Multiple studies about tumor biology have revealed the determinant role of the tumor microenvironment in cancer progression, resulting from the dynamic interactions between tumor cells and surrounding stromal cells within the extracellular matrix. This malignant microenvironment highly impacts the efficacy of anticancer nanoparticles by displaying drug resistance mechanisms, as well as intrinsic physical and biochemical barriers, which hamper their intratumoral accumulation and biological activity.Currently, two-dimensional cell cultures are used as the initial screening method in vitro for testing cytotoxic nanocarriers. However, this fails to mimic the tumor heterogeneity, as well as the three-dimensional tumor architecture and pathophysiological barriers, leading to an inaccurate pharmacological evaluation.Biomimetic 3D in vitro tumor models, on the other hand, are emerging as promising tools for more accurately assessing nanoparticle activity, owing to their ability to recapitulate certain features of the tumor microenvironment and thus provide mechanistic insights into nanocarrier intratumoral penetration and diffusion rates.Notwithstanding, in vivo validation of nanomedicines remains irreplaceable at the preclinical stage, and a vast variety of more advanced in vivo tumor models is currently available. Such complex animal models (e.g., genetically engineered mice and patient-derived xenografts) are capable of better predicting nanocarrier clinical efficiency, as they closely resemble the heterogeneity of the human tumor microenvironment.Herein, the development of physiologically more relevant in vitro and in vivo tumor models for the preclinical evaluation of anticancer nanoparticles will be discussed, as well as the current limitations and future challenges in clinical translation.
Keywords: 2D cultures; 3D scaffolds; 3D tumor models; Cell line-derived models; Clinical translation; Genetically engineered mice; Humanized models; Intratumoral penetration; Microfluidics; Multicellular tumor spheroids; Nanoparticles; Patient-derived xenografts; Preclinical screening; Tumor microenvironment; Tumor-on-a-chip.