Nanomedicines for cancer treatment have been studied extensively over the last few decades. Yet, only five anticancer nanomedicines have received approvals from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating solid tumors. This drastic mismatch between effort and return calls into question the basic understanding of this field. Various viewpoints on nanomedicines have been presented regarding their potentials and inefficiencies. However, the underlying logics of nanomedicine research and its inadequate translation to the successful use in the clinic have not been thoroughly examined. Tumor-targeted drug delivery was used to understand the shortfalls of the nanomedicine field in general. The concept of tumor-targeted drug delivery by nanomedicine has been based on two conjectures: (i) increased drug delivery to tumors provides better efficacy, and (ii) decreased drug delivery to healthy organs results in fewer side effects. The clinical evidence gathered from the literature indicates that nanomedicines bearing classic chemotherapeutic drugs, such as Dox, cis-Pt, CPT and PTX, have already reached the maximum drug delivery limit to solid tumors in humans. Still, the anticancer efficacy and safety remain unchanged despite the increased tumor accumulation. Thus, it is understandable to see few nanomedicine-based formulations approved by the FDA. The examination of FDA-approved nanomedicine formulations indicates that their approvals were not based on the improved delivery to tumors but mostly on changes in dose-limiting toxicity unique to each drug. This comprehensive analysis of the fundamentals of anticancer nanomedicines is designed to provide an accurate picture of the field's underlying false conjectures, hopefully, thereby accelerating the future clinical translations of many formulations under research.
Keywords: Clinical products; Conjectures used in nanomedicine; Efficacy; FDA approval; Toxicity; Translation.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.