Breaking barriers in cancer treatment: nanobiohybrids empowered by modified bacteria and vesicles.

Cancer, the leading global cause of mortality, poses a formidable challenge for treatment. The effectiveness of cancer therapies, ranging from chemotherapy to immunotherapy, relies on the precise delivery of therapeutic agents to tumor tissues. Nanobiohybrids, resulting from the fusion of bacteria with nanomaterials, constitute a promising delivery system. Nanobiohybrids offer several advantages, including the ability to target tumors, genetic engineering capabilities, programmed product creation, and the potential for multimodal treatment. Recent advances in targeted tumor treatments have leveraged bacteria-based nanobiohybrids. Here, we outline the progress in cancer treatment using nanobiohybrids. Our focus is particularly on various therapeutic approaches within the context of nanobiohybrid systems, where bacteria are integrated with nanomaterials to combat cancer. It has been demonstrated that bacteria-based nanobiohybrids present a robust and effective method for tumor theranostics.

Cell membrane-coated biomimetic nanomedicines: productive cancer theranostic tools.

As the second-leading cause of human death, cancer has drawn attention in the area of biomedical research and therapy from all around the world. Certainly, the development of nanotechnology has made it possible for nanoparticles (NPs) to be used as a carrier for delivery systems in the treatment of tumors. This is a biomimetic approach established to craft remedial strategies comprising NPs cloaked with membrane obtained from various natural cells like blood cells, bacterial cells, cancer cells, etc. Here we conduct an in-depth exploration of cell membrane-coated NPs (CMNPs) and their extensive array of applications including drug delivery, vaccination, phototherapy, immunotherapy, MRI imaging, PET imaging, multimodal imaging, gene therapy and a combination of photothermal and chemotherapy. This review article provides a thorough summary of the most recent developments in the use of CMNPs for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. It critically assesses the state of research while recognizing significant accomplishments and innovations. Additionally, it indicates ongoing problems in clinical translation and associated queries that warrant deeper research. By doing so, this study encourages creative thinking for future projects in the field of tumor therapy using CMNPs while also educating academics on the present status of CMNP research.

A state-of-the-art liposome technology for glioblastoma treatment.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a challenging problem due to the poor BBB permeability of cancer drugs, its recurrence after the treatment, and high malignancy and is difficult to treat with the currently available therapeutic strategies. Furthermore, the prognosis and survival rate of GBM are still poor after surgical removal via conventional combination therapy. Owing to the existence of the formidable blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the aggressive, infiltrating nature of GBM growth, the diagnosis and treatment of GBM are quite challenging. Recently, liposomes and their derivatives have emerged as super cargos for the delivery of both hydrophobic and hydrophilic drugs for the treatment of glioblastoma because of their advantages, such as biocompatibility, long circulation, and ease of physical and chemical modification, which facilitate the capability of targeting specific sites, circumvention of BBB transport restrictions, and amplification of the therapeutic efficacy. Herein, we provide a timely update on the burgeoning liposome-based drug delivery systems and potential challenges in these fields for the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumors. Furthermore, we focus on the most recent liposome-based drug delivery cargos, including pH-sensitive, temperature-sensitive, and biomimetic liposomes, to enhance the multimodality in imaging and therapeutics of glioblastoma. Furthermore, we highlight the future difficulties and directions for the research and clinical translation of liposome-based drug delivery. Hopefully, this review will trigger the interest of researchers to expedite the development of liposome cargos and even their clinical translation for improving the prognosis of glioblastoma.

Emerging extracellular vesicle-based carriers for glioblastoma diagnosis and therapy.

Glioblastoma (GBM) treatment is still a big clinical challenge because of its highly malignant, invasive, and lethal characteristics. After treatment with the conventional therapeutic paradigm of surgery combined with radio- and chemotherapy, patients bearing GBMs generally exhibit a poor prognosis, with high mortality and a high disability rate. The main reason is the existence of the formidable blood-brain barrier (BBB), aggressive growth, and the infiltration nature of GBMs. Especially, the BBB suppresses the delivery of imaging and therapeutic agents to lesion sites, and thus this leads to difficulties in achieving a timely diagnosis and treatment. Recent studies have demonstrated that extracellular vesicles (EVs) exhibit favorable merits including good biocompatibility, a strong drug loading capacity, long circulation time, good BBB crossing efficiency, specific targeting to lesion sites, and high efficiency in the delivery of a variety of cargos for GBM therapy. Importantly, EVs inherit physiological and pathological molecules from the source cells, which are ideal biomarkers for molecularly tracking the malignant progression of GBMs. Herein, we start by introducing the pathophysiology and physiology of GBMs, followed by presenting the biological functions of EVs in GBMs with a special focus on their role as biomarkers for GBM diagnosis and as messengers in the modulation of the GBM microenvironment. Furthermore, we provide an update on the recent progress of using EVs in biology, functionality, and isolation applications. More importantly, we systematically summarize the most recent advances of EV-based carriers for GBM therapy by delivering different drugs including gene/RNA-based drugs, chemotherapy drugs, imaging agents, and combinatory drugs. Lastly, we point out the challenges and prospects of future research on EVs for diagnosing and treating GBMs. We hope this review will stimulate interest from researchers with different backgrounds and expedite the progress of GBM treatment paradigms.

Recent progress in NIR-II fluorescence imaging-guided drug delivery for cancer theranostics.

Fluorescence imaging in the second near-infrared window (NIR-II) has become a prevalent choice owing to its appealing advantages like deep penetration depth, low autofluorescence, decent spatiotemporal resolution, and a high signal-to-background ratio. This would expedite the innovation of NIR-II imaging-guided drug delivery (IGDD) paradigms for the improvement of the prognosis of patients with tumors. This work systematically reviews the recent progress of such NIR-II IGDD-mediated cancer therapeutics and collectively brings its essence to the readers. Special care has been taken to assess their performances based on their design approach, such as enhancing their drug loading and triggering release, designing intrinsic and extrinsic fluorophores, and/ or overcoming biological barriers. Besides, the state-of-the-art NIR-II IGDD platforms for different therapies like chemo-, photodynamic, photothermal, chemodynamic, immuno-, ion channel, gas-therapies, and multiple functions such as stimulus-responsive imaging and therapy, and monitoring of drug release and therapeutic response, have been updated. In addition, for boosting theranostic outcomes and clinical translation, the innovation directions of NIR-II IGDD platforms are summarized, including renal-clearable, biodegradable, sub-cellular targeting, and/or afterglow, chemiluminescence, X-ray excitable NIR-IGDD, and even cell therapy. This review will propel new directions for safe and efficient NIR-II fluorescence-mediated anticancer drug delivery.

Recent progress in nanomedicines for imaging and therapy of brain tumors.

Nowadays, a malignant brain tumor is one of the most life-threatening diseases with poor prognosis, high risk of recurrence, and low survival rate for patients because of the existence of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the lack of efficient diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms. So far, many researchers have devoted their efforts to innovating advanced drugs to efficiently cross the BBB and selectively target brain tumors for optimal imaging and therapy outcomes. Herein, we update the most recent developments in nanomedicines for the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumors in preclinical mouse models. The special focus is on burgeoning drug delivery carriers to improve the specificity of visualization and to enhance the efficacy of brain tumor treatment. Also, we highlight the challenges and perspectives for the future development of brain tumor theranostics. This review is expected to receive wide attention from researchers, professors, and students in various fields to participate in future advancements in preclinical research and clinical translation of brain tumor nanomedicines.

Diagnostic Value of Cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34ßE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) Immunohistochemical Expression in Prostatic Lesions.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Some prostatic lesions contain small suspicious foci for prostatic carcinoma in which the morphological features are equivocal. Two immunohistochemical markers namely, cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34ßE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), were evaluated in these lesions for a definitive diagnosis and avoiding misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of prostatic carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 90 paraffin embedded blocks of prostatic tissue were selected and categorized into three groups as follows: 50 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), 20 cases of prostatic carcinoma, and 20 cases of benign prostatic lesions with suspicious foci labeled as ASAP (atypical small acinar proliferation) that occupy not more than 5% of the lesion. These cases were revised for histopathological diagnosis and stained with two immunohistochemical markers: Ck34ßE12 and AMACR. RESULTS: While 92.9% of BPH were positive for Ck34ßE12, 96% of prostatic carcinoma were negative for this marker (P=0.0001). Regarding AMACR, 92.9% of BPH cases were negative, but 92% of prostatic carcinoma cases were positive for this marker (P=0.0001). Out of 20 cases of BPH, 15 cases containing suspicious foci showed Ck34ßE12+/AMACR- (diagnosis: benign), but 5 cases were Ck34ßE12-/AMACR+, for which the diagnosis changed to prostatic carcinoma (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: Immunohistochemical staining with Ck34ßE12 and AMACR improved the diagnostic performance and increased confidence level for establishing definite diagnosis in cases with suspicious foci, in which the morphological features were equivocal. This could help to avoid misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of prostatic carcinoma that would eventually improve the management of the patient and subsequently the prognosis.