smooth muscle actin (SMA)-positive cells, underwent apoptosis in the liver of DMN- and CCL4-treated rats. It was also revealed that the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick-end labeling and CD68-double-positive apoptotic KCs located in the portal or fibrotic septa area were situated next to hepatic stellate cells (HSCs). Tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and KC co-localized in the liver in the neighbor of HSCs. The double α-SMA- and collagen type I-positive cells predominantly existed in fibrotic septa, and those cells were co-localized clearly with CD68-positive cells. Interestingly, some CD68 and Col (1) double positive, but completely negative for α-SMA, were found in the portal areas and hepatic sinusoids; this phenomenon was also validated in primary isolated KCs after 6 h LPS exposure or fibrotic rats in vitro. These results show that KCs are associated with hepatocellular apoptosis, inflammation, and fibrosis process in a liver fibrosis models.