Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Clin Oncol. Apr 24, 2025; 16(4): 104435
Published online Apr 24, 2025. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v16.i4.104435
Table 1 Comparison of different nanomaterials: Liposomes, micelles, metal nanoparticles, nanogels, and metal-organic frameworks
Nanomaterial
Drug loading capacity
Targeting ability
Biocompatibility
Imaging capability
LiposomesHigh, capable of encapsulating both hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugsCan be enhanced by ligand modification for active targetingExcellent, highly biodegradableLow, requires fluorescent probes or MRI contrast agents
MicellesModerate, mainly for hydrophobic drug deliverySurface modification can improve targeting abilityGood, often composed of biodegradable polymersLow, requires fluorescent labelling or radioactive probes
NanogelsHigh, capable of encapsulating macromolecular drugsFunctionalization can enhance targetingGood, hydrogel structure improves biocompatibilityLow, requires incorporation of contrast agents
MNPsLow, primarily used as drug carriersTargeting can be enhanced by magnetic properties or surface modificationGenerally low, requires surface functionalization for improved biocompatibilityHigh, applicable for CT, MRI, and photoacoustic imaging
MOFsExtremely high, with tunable pore structuresTargeting can be enhanced by ligand functionalizationDependent on composition; some MOFs have low biocompatibilityHigh, can serve as CT/MRI/fluorescence imaging probes
Table 2 Quantitative data on nanomaterials in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma
Ref.
Nanomaterial
Drug
Drug loading
Drug release
Therapeutic effect
[60]p(N-isopropyl-acrylamide-co-butyl methylacrylate) nanogelDOXNA24 hours: 50-70 wt (pH = 6.8, pH 7.4), 97 wt (pH= 5.3)The tumour growth rate of VX2 tumour by TACE therapy of IBi-D dispersions were only 91%
[61]iron/barium ferrite/carbon-coated iron nanocrystal compositesEPISaturation value of the carrier system was approximately 25.5 mg/gAccumulation of more than 20% of drugs on day 20The group (EPI + materials + magnetic hyperthermia) showed a stronger antitumor effect
[62]Fe3O4@PMO-Cy5.5DOX27.65%48 hours: 16% (pH 7.4), 39% (pH 5.5)1 mg/mL (nanoparticle concentration): Death of 74.1% of the HepG2 cells
[63]pN-KL nanogelsDOX23.71%24.2% (pH = 5.0), 20.5% (pH = 6.8), 21.8% (pH = 7.4)Completely suppressed after 14 days
[64]BSA NPsTPZNA12.89% (1 hour), 55.96% (168 hours)Significant reduction in tumour growth rate
[66]BSA-CuS NPsDOX55.52%Exposed to 808 nm NIR irradiation, approximately 5% and 25% of total DOX were released at 5 and 24 hoursDOX@BSA-CuS can be efficiently delivered to the HCC tumour site and the DOX drug can be efficiently deposited at tumour tissue
[71]Fe@EGaIn NPCADL: 2.61% ± 0.01%; EE: 87.19% ± 0.26%NIR group: 44.99% (0.1 W), 55.88% (1 W)Excellent therapeutic efficiency was achieved with a tumour growth-inhibiting value of 100% in tumour-bearing rabbits
[72]pH-DENsSorafenib73.3% ± 2.5%96 hours: approximately 80% (pH = 6.5), approximately 50% (pH = 7.4)The pH-DENs triggered sorafenib release in response to acidic extracellular conditions, increasing drug concentration in the culture medium and enhancing therapeutic efficiency against HCC cells
[76]P@PND nanogelsPTNA40 hours: > 80% (pH = 6.5)The volume ratio of the treated tumours at 14 days to the initial tumour were 07 (Pt-P@PND)
[77]HmA NPsDOX41%24 hours: > 40% (pH = 4.5 or 6.5), 28.6% (pH = 7.4); 14 days: 83.9% (pH = 4.5), 74% (pH = 6.5), 53.4% (pH = 7.4)24 hours: Apoptotic HepG2 cells, 28.8%