Current status and recent progress of nanomaterials in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Table 1 Comparison of different nanomaterials: Liposomes, micelles, metal nanoparticles, nanogels, and metal-organic frameworks

Nanomaterial	Drug loading capacity	Targeting ability	Biocompatibility	Imaging capability
Liposomes	High, capable of encapsulating both hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs	Can be enhanced by ligand modification for active targeting	Excellent, highly biodegradable	Low, requires fluorescent probes or MRI contrast agents
Micelles	Moderate, mainly for hydrophobic drug delivery	Surface modification can improve targeting ability	Good, often composed of biodegradable polymers	Low, requires fluorescent labelling or radioactive probes
Nanogels	High, capable of encapsulating macromolecular drugs	Functionalization can enhance targeting	Good, hydrogel structure improves biocompatibility	Low, requires incorporation of contrast agents
MNPs	Low, primarily used as drug carriers	Targeting can be enhanced by magnetic properties or surface modification	Generally low, requires surface functionalization for improved biocompatibility	High, applicable for CT, MRI, and photoacoustic imaging
MOFs	Extremely high, with tunable pore structures	Targeting can be enhanced by ligand functionalization	Dependent on composition; some MOFs have low biocompatibility	High, can serve as CT/MRI/fluorescence imaging probes

CT: Computed tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; MOFs: Metal-organic frameworks; MNPs: Metal nanoparticles.