Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Because of their large size compared to small molecules and their multifunctionality, nanoparticles (NPs) hold promise as biomedical imaging, diagnostic, and theragnostic agents. However, the key to their success hinges on a detailed understanding of their behavior after administration into the body. NP biodistribution, target binding, and clearance are complex functions of their physicochemical properties in serum, which include hydrodynamic diameter, solubility, stability, shape and flexibility, surface charge, composition, and formulation. Moreover, many materials used to construct NPs have real or potential toxicity or may interfere with other medical tests. In this review, we discuss the design considerations that mediate NP behavior in the body and the fundamental principles that govern clinical translation. By analyzing those nanomaterials that have already received regulatory approval, most of which are actually therapeutic agents, we attempt to predict which types of NPs hold potential as diagnostic agents for biomedical imaging. Finally, using quantum dots as an example, we provide a framework for deciding whether an NP-based agent is the best choice for a particular clinical application.

Definition of Nanotechnology

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not established its own formal definition of “nanotechnology” and currently relies on definitions provided by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).¹ When determining whether a new diagnostic or therapeutic agent should be considered a “nanomaterial,” the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) within the FDA applies the following three NNI criteria: (1) research and technology development at the atomic, molecular, or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 to 100 nm range; (2) creating and using structures, devices, and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size; and (3) ability to control or manipulate at the atomic scale.² Meeting these criteria are a variety of nanoparticle (NP) systems that span the range from a few nanometers to hundreds of nanometers (Figure 1). In many cases, new physical, chemical, and biologic properties emerge at this nanoscale compared to bulk materials or single atoms.¹ When such NPs are applied to clinical problem solving, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) often uses the term “nanomedicine.”^3–14

Figure 1.

Relative sizes of nanoparticles (NPs): hydrodynamic diameter ranges for nanoscale materials useful for biomedical imaging (top row) and naturally occurring materials (bottom row). QD = quantum dot.

It should be emphasized, though, that from the FDA's perspective, nanomaterials are regulated like any other new diagnostic or therapeutic agent. Clinical translation of NPs must adhere to the same principles of biodistribution, clearance, and toxicology that mediate small molecules and biologic agents, as well as satisfy additional concerns, as described below. Unfortunately, many fundamental questions about NPs delineated in 2005 by Whitesides¹⁵ remain unanswered, including how NPs enter the body, how they are taken up by the cell, how they are distributed and eliminated in the body, and how they affect human health.

NPs and Nanotechnology in Molecular Imaging

Certain features of NPs, such as multifunctionality, multivalency, and the ability to carry large payloads, have made them the subject of intense research. The term “effect size” refers to the “signal strength” of a diagnostic, therapeutic, or theragnostic agent.^5,16 Unlike small molecules, which often have limited effect size, NPs can produce high signal to background ratios (SBRs), can provide simultaneous contrast for multiple imaging modalities, and can carry a therapeutic payload along with contrast agents (ie, theragnostics).¹⁷ It is precisely the large size of NPs, though, and the relationship between size and normal physiology that make clinical translation of NPs so difficult. In this review, we focus on the design considerations of NPs for biomedical imaging and diagnostics, but the principles apply equally to therapeutic agents and theragnostics.

In general, NPs fall into two distinct classes, those that are purely organic and those that are composed of an inorganic core (and sometimes shell) and then encased with a biocompatible organic coating (Table 1). This all-important organic coating renders the NP soluble and stable in serum and determines its final hydrodynamic diameter (HD), as well as its final surface charge.

Table 1.

Classes of Nanoparticles for Multimodality Biomedical Imaging and Theragnostics

Class	Imaging Modality	NP Type	Composition	Shape	HD (nm)	Overall Charge [Core] Surface	Pros	Cons	References
Inorganic/organic hybrid NPs	MRI/multimodal imaging	MION, CLIO, and SPIO	Ion oxide with polymer coating	Globular	5–200	[None] +, −	Conventional MRI contrast agents; EPR*	Interference in imaging; EPR*; difficulty in therapeutic	7, 11, 21
		Gold Nanorods and nanoshells	Gold-containing nanostructures	Rod or sphere	2–100	[None] +, −	Size tunability; photothermal therapy; sensitivity; NIR; EPR	payload; opsonization; potential toxicity	67, 71–74
	Optical/multimodal imaging	QDs	Semiconductor core/shell arrays	Globular	5–50	[None] +, −, ±	Broadband absorption; size tunability; photostability; photoefficiency; targetability	UV decomposition; aggregation; RES uptake; high potential for toxicity	8, 77–82
		Silica NPs	Ceramic silica photosensitizers	Globular	5–100	[None] +, −	Facile synthesis; solubility; photostability; size tunability; biocompatibility; targetability	Need contrast agents; aggregation; mechanical stability	95–97, 154
		Molecular dots	Calcium phosphate nanocolloids	Globular	20–100	[–] +, −	Facile synthesis; photostability; photoefficiency biodegradability; targetability	Need contrast agents; EPR; difficulty in diagnostic and therapeutic payloads	101, 102
	Multimodal imaging	Fullerenes	Carbon-containing hollow structures	Sphere	1–5	[None] +, −	Thermal strength; electrical properties; antimicrobial ability	Poor water solubility; aggregation; difficulty in	55–57, 106
		Carbon nanotubes	Carbon-containing tubes	Cylinder	3–100	[None] +, −	Size tunability; mechanical strength; electrical properties	purification, surface modification, and	55–57, 106
		Nanoshells and nanowires	Metallic semiconductors	Sphere or linear	10–300	[None] +, −	Size tunability; electrical properties; high-throughput screening; thermal ablation	diagnostic and therapeutic payloads; high potential for toxicity	108, 109, 111, 155
Organic NPs	Multimodal imaging	Biologic NPs	Naturally derived polymers and lipoprotein conjugates	Linear, branched, globular	10–300	[All] +, −, ±	Biocompatibility; flexibility; biodegradability; targetability	Mechanical weakness; difficulty in size and degradability control	24, 85, 116–119
		Polymer nanospheres	Repeatedly linear or branched units	Linear or branched	1–1,000	[All] +, −, ±	Biodegradability; flexibility; size tunability; targetability	Need contrast agents; diagnostic and therapeutic payloads	120, 123–125
		Dendrimers	Repeatedly branched macromolecules	Branched or globular	3–30	[All] +, −, ±	Hydrophilicity; flexibility; size tunability; targetability; biocompatibility; renal clearance	Limited synthesis; need contrast agents; diagnostic and therapeutic payloads	127–131
		Liposomes	Phospholipid bilayers	Spherical	50–1,000	[All] +, −, ±	Conventional drug delivery vehicles; large diagnostic and therapeutic payloads; EPR	Need contrast agents; poor stability; EPR; opsonization	24, 51, 116, 132–136

CLIO = cross-linked iron oxide; EPR = enhanced permeability and retention; HD = hydrodynamic diameter; MION = monocrystalline iron oxide nanocolloid; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NIR = near-infrared; NP = nanoparticle; QD = quantum dot; RES = reticuloendothelial system; SPIO = superparamagnetic iron oxide; UV = ultraviolet.

EPR is desired for passive targeting systems but undesirable for active targeting systems.

Design Considerations in the Context of Human Physiology

Key Design Parameters for In Vivo Imaging

Like any contrast agent used for biomedical imaging, NPs must be designed to have a reasonable blood half-life, minimal nonspecific binding and uptake, selective binding to desired epitopes, such as cell surface receptors, effective elimination from the body (when NP components have any potential for toxicity), a high SBR, and little or no toxicity.^5,10,17 In general, the physiologic behavior and pharmacokinetic parameters of NPs can be optimized by adjusting their HD, composition, shape, and surface characteristics, such as charge and hydrophobicity, which are also key mediators of potential cytotoxicity and in vivo toxicity.^18–22 The contribution of each is described below.

Routes of Administration and NP Biodistribution

Over the past decade, multifunctional NPs have been investigated for use in oral delivery, pulmonary delivery, ocular delivery, transdermal delivery, and traversing the blood-brain barrier (BBB).²³ Oral delivery of proteins, peptides, genes, and vaccines is traditionally difficult owing to poor permeability and stability in the gastrointestinal tract. However, by encapsulating these biologic materials in a protective, ligand-targeted, site-specific NP carrier, they can be delivered to the intestine or the colon, where an external stimulus, such as temperature or pH, can trigger the release of the diagnostic or therapeutic agent.²⁴ In addition, increased surface area and decreased particle size can lead to increased mucoadhesion, which can increase gastrointestinal transit time and lead to increased bioavailability.^25,26 Pulmonary delivery of nebulized NPs carrying immunosuppressants, either through inhalation or direct instillation into the trachea, has shown a greater therapeutic efficacy in preventing acute lung transplant rejection.^27,28 However, the mechanisms underlying transpulmonary transport of NPs are only now being understood.²⁹ Because of the tight blood-retina barrier, systemic delivery of drugs to the retina is inefficient. However, direct administration of sustained-release NPs improves ocular residency and treatment efficacy.³⁰ Similarly, transdermal delivery of membrane permeable NPs helps control the release pattern and rate of delivery of drugs into skin and hair folicles.³¹ Finally, certain NPs appear to cross the BBB by either passive diffusion or carrier-mediated transcytosis.³² On the one hand, this observation can be exploited to help solve the long-standing problem of drug delivery to the central nervous system (CNS) using receptor-specific, monoclonal antibody-conjugated NPs.³³ On the other hand, it increases the potential for CNS toxicity after NP administration (see below).

For biomedical imaging, the preferred route of delivery is intravenous injection. However, the average size of capillary pores in normal tissues is only ≈ 5 nm.^34,35 Thus, small molecules equilibrate rapidly between intravascular and extravascular spaces, but NPs do not. As a frame of reference, an IgG molecule, which has an HD in its long dimensions of ≈10 nm, can take up to 24 hours to equilibrate between the blood and extracellular space and up to 4 days to adequately clear after binding its target.^36,37 These same principles mediate the intravascular/extravascular equilibration of NPs.³⁸ And when the organic coating is inadequate, NPs circulating in the blood will be removed rapidly by the reticuloendothelial system (RES; see below).³⁹ Depending on the organic coating surrounding the NPs, nonspecific adsorption of plasma proteins, mostly albumin, can also increase effective HD and thus extravasation.^9,20 Only neutral or certain hydrophilic surfaces (eg, zwitterionic) and neutral surfaces can prevent plasma protein adsorption.^18,20,40 In summary, intravenous injection ensures that an NP can potentially have access to the entire body, but normal vascular physiology will restrict NP biodistribution and significantly lengthen the time required for intravascular/extravascular equilibration.

Renal and Hepatic Clearance of NPs

Although some small molecules and salts can be excreted (ie, eliminated) from the body through salivary glands and sweat, the majority of clearance for small molecules and NPs injected into the bloodstream is through either renal (urine) or hepatic (bile to feces) routes.

Renal filtration of the blood is mediated by the slit structure of the glomerular basement membrane (GBM). The slit diaphragm is approximately 43 nm in diameter, but the physiologic pore size is significantly smaller, ≈ 5 nm in diameter.^41,42 The physicochemical properties of NPs in serum, such as HD, dispersity, shape, flexibility, and surface charge, will determine whether an NP can be renally filtered.^20,39,43 Globular NPs with an HD < 6 nm are typically filtered and are eliminated from the body in urine, whereas those with an HD > 8 nm are not filtered at all.²⁰ Flexible and linear-structured NPs show higher size thresholds compared to rigid and globular-structured NPs because of the rectangular shape of GBM slits. NPs larger than the renal filtration threshold will exhibit long blood half-lives (often desired) but have only three possible fates: metabolism to clearable components (desired), excretion by the liver into bile (desired), or uptake in the RES, resulting in long residence times in the body (undesired).^38,44

NP metabolism is an area of investigation that is only now beginning to receive the attention it deserves. In general, though, a key feature of most NP systems is their extreme physicochemical stability.²² Thus, in many cases, NP metabolism in the body is extremely slow, resulting in large “exposure times.” It should also be noted that the human body does not have cellular transporters for many elements used in NPs, such as cadmium,⁴⁵ which means that such elements are essentially “stuck” in the body after intravenous injection. The long residence time in the body for certain elements comprising NPs is a paramount concern of many regulatory agencies concerned with human health and the environment (see below).

Large NPs with a long blood half-life eventually undergo some level of hepatic uptake by either Kupffer cells (macrophages located in the liver) and/or hepatocytes. Depending on their chemical composition, some NPs can be metabolized in the liver to components that will undergo excretion into bile. In rare cases, hydrophilic, intact NPs > 8 nm in HD are capable of biliary excretion into bile,¹⁸ although the efficiency of elimination is much lower than for renal filtration and the chemical rules mediating the process are not fully understood.

RES and Immune-Mediated Metabolism/Elimination

In general, large NPs (> 8 nm in HD) suffer from the problem of inevitable uptake by the RES, composed of phagocytic cells, primarily monocytes and macrophages, located in the reticular connective tissue of the liver, spleen, and bone marrow.^39,43 In addition to size, surface charge plays a key role in RES uptake because the filtration barrier is covered with a layer of polyanionic glycoproteins, which repel most large anions.³⁹ Surface charge and hydrophobicity promote adsorption or opsonization by serum proteins present in the blood, which bind to foreign particles, such as some NPs, and increase recognition by phagocytic cells.³⁹ Serum protein binding also results in an effective increase in HD and can preclude renal clearance of NPs even if the HD would otherwise be small enough to permit it.²⁰ Depending on the chemical composition of the NPs, immune-mediated clearance can be a rapid or slow process.⁴⁶ In general, surface modification of NPs using biologically inert, hydrophilic, and neutral polymers such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) will slow the rate of clearance from the blood and uptake into the RES.¹²

Tumor-Targeting Strategies

There are essentially two ways to target an NP to malignant cells: active targeting using tumor-specific ligands and clearable NPs and passive targeting that relies on enhanced permeability and retention (EPR).^47,48 We would argue that the former is difficult but effective and the latter is easy but essentially worthless.

Active targeting requires creating an NP that has biodistribution to the extracellular space of every tissue (both normal and tumor) and organ in the body, high-affinity binding to the malignant cell, significant clearance from nontumor tissue, and elimination from the body of that fraction of NP that does not bind to malignant cells. Based on what is presently known about NPs, ultrasmall agents with rapid renal clearance meet these criteria⁴⁰ but are difficult to construct and nullify most of the advantages of NPs (ie, large size).

EPR exploits the fact that tumors large enough to recruit a neovasculature (typically > 1 mm diameter) also have a dysfunctional lymphatic drainage system and will nonspecifically accumulate NPs injected into the bloodstream.⁹ Unfortunately, the field of nanotechnology is doing itself a grave disservice, and wasting valuable grant dollars and time, by focusing on EPR over active targeting. First, EPR requires a tumor neovasculature, which does not appear until the tumor size exceeds ≈ 1 mm in diameter. This precludes targeting malignant cells in micrometastases, which will grow and ultimately kill the patient. Requiring tumors to grow to a size where angiogenesis has occurred but before NP diagnosis or therapy is effective is nonsensical. Second, we already have a large body of clinical data from nanosized chemotherapeutics (see below) that prove that the EPR “effect size” is minimal in vivo. In fact, the main reason liposomal formulations of chemotherapeutics were approved is because of reduced toxicity, owing to altered biodistribution, and not because of improved efficacy.⁴⁹ Third, retention in tumors via EPR necessarily means poor elimination from the body (owing to a large HD and/or surface charge), resulting in eventual uptake by the RES, long body retention times, and a higher likelihood of NP toxicity.

Although EPR may play a role in limited clinical scenarios in which identification of a primary tumor, or large vascularized metastases, is desired, relying on it as a tumor targeting strategy simply avoids the inevitable conclusion: most NPs cannot be used for active targeting of micrometastases⁵⁰ and, therefore, will play a minimal role in cancer diagnosis and therapy.

Interference with Other Biomedical Imaging Modalities

In the context of clinical translation, care must be taken to ensure that NPs do not themselves interfere with other, unrelated imaging modalities. For example, a large, dense NP that provides contrast for MRI might introduce a reflection that alters the interpretation of ultrasonography.^51,52 Similarly, an NP that provides optical contrast may alter tissue radiodensity and, ultimately, the interpretation of computed tomography (CT).⁵³

Potential Toxicity of NPs

Safety is the paramount concern for any diagnostic or therapeutic agent administered to the human body. However, NPs generate chemical, biologic, and environmental concerns above and beyond those of conventional agents. Many NPs contain elements, such as gadolinium, cadmium, selenium, tellurium, arsenic, and lead, or their complexes, which are known to have acute or chronic toxicity in vertebrates.⁴⁵ Particularly concerning are reproductive risks, immunotoxicity, and carcinogenicity, which are manifested only after long periods of time.⁵⁴ Even when containing only carbon, the unique geometry of certain NPs has been shown to introduce unexpected biologic toxicity.^55–58 Finally, disposal of certain NPs may be problematic because their remarkable chemical stability could lead to entrance into the water tables.^22,59 Thus, even before the proposed advantages of nanotechnology are fully realized,^15,60 increased public attention and concerns over short- and long-term toxicity abound.^58,59,61

Classes of NPs for Biomedical Imaging, Diagnostics, Therapeutics, and Theragnostics

The literature is replete with multifunctional metal-based, carbon-based, polymer-based, biologic-based, and lipid-based NPs that have been proposed for biomedical imaging, diagnostics, and/or therapeutics. NP classes described to date, along with their key advantages and disadvantages, are listed in Table 1 and are described in detail as follows.

Metal Oxide NPs

Spherical ferromagnetic NPs consisting of an iron (Fe) core and a polymeric coating have been used in biomedical imaging, cell tracking, and monitoring of drug delivery.^7,11 Iron oxide NPs, synthesized from ferrites composed of maghemite (Fe₂O₃) and magnetite (Fe₃O₄) metal ions, are often classified according to their effective size and coating: monocrystalline iron oxide nanocolloid (MION; 5–30 nm), cross-linked iron oxide (CLIO; 10–50 nm), and superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO; > 50 nm). These NPs have been used extensively as contrast-enhancing probes for MRI.²¹ Iron oxide NPs are primarily cleared from the blood by the RES and taken up by monocytes and macrophages, which limits their utility to the diagnosis of inflammatory and degenerative disorders associated with high macrophage activity,⁶² or the replacement of normal lymph node architecture with metastatic cells.⁶³ To avoid opsonization and to effect adequate biodistribution and clearance for the desired clinical indication, the physicochemical properties of these NPs require optimization.⁶⁴

Gold-Containing Nanostructures

Unique NP geometries created from gold include nanorods (a nano-object with two similar external dimensions in the nanoscale and the third dimension significantly larger than the other two external dimensions), nanofibers (flexible nanorods), nanoshells (hollow NPs), and nanocages (porous wall-covered nanoshell structures).⁶⁵ Gold-containing nanostructures have been explored for various biomedical applications such as drug delivery,⁶⁶ imaging,⁶⁷ tumor therapy,^66,68 radiation sensitization,⁶⁹ and sentinel lymph node mapping.⁷⁰ By adjusting the core and shell thickness, gold-containing NPs offer significant flexibility in tuning the wavelengths of optical absorption and scatter, from the visible to the near-infrared (NIR; 700–900 nm).^71–73 They also provide the ability to permit noninvasive photothermal ablation of tumors using ultrasound and microwaves in cases where surgery would be difficult.^67,74 However, care must be taken to minimize damage to surrounding normal tissue, and because of their unique geometry, penetration into skin and other organs can cause dermatitis and irritation.⁷⁵ In addition, accumulation of gold salts in the body may cause other toxicity.⁷⁶

Quantum Dots

Fluorescent semiconductor nanocrystals, or quantum dots (QDs), contain an inorganic core, and sometimes a shell, and an organic, biocompatible coating. Final HDs range from 5 to 50 nm. QDs have been used extensively in in vivo imaging as a replacement for small-molecule organic fluorophores and have been used to track biochemical processes and cancer metastases in living animals.^8,77,78 Compared to conventional small-molecule organic fluorophores, QDs often exhibit higher photostability, extinction coefficient, and quantum yield and can also provide broadband absorption, narrow and tunable emission spectra, and multivalent ligand conjugation.^8,79,80 Many QD chemical compositions have been shown to reach NIR emission, including InAs/ZnS,¹⁸ InAsxP1-x/InP/ZnSe,⁸¹ CdTe/CdSe,⁷⁹ and Cu-In-Se.⁸² Because of their appropriate size (10–30 nm) and fluorescence, NIR QDs have extensively been used for sentinel lymph node mapping.^{79,81,83–92} After surface functionalization using small molecules, peptides, proteins, or antibodies, NIR QDs are capable of detecting targets of interest in living animals.^10,77,93 Because of the need for at least one potentially toxic element to reach NIR wavelengths (eg, In, As, Cd, or Te) and their extreme in vivo stability if not cleared adequately,⁹⁴ clinical translation of NIR QDs remains stalled (discussed below).

Silica NPs

Silica is a popular component for developing biodegradable and biocompatible core-shell hybrid structured NPs because of its chemical and biologic inertness and thermal stability.^95–97 The crystallization and condensation reactions can be performed in aqueous systems at room temperature, which makes these NPs compatible with various heat-sensitive biomolecules that need to be incorporated into them. The charged surface permits silica colloids to be stable at high concentrations, and further modification of the surface can be accomplished using siloxane-based cross-linkers. In addition, the mesoporous silica structures permit reactants to perfuse through the shell and enter or leave the core based on their high surface area and tunable pore sizes.⁹⁸ Gold, silver, platinum, and many other metals can be used to compose silica-based nanoshells for use as biosensors, biomarkers, and other biomedical detectors.⁹⁹ For example, fluorophore-encapsulated silica NPs are being used as optical imaging agents with high fluorescence emission intensity, excellent photostability, and water solubility.⁹⁶ Questions regarding the elimination of silica-based NPs from the body and their potential toxicity remain unanswered.^21,100

Molecular Dots

Calcium phosphate NPs are small, biocompatible, multilayer nanocomposites that are more rigid than larger liposomal structures. Calcium phosphate core-shell NPs can be synthesized via robust and reproducible methods based on biomineralization of calcium phosphate around precipitated amphiphiles. NP formation can also be controlled using ion and surfactant concentrations, pH, ionic strength, and temperature.^101,102 Because of their composition, calcium phosphate NPs have a lower likelihood of toxicity compared to other types of NPs. Because they are bioresorbable and biodegradable and diagnostic and therapeutic agents can be trapped in them during synthesis, they could potentially be used as universal carriers. Like most NPs, though, the final HD is large, in the range of 20 to 100 nm, and surface modifications can be difficult.

Carbon-Based NPs

C₆₀ buckyballs and cylindrical single-walled or multiwalled carbon nanotubes are hollow containers that can readily accommodate a payload of diagnostic and/or therapeutic agents. The diameter of carbon nanotubes is between 3 and 100 nm, but the length to diameter ratio can be as high as 2.8 × 10⁷ to 1.¹⁰³ Fullerenes and carbon nanotubes are composed solely of carbon atoms and are thus extremely hydrophobic, resulting in aggregation and nonspecific binding to plasma proteins. Efforts have been made to solubilize them in water via surface modification, including oxidation or conjugation to hydrophilic organic molecules.¹⁰⁴ After surface modification and purification, these water-soluble cylindrical nanostructures show the potential for biologic research because they retain their extraordinary strength, electrical properties, and thermal conductivities. Clinical translation, however, will be slowed by concerns over their potential toxicity and difficulties in chemical modification of their surface.^55,57 Carbon nanotubes, in particular, have been difficult to evaluate because of heterogeneity in size, agglomeration, and sample purity.¹⁰⁵ Recent reports suggest that carbon nanotubes that cross the cell membrane or are retained in organs for long periods of time result in cell death and inflammation, including epithelioid granulomas and fibrotic reactions.^56,106 Other reports suggest relatively low toxicity when samples are pure and used at a low dose.¹⁰⁷

Nanowires

Metal-based semiconductor nanowires composed of silicon, carbon, and other materials are widely used as chemical and biologic sensors for high-throughput detection of proteins and DNA,^108,109 as well as for the potential delivery of contrast agents into living cells.¹¹⁰ For example, single-crystal structured silicon nanowires can be prepared as both p- and n-type materials as small as 2 to 5 nm, which perform better than planar silicon microelectronics.¹¹¹ However, the diameter of nanowires significantly increases up to 10 to 300 nm when a water-soluble coating is applied for in vivo compatability.¹⁰⁸ The needle-like shape of nanowires and carbon nanotubes, which are similar to asbestos fibers that cause mesothelioma, requires extreme caution if clinical translation is considered.¹¹²

Biologic NPs

Biologic NPs include nanoscale materials derived from biologic components such as peptides, proteins, enzymes, antibodies, lipoproteins, viruses, and natural polymers. Naturally derived NPs frequently demonstrate high biocompatibility and biodegradability, whereas manufactured NPs often elicit undesired bodily responses.¹¹³ Collagen and hyaluronate, the main components of extracellular matrices, are the most widely used tissue-derived natural polymers. Because they result in minimal inflammation, they can be used as biodegradable imaging probes after surface modification.¹¹⁴ On the other hand, NIR fluorophore-conjugated proteins and antibodies also have potential as targeting probes for the evaluation of disease progress.¹¹⁵ Additionally, owing to their long blood half-lives, albumin, lipoproteins, chitosan, dextran (α-1,6-polyglucose), and dextrin (α-1,4-polyglucose) have also been used as templates for carrying drugs and contrast agents after chemical or physical adsorption.^{24,85,116–119} Alginate and agarose are also well-known biomaterials obtained from algae polysaccharide and are widely used in drug delivery and tissue engineering owing to their biocompatibility and low toxicity. In general, biologic polymers suffer from poor physical strength, difficulty in controlling the size and shape of NPs, difficulty in controlling degradation, and, in some cases, immunogenicity.²⁴ Physicochemical properties can be improved by chemical cross-linking or by using chemically modified polymers, but then the materials become nonnatural chemical entities.

Polymer Nanospheres

Biodegradable and biocompatible synthetic polymers such as polylactic acid (PLA), polylactide-co-glycolide (PLGA), polyvinyl alcohol, polyacrylic acid, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyethyleneimine, polyamino acids, poly-l-lysine, polyglutamic acid, polymalic acid, polyaspartamides, polymethylmethacrylate, polymethylcyanoacrylate, polyethylcyanoacrylate, polyisobutylcyanoacrylate, polyisohexylcyanoacrylate, and their copolymers have been extensively used to fabricate nanospheres for the delivery and controlled release of water-insoluble, hydrophobic drugs to sites of disease.^24,120–123 By coating these polymers with other functional polymers, such as PEG, poloxamines, poloxamers, or polysaccharides, “smart” polymer NPs can be produced, which release their payload only after application of a stimulus, such as pH, temperature, light, ionic strength, or chemical environment.^123–125 Coating inorganic-based NPs, such as Au, QDs, silica, and carbon nanotubes, with biocompatible polymers increases stability and blood half-life while minimizing and/or delaying RES uptake.¹²⁶

Dendrimers

Dendrimers are spherical macromolecular NPs with highly branched (tree-like) internal structures. The interaction of dendrimers with the physiologic environment is mainly controlled by their terminal groups. Owing to their globular shape and internal cavities, dendrimers can encapsulate therapeutic agents either in their interior or on their surface. Over the last decade, polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimers from a 1,2-diaminoethane core and polypropyleneimine dendrimers have been used in a wide variety of diagnostic and therapeutic applications because they are biocompatible, have high water solubility (hydrophilicity) and flexibility, have well-defined structures, and can be easily conjugated with targeting ligands or payload.^127–131 The HD of dendrimers can be controlled during chemical synthesis, and, importantly, some small-sized (≤ 5 nm) dendrimers can be cleared from the blood through renal excretion.^21,66,131 In general, though, dendrimers can be more expensive to produce than conventional polymers, require complex repetitive steps for synthesis, and can be difficult to scale up for production.

Liposomes

Because of their large payload capacity and straightforward synthesis, liposomes have long been used as delivery vehicles for hydrophilic and hydrophobic drugs, diagnostic agents, peptides, antibodies, hormones, and macromolecules after encapsulation by their lipid membranes.^{24,51,116,132–136} Although the synthesis of phospholipid bilayers does not require organic solvents, final products typically suffer from poor mechanical stability and burst leakage.^39,43 By introducing inert, biodegradable coatings such as PEG, lipid membranes can be stabilized and further functionalized with various targeting/therapeutic moieties, including peptides, oligonucleotides, and proteins.^24,116 However, every chemical addition to the original liposome increases HD even further and increases the likelihood of eventual RES uptake.

Fundamentals of Clinical Translation

Regulation of Nanomaterial-Based Products

Owing to ongoing safety concerns with the use of nanomaterials, the NNI launched the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications Working Group (NEHIWG) to manage the potential risks associated with nanotechnology.¹³⁷ To help efficiently regulate potential nanotechnology research, the NEHIWG prepared the report “NNI Strategy for Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, and Safety Research” in 2008.¹³⁸ The strategy identified five priority areas for environmental, health and safety research and for coordination of interested agencies¹³⁹: 1.

Instrumentation, metrology, and analytical methods: National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)

Nanomaterials and human health: National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Nanomaterials and the environment: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Human and environmental exposure assessment: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Risk management methods: FDA and EPA

To regulate nanomaterials, products, and processes, the FDA, EPA, NIOSH, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have summarized environmental, health and safety implications, risks, and possible needs for regulations.¹⁴⁰ Among the federally funded institutions, the FDA is authorized to regulate a wide range of products, such as drugs and devices for humans and animals and biologic products for humans under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Service Act.

The key point to understand is that the clinical translation of NPs requires a complete understanding of the relationship between the human body and particle size, composition, formulation, supramolecular structure, chemical reactivity, and biomechanical strength and stability, as detailed in Table 2. It is also important to recognize that the FDA performs its regulatory role on a “product-by-product” basis and that its approach to a particular product depends on the type of approval required: (1) products subjected to premarket approval (pharmaceuticals, high-risk medical devices, food additives, colors, and biologic products), (2) products subjected to postmarket surveillance (such as foods, cosmetics, radiation-emitting electronic products, and materials such as food additives and food packaging), and (3) a third mixed category of products subject to premarket “acceptance.” In virtually all cases, NPs fall under category 1.¹⁴¹

Table 2.

Preclinical and Clinical Considerations for Nanoparticle Translation^{141,145,149,156}

Category	Issue	Considerations
Synthesis and physicochemical characterization	Structure, morphology, and formulation	Solubility, size and size distribution, morphology, structural arrangement, spatial distribution, density, geometric features, composition (organic vs inorganic), shape (nanoemulsions, nanocrystal colloid dispersions, or liposomes), surface charge, and drug combination (drug-device, drug-biologic, drug-device-biologic)
	Stability	Short- and long-term stability in various environments, such as in serum and under different pH, temperature, and salt concentrations
	cGMP synthesis	Residual solvents, processing variables, impurities, and excipients
	Scale-up process	Critical steps in the scale-up and manufacturing process for NP products
	Tools	Standard characterization tools of NP properties such as NMR, MS, DLS, SEC, CE, SEM, TEM, AFM, DSC, and XRD
Safety and toxicity	Size-specific effects on activity	1. Will NPs gain access to tissues and cells that normally would be bypassed by larger particles?
		2. Once NPs enter tissues, how long do they remain there?
	3. How are they cleared from blood, tissues, and the body?
		4. If NPs enter cells, what effects do they have on cellular and tissue functions (transient and/or permanent)?
		5. Do different cell types exhibit different effects?
	Route specificity	1. Inhalation: local respiratory toxicity and bioavailability
		2. Subcutaneous: sensitization
		3. Dermal: bioavailability, follicular retention, local lymph nodes, and phototoxicity
		4. IV: hemocompatibility, sterility, different tissue distribution and half-life of API (with targeted delivery and liposomes)
		5. Oral: bioavailability
		6. Ocular: intravitreal retention
	ADME	1. Absorption: how readily can the NP cross biologic barriers (eg, skin, cell membranes, and BBB)?
		2. Distribution: how easy is it for the NP to travel to other locations, and what organs do the NPs tend to target?
		3) Metabolism: does the nanomaterial get degraded into further constituents?
		4. Excretion: do the particles get excreted, or do they accumulate in various tissues? This ADME framework provides a structure that can be used to address the potential biologic effects of nanomaterials.
		5. What are the differences in the ADME profile for NPs versus larger particles of the same drug?
		6. Are current methods used for measuring drug levels in blood and tissues adequate for assessing levels of NPs?
		7. How accurate are mass balance studies, especially if levels of drug administered are very low; ie, can 100% of the amount of drug administered be accounted for?
		8. If NPs concentrate in a particular tissue, how will clearance be assessed accurately?
		9. Can NPs be successfully labeled for ADME studies?
	Blood tests	CBC, electrolytes, hemolysis, platelet aggregation, coagulation time, complement activation, and leukocyte proliferation
	Toxicity	1. Developmental and reproductive toxicity
		2. (Sub)chronic toxicology
		3. Immunotoxicity
		4. Neurotoxicity
		5. Genotoxicity
		6. Respiratory toxicity
		7. Carcinogenicity
		8. Histopathology
Environmental	Toxicity and elimination	1. Can NPs be released into the environment following human or animal use?
		2. What methodologies would identify the nature and quantify the extent of NP release into the environment?
		3. What might be the environmental impact on other species (animals, fish, plants, or microorganisms)?
Future testing	Safety evaluation	1. What is the role of new technologies to help identify potential toxicities?
		2. What is the role of modeling (in predicting exposure, safety concerns, and design of personalized therapies)?

AFM = atomic force microscopy; API = active pharmaceutical ingredient; BBB = blood-brain barrier; CBC = complete blood count; CE = capillary electrophoresis; cGMP = current Good Manufacturing Practices; DLS = dynamic light scattering; DSC = differential scanning calorimetry; MS = mass spectroscopy; NMR = nuclear magnetic resonance; NP = nanoparticle; SEC = size exclusion chromatography; SEM = scanning electron microscopy; TEM = transmission electron microscopy; XRD = x-ray diffraction.

FDA-Approved Nanomaterial-Based Diagnostic and Therapeutic Agents

There is much to learn from those nanomaterial-based agents already approved by the FDA (Table 3). The first is that regulatory approvals for nanomaterial-based agents are infrequent, averaging less than one per year over the last two decades, with no trend toward an increasing frequency. Second, each of the approved agents offered some quantifiable advantage over the nonnanomaterial that they sought to replace. Third, virtually all of the materials are organic. The only metal-based agent not administered as a microdose is composed of Fe, an element that in moderate quantities is required for red blood cell production and is therefore acceptable if not eliminated (excreted) completely from the body. Finally, given the costs associated with regulatory approval, all but one of the agents are therapeutics, where market sizes are larger and repeated dosing guarantees an extended cash flow.

Table 3.

Current FDA-Approved Diagnostic and Therapeutic Agents Containing Nanomaterials¹⁵⁷

Year of Approval	Product Name	Description and Advantages	HD (nm)	Form	Route	Dx/Rx	Manufacturer
1990/1995	Sandimmune/Neoral	Microemulsion-forming oral capsule including cyclosporine (cyclic polypeptide immunosuppressant agent); prolonged survival in allogeneic transplants	50–100	Capsule solution	Oral	Rx	Novartis
1994	Oncaspar	Polymer-protein conjugate (PEGylated asparaginase); PEG-l-asparaginase conjugate for sustained release of drug to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia	10–20	Suspension	IV	Rx	Enzon
1995	Caelyx/Doxil	Doxorubicin (chemotherapeutic) encapsulated in liposomes (DSPC:PEG-DSPE:Chol) sterically stabilized by PEG; controlled release over 60 days	70–100	Liposome	IV	Rx	Ortho Biotech
1996	DaunoXome/Myocet	Daunorubicin (chemotherapeutic) encapsulated in a closed lipid sphere (DSPC:Chol) for advanced Kaposi sarcoma associated with HIV	70–100	Liposome	IV	Rx	Diatos
1996	Feridex*	Dextran-coated ultrasmall iron oxide nanoparticles (ferumoxides) for MRI; diagnosis of lymph node metastases and liver lesions	50–250	Suspension	IV	Dx	Amag Pharmaceuticals
1999	DepoCyt	Cytarabine-encapsulated multivesicular liposomal suspension (DOPC:Chol:DPPG)	> 1,000	Liposome	IV	Rx	Pacira Pharmaceuticals
2000	Mylotarg	Chemoimmunoconjugate (gemtuzumab ozogamicin); anti-CD33 antibody conjugated to calicheamicin for treatment of acute myelogenous leukemia	10–20	Suspension	IV	Rx	Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
2000	Rapamune	Nanocrystallized rapamycin (immunosuppressant) in a tablet; enhanced dissolution rate and bioavailability	10–20	Tablet	Oral	Rx	Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
2000	Visudyne	Liposomal suspension encapsulating the drug verteporfin for photodynamic therapy (ophthalmic preparation for macular degeneration)	100–200	Suspension	IV	Rx	QLT
2002	Neulasta	PEGylated filgrastim; PEG—granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for prolonged release for prevention of chemotherapy-associated neutropenia	10–20	Suspension	IV	Rx	Amgen
2002	Zevalin	Radioimmunoconjugate (tositumomab and ¹¹¹I/⁹⁰Y); anti-CD20 conjugated to indium-111 (dosing) or yttrium-90 (treatment) for non-Hodgkin lymphomas	10–20	Suspension	IV	Rx	Spectrum Pharmaceuticals
2003	Bexxar	Radioimmunoconjugate (tositumomab and ¹³¹I); anti-CD20 conjugated to iodine-131 (dosing/treatment) for relapsed, follicular, or transformed non-Hodgkin lymphomas	10–20	Suspension	IV	Rx	SmithKline Beecham
2003	Emend	Nanocrystallized antiemetic in an oral capsule; enhanced dissolution rate and bioavailability	< 1,000	Capsule	Oral	Rx	Merck
2003	Rexin-G	Pathotropic retroviral vector carrying a cytocidal gene construct; orphan drug approval for treatment of pancreatic cancer, osteosarcoma, and soft tissue sarcoma	100	Suspension	IV	Rx	Epeius Biotechnology
2005	Abraxane	Paclitaxel (chemotherapeutic)-bound albumin particles; enhanced dose tolerance and effect; elimination of solvent-associated toxicity	100–130	Suspension	IV	Rx	Abraxis Bioscience

Chol = cholesterol; DOPC = dioleoyl phosphatidylcholine; DPPG = dipalmitoyl phosphatidylglycerol; DSPC = distearoyl phosphatidylcholine; DSPE = distearoyl phosphatidylethanolamine; Dx = diagnostic agent; HD = hydrodynamic diameter; HIV = human immunodeficiency virus; IV = intravenous; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; PEG = polyethylene glycol; Rx = therapeutic agent

Discontinued.

Even though approved, none of these NPs are ideal. Lipid-based carriers pose several challenges, such as instability of the carrier, initial burst drug release, and rapid blood clearance by the RES, mostly the liver and spleen, in a short period of time.^24,123,142 To improve the stability and prevent opsonization by the liver, the surface of liposomes has been coated with hydrophilic and inert polymers, mostly PEG. Caelyx/Doxil and DaunoXome/ Myocet, for example, are PEGylated liposome formulations for delivering doxorubicin showing enhanced circulation times and EPR effect for sustained drug release to the target. Overall, the HD of currently approved agents is extremely large and precludes elimination through renal filtration. Feridex, for example, an FDA-approved diagnostic agent composed of ion oxide NPs (SPIO), has a diameter of 15 nm by transmission electron microscopy and a final HD of ~~ 50 nm owing to the organic coating required for blood solubility and biocompatibility.

An added complexity when trying to translate new chemical entities to the clinic is that the FDA classifies certain combinations of conventional drugs as NPs. Bexxar (mAb-I-131), Mylotarg (mAb-chemotherapeutic), Zevalin (mAb-I-111), and even the small-molecule Gd-DTPA all meet the FDA's definition of NPs because they are composed of two different components that together create a new functionality. The same is true for coating a conventional therapeutic with an inert polymer, such as PEG. Classification as an NP can become quite costly if it triggers additional preclinical testing that was not required for the individual components themselves.

NP Structural Considerations for Clinical Translation

Although the unusually small size of NPs renders their in vivo behavior unique, this same small size can make them potentially dangerous to human health. NPs not only are able to evade detection by the body's immune system, they also, under rare circumstances, have the ability to cross the BBB.^31,143 The most common route of NP administration is intravenous. Once in the bloodstream, foreign substances, such as NPs, are often recognized by phagocytes of the RES. However, some NPs < 100 nm in HD are not efficiently absorbed by phagocytes and thus can move more freely throughout the body.¹⁴³ The surface reactivity of such NPs can also cause chemical damage to surrounding tissues. When inhaled, micron-sized particles deposit in the central airways; however, inhaled NPs deposit in the lung periphery, causing much greater inflammation.¹¹² Finally, just possessing nanoscale dimensions may, in and of itself, be toxic. Needle-shaped carbon nanotubes, nanowires, and nanofibers, for example, resemble the geometry of crocidolite asbestos, which can cause fibrotic lung disease and rare tumors, such as mesothelioma.^112,144

Thus, a comprehensive analysis of any new nanomaterial to be administered to the human body must be undertaken to avoid unintended side effects. Biodistribution and clearance profiles are of paramount importance for such side effects.¹⁴³ In particular, nonbiodegradable NPs that accumulate in certain organs, mostly in the RES, can cause potential harm, including immune-mediated toxicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity. The key considerations for NP interaction with the human body are provided in Table 2.

Government-Sponsored Resources Available to Assist with NP Clinical Translation

Given the complexities associated with clinical translation of NPs, investigators are fortunate to have a variety of government-sponsored resources available to them.

Food and Drug Administration

The FDA is a member of the Nano-scale Science and Engineering Technology (NSET) subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Committee on Technology and cochairs with the NIOSH the NSET Working Group on Nanomaterials Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) to define new test methods to assess the safety of these products.¹⁴⁵ The FDA also assists with the evaluation of nanomaterial toxicity studies supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP).¹⁴⁶ Presently, there are no testing requirements specific to nanotechnology products; however, the CDER and the FDA consider that existing regulatory requirements may be adequate for most nanotechnology products that they currently regulate.¹⁴⁷ If research identifies toxicologic risks that are unique to certain nanomaterials, additional testing requirements may become necessary.¹⁴⁵

National Cancer Institute

In 2004, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated the Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer to develop and translate cancer-related nanotechnology research into clinical practice.¹⁴⁸ To guide the implementation of the NCI Alliance, a cancer nanotechnology plan has been developed by establishing four major programs: 1.

Centers of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence to design and test nanomaterials and nanodevices and translate their use into clinical research

Multidisciplinary research training and team development to create incentives to integrate nanotechnology into the mainstream of basic and applied cancer research

Nanotechnology platforms for cancer research to focus on translational research in the following six major challenge areas where nanotechnology can have the greatest impact: molecular imaging and early detection; in vivo nanotechnology imaging systems; reporters of efficacy; multifunctional therapeutics; prevention and control; and research enablers

Nanotechnology characterization laboratory (NCL)¹⁴⁹ to perform and standardize the preclinical characterization (pharmacology, toxicology, and efficacy testing) of nanodevices (in conjunction with the FDA) to allow accelerated regulatory review and translation of basic research into the clinical domain. The NCL is also conducting material characterization and toxicology assessment for the development of cancer therapeutic drugs and will provide the eventual drug sponsor with data to understand the toxicologic risk that could be included as part of a New Drug Application to the FDA.

National Nanotechnology Initiative

The NNI reports to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and informs the president and Congress through the OSTP regarding the investment in nanotechnology to (1) keep the United States at the forefront of this important and emerging industry and (2) reduce duplication of efforts across the many US agencies.¹⁵⁰ The NNI identified areas of health-related research that are ongoing in the US government and recommends areas where additional resources should be invested (NNI, 2008).¹³⁸ Identification of the potential toxicologic hazards of nanomaterials within the US government is being funded within and through the following agencies: 1.

NTP-funded toxicological studies. Examples include (a) inhalation toxicology of carbon nanotubes (conducted through an interagency agency agreement [IAG] with the NIOSH), (b) fullerene toxicity (conducted through the NTP contract mechanism), (c) topical penetration and phototoxicity of TiO₂ and ZnO (conducted through an IAG with the National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]/FDA), and (d) NCL/NCI (characterization and toxicity of cancer therapeutics through an IAG with NTP regarding in vitro toxicity methods)

National Science Foundation (NSF) grant program

NIH extramural grant program

EPA grants program (STAR)

National Toxicology Program

The initial parameters of greatest concern to the NTP are size, shape, surface chemistry, and composition.¹⁴⁶ Ongoing research activities are focusing initially on four classes of nanoscale materials: (1) metal oxides; (2) fluorescent crystalline semiconductors (QDs); (3) fullerenes; and (4) carbon nanotubes.¹⁴⁶ NTP-published studies on the inhalation of nanomaterials suggest that particle size and distribution can impact toxicity equally, if not more so, than chemical composition.¹⁴⁶ Surface properties can be changed by coating NPs with different materials such as PEG or zwitterionic organic materials, but such a chemical modification also influences the size of the particle.²⁰ The interaction of surface area and particle composition in eliciting biologic responses adds an extra dimension of complexity in evaluating potential adverse events that may result from exposure to nanomaterials. These engineered NPs actually distribute in the body in unpredictable ways.¹⁴⁷

The FDA is taking significant steps to address the safety of nanomaterials as a function of their size, surface chemistry, surface physics, route of administration, and ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, elimination).^150,151 The FDA is also concerned that the current assays and tests that the agency requires sponsors to conduct in support of product safety are adequate to detect adverse biologic and toxicologic events. Because of these issues, the FDA is in the process of submitting the following Scientific Issues Nomination to the NTP: (1) examine the role of nanoscale size and surface coating on the fate (ADME) of nanomaterials in a rodent animal model; (2) examine the ability of nanomaterials to pass through the BBB and enter the CNS; (3) examine a select set of required tests to determine their ability to detect adverse biologic or toxicologic effects when challenged with nanomaterials; and (4) use colloidal gold and silver NPs as test agent nanomaterials.¹⁵⁰

Challenges and Perspective

The fundamental question that one must answer before exploring any NP-based idea is whether the “nanoscale” is actually needed to solve the clinical problem at hand. Given their relatively large size, high retention in the body, and potential toxicity, many classes of NPs introduce more complexity than they may be worth. In addition, intellectual property constraints surrounding certain NPs (discussed below for QDs) often preclude efficient clinical translation.

Take, for example, an NP containing the atom gold. Gold is a potent immunotoxin that has been used for almost a century in small amounts to treat rheumatoid arthritis. It is concerning, therefore, that gold-based nanoparticles could decompose and release gold atoms in an immunotoxic form. Moreover, gold has a linear attenuation coefficient that is 250 times higher than soft tissue. Thus, even a small fraction of gold deposited in normal organs could alter radiodensity and render CT uninterpretable. If the clinical benefits provided by gold-based NPs outweigh these clinical harms, then gold-based NPs might be viable for clinical translation. However, if there were a technology that accomplishes the same result without employing NPs, then it would be difficult to justify clinical translation.

Design Considerations of NPs Destined for Clinical Translation

The translation of many NPs into the clinic is presently being stymied by the (reasonable) mandate of the FDA that metal-containing NPs not be retained in the body. The longer an NP is retained in the body, the larger the area under the concentration-time curve and the higher the likelihood of potential toxicity. This was one of the primary motivators for our group to develop ultrasmall QDs that are cleared rapidly by renal filtration and eliminated in urine and to develop organic surface coatings that minimize nonspecific uptake and retention of NPs after intravenous injection.^20,40 In the context of the current regulatory framework, and based on what is now known about how NPs interact with the human body, we propose three simple criteria to help guide clinical translation of NPs (Table 4). We would argue that an ideal NP, with a high likelihood of clinical translation, would meet all three criteria, whereas NPs meeting only one or two criteria might eventually encounter prohibitive regulatory hurdles. Of note, the third criterion concerning complete elimination from the body through renal clearance is not satisfied by some currently FDA-approved agents, such as iron oxide NPs and liposomes, because their components are relatively nontoxic. However, one must wonder whether the performance of these NPs (ie, lower background) could be improved by engineering them for efficient renal clearance.

Table 4.

The “Choi Criteria” for the Clinical Translation of Nanoparticles Administered to Humans^5,20,40

Criterion	Consideration
Formulation	Composed of completely nontoxic materials and/or biodegradability to clearable (renal or hepatic) components
and Surface charge	Zwitterionic or neutral organic surface coatings to minimize penetration of cellular membranes, nonspecific tissue/organ uptake, and binding to serum proteins (unless only EPR-based uptake is desired)
and, preferably, Size and shape	Hydrodynamic diameter of NPs or degradation products ≤ 5.5 nm to facilitate complete renal elimination in a short period of time

EPR = enhanced permeability and retention; NP = nanoparticle.

Objective Assessment of QDs and Their Viability for Clinical Translation

To summarize and synthesize the key points discussed in this review, consider the case of QDs. When first developed, there was huge excitement in the biomedical imaging community. Their broadband absorbance in the blue, high photostability and chemical stability, extraordinary quantum yields, and tunability from the ultraviolet to the infrared were all touted as being revolutionary. However, after about a decade of investigation, many of these “features” of QDs are now classifiable as reality, myth, or indeterminate (Table 5).

Table 5.

Key Quantum Dot Properties with Respect to Literature-Validated Status^83,158

QD Property	Status	References
Emission tunability from UV to IR	Reality	159, 160
High photostability and photoefficiency	Reality	159, 160
Improved total photon yield	Reality	160
Conjugation to targeting ligands	Reality	161
Potential toxicity to normal tissues/organs and/or reproductive system	Reality	22, 162
All emission and material combinations are possible	Myth	153, 159, 160, 163
Straightforward chemical synthesis without unusual explosive risks	Myth	81, 93, 160, 163, 164
Broadband absorption in scattering tissue	Myth	153, 158, 165
Outperform organic fluorophores as a function of molecular volume	Myth	153, 158
Ultrathin, biocompatible organic coatings widely available	±	92, 153, 164
Small enough hydrodynamic diameter for complete elimination from the body	±	18, 20
High quantum yields in aqueous solvents and serum	±	18, 20
High chemical stability (coating dependent) in aqueous solvents and serum	±	18, 153, 158

IR = infrared; QD = quantum dot; UV = ultraviolet.

Reality = validated by the literature. Myth = commonly accepted but not validated by the literature. ± 5 examples and counterexamples available in =the literature.

Although the tunability of emission wavelength is a major advantage over small-molecule fluorophores, redder wavelengths require larger structures, which negatively affect biodistribution and clearance.¹⁸ Not all emission wavelengths are achievable with nontoxic elements. NIR wavelengths, in particular, suffer from the requirement for one or more toxic elements, and some syntheses are so dangerous that they should be attempted only by expert chemists. Although QD photostability is a nice feature, the excitation fluence rates that can actually be used in a clinical environment are orders of magnitude lower than QD limits and are so low that photobleaching of most small-molecule fluorophores can be avoided.¹⁵² Broadband absorption of QDs is actually nullified by Rayleigh scattering tissue, causing the excitation profile to resemble a small-molecule fluorophore.¹⁵³ Moreover, as a function of molecular volume, QDs underperform small molecules with respect to extinction coefficient and total photon yield.¹⁵³

Finally, most QDs do not achieve a final HD compatible with renal filtration, their quantum yield in serum tends to be one-quarter that obtained in organic solvent, and their stability in warm serum is often variable. When even a 5.5 nm QD is compared directly to a 1 kDa small-molecule NIR fluorophore (Figure 2), it becomes apparent that the optical performance of QDs comes at a steep price that may, or may not, be worth the added complexity. Nevertheless, if careful attention is paid to formulation, final HD, and surface charge, it is possible to develop QDs that are capable of targeting tumors efficiently after intravenous injection while being eliminated completely from the body through renal filtration (Figure 3).⁴⁰

Figure 2.

Physicochemical and optical properties of quantum dots (QDs) versus small molecules. A, Relative size differences between a 5.5 nm QD (left) and a typical 1 kDa heptamethine indocyanine small-molecule near-infrared fluorophore (right). Shown below each are the ranges in hydrodynamic diameters (HDs) of nontargeted derivatives described in the literature. To the right of each (in orange) are shown the contribution of various targeting ligands, described in the literature, to final HD. B, Summary comparison of key physicochemical and optical properties of inorganic/organic hybrid QDs versus organic small-molecule fluorophores. RES = reticuloendothelial system.

Figure 3.

Ultrasmall zwitterionic nanoparticles and their rapid renal clearance after effective tumor targeting.⁴⁰ A, Chemical composition of QD-CW-cRGD (CW800-conjugated CdSe(CdZnS) quantum dots [QDs] with cyclic RGDyK peptide targeting ligands). B, Ten pmol/g of QD-CW-cRGD was injected into tumor-bearing mice and observed at 4 hours postinjection. Shown are merged images of color video and near-infrared fluorescence (pseudocolored in lime green) acquired using the FLARE™ imaging system.¹⁶⁶ An α_vβ₃-positive M21 tumor (+) and an α_vβ₃-negative M21-L tumor (–) are indicated, as are the kidneys and bladder after surgical exposure.

So, if one already has a renally cleared, high-performing QD that permits image-guided surgery of malignant tumors, why not translate it to the clinic? The first problem is one of intellectual property. A single patent in the field precludes “freedom to practice” such an invention without permission and cooperation from a certain for-profit company. Second, to satisfy the regulatory requirements of complete elimination from the body, the QD is necessarily small. Thus, its extinction coefficient is not significantly different from that of a well-designed small-molecule fluorophore, and the same (or better) imaging can be achieved using such a small molecule. Third, current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP) synthesis of the QD shown in Figure 3 would be significantly more difficult than an equivalent small molecule. Finally, regulatory scrutiny of a metal-containing QD and the long-term toxicology tests that would undoubtedly be required would add significant cost to clinical translation. The alternative is a class of small-molecule NIR fluorophores, the heptamethine indocyanines, whose prototype indocyanine green has an extraordinary, 50+ year safety record in humans and a facile cGMP synthesis.

Conclusion

Like any new technology, nanotechnology has experienced the typical sequence of unbridled excitement, relentless criticism, and now careful introspection. Is it the answer to all or even many problems in biomedical imaging? Absolutely not. Might it play a role in the diagnosis and/ or treatment of certain human conditions and diseases? It already has. As discussed in this review, the clinical translation of many types of NPs will be impeded by fundamental limitations of human physiology (ie, vessel pore size, renal and hepatic clearance, RES), potential toxicity, and/or interference with other medical tests. At the very least, we suggest that NPs considered for clinical translation in biomedical imaging should meet as many of the “Choi criteria” (see Table 4) as are needed for the particular application. But, prior to beginning any investigation, we urge careful thought about whether the solution cannot actually be found using atomic scale rather than nanoscale molecules.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Moungi Bawendi from MIT for many years of fruitful collaboration in the field of QDs and Drs. Ingrid Markovic and Rafel Rieves from the FDA for many helpful discussions. We thank Lorissa A. Moffitt for editing the manuscript and Eugenia Trabucchi for administrative assistance.

Financial disclosure of authors: All intellectual property surrounding FLARE™ imaging technology is owned by the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. As inventor, Dr. Frangioni may someday receive royalties if products are ever commercialized. This study was supported by Bioengineering Research Partnership grant #R01-CA-115296 to J.V.F. from the NIH (NCI).

Financial disclosure of reviewers: None reported.

References

National Nanotechnology Initiative. What is nanotechnology! Available at: http://www.nano.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

Approaches to safe nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. Atlanta: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; 2009.

Frangioni

. Translating in vivo diagnostics into clinical reality. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:909–13.

Frangioni

. A new approach to drug development. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2046; author reply 2046.

Frangioni

. New technologies for human cancer imaging. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4012–21.

McCarthy

Weissleder

. Multifunctional magnetic nanoparticles for targeted imaging and therapy. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2008;60:1241–51.

McCarthy

Kelly

Sun

Weissleder

. Targeted delivery of multifunctional magnetic nanoparticles. Nanomedicine 2007;2:153–67.

Gao

Cui

Levenson

. In vivo cancer targeting and imaging with semiconductor quantum dots. Nat Biotechnol 2004;22:969–76.

Gil

Parak

. Composite nanoparticles take aim at cancer. ACS Nano 2008;2:2200–5.

10.

Nie

Xing

Kim

Simons

. Nanotechnology applications in cancer. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2007;9:257–88.

11.

Weissleder

Kelly

Sun

. Cell-specific targeting of nanoparticles by multivalent attachment of small molecules. Nat Biotechnol 2005;23:1418–23.

12.

Schipper

Iyer

Koh

. Particle size, surface coating, and PEGylation influence the biodistribution of quantum dots in living mice. Small 2009;5:126–34.

13.

de la Zerda

Gambhir

. Drug delivery: keeping tabs on nanocarriers. Nat Nanotechnol 2007;2:745–6.

14.

Cai

Chen

Mohamedali

. PET of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor expression. J Nucl Med 2006;47:2048–56.

15.

Whitesides

. Nanoscience, nanotechnology, and chemistry. Small 2005;1:172–9.

16.

Frangioni

. The impact of greed on academic medicine and patient care. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:503–7.

17.

Debbage

Jaschke

. Molecular imaging with nanoparticles: giant roles for dwarf actors. Histochem Cell Biol 2008;130:845–75.

18.

Choi

Ipe

Misra

. Tissue- and organ-selective biodistribution of NIR fluorescent quantum dots. Nano Lett 2009;9:2354–9.

19.

Liu

Choi

Zimmer

. Compact cysteine-coated CdSe(ZnCdS) quantum dots for in vivo applications. J Am Chem Soc 2007;129:14530–1.

20.

Choi

Liu

Misra

. Renal clearance of quantum dots. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25:1165–70.

21.

Longmire

Choyke

Kobayashi

. Clearance properties of nano-sized particles and molecules as imaging agents: considerations and caveats. Nanomedicine 2008;3:703–17.

22.

Hardman

. A toxicologic review of quantum dots: toxicity depends on physicochemical and environmental factors. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114:165–72.

23.

Jain

. Drug delivery systems-an overview. Methods Mol Biol 2008;437:1–50.

24.

Langer

. Drug delivery and targeting. Nature 1998;392(6679 Suppl):5–10.

25.

Jin

. Nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery and gene therapy. Biotechnol Prog 2007;23:32–41.

26.

Emerich

Thanos

. Nanotechnology and medicine. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2003;3:655–63.

27.

Zenati

Duncan

Burckart

. Immunosuppression with aerosolized cyclosporine for prevention of lung rejection in a rat model. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1991;5:266–71; discussion 272.

28.

Taljanski

Pierzynowski

Lundin

. Pulmonary delivery of intratracheally instilled and aerosolized cyclosporine A to young and adult rats. Drug Metab Dispos 1997;25:917–20.

29.

Choi

Ashitate

Lee

. The complete cycle of nanoparticle trafficking from the environment, through the body, and back to the environment. 2010. [In review]

30.

Vandervoort

Ludwig

. Ocular drug delivery: nanomedicine applications. Nanomedicine 2007;2:11–21.

31.

Cappel

Kreuter

. Effect of nanoparticles on transdermal drug delivery. J Microencapsul 1991;8:369–74.

32.

Agarwal

Lariya

Saraogi

. Nanoparticles as novel carrier for brain delivery: a review. Curr Pharm Des 2009;15:917–25.

33.

Huwyler

Pardridge

. Brain drug delivery of small molecules using immunoliposomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:14164–9.

34.

Pappenheimer

Renkin

Borrero

. Filtration, diffusion and molecular sieving through peripheral capillary membranes; a contribution to the pore theory of capillary permeability. Am J Physiol 1951;167:13–46.

35.

Vink

Duling

. Capillary endothelial surface layer selectively reduces plasma solute distribution volume. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2000;278:H285–9.

36.

Bell

Mullins

. Effects of increased venous pressure on albumin- and IgG-excluded volumes in muscle. Am J Physiol 1982;242:H1044–9.

37.

Goel

Colcher

Baranowska-Kortylewicz

. Genetically engineered tetravalent single-chain Fv of the pancarcinoma monoclonal antibody CC49: improved biodistribution and potential for therapeutic application. Cancer Res 2000;60:6964–71.

38.

Ballou

Lagerholm

Ernst

. Noninvasive imaging of quantum dots in mice. Bioconjug Chem 2004;15:79–86.

39.

Moghimi

Hunter

Murray

. Long-circulating and target-specific nanoparticles: theory to practice. Pharmacol Rev 2001;53:283–318.

40.

Choi

Liu

. Design considerations for tumour-targeted nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol 2010;5:42–7.

41.

Deen

Lazzara

Myers

. Structural determinants of glomerular permeability. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2001;281:F579–96.

42.

Ohlson

Sorensson

Haraldsson

. A gel-membrane model of glomerular charge and size selectivity in series. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2001;280:F396–405.

43.

Moghimi

Porter

Muir

. Non-phagocytic uptake of intravenously injected microspheres in rat spleen: influence of particle size and hydrophilic coating. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1991;177:861–6.

44.

Fitzpatrick

Andreko

Ernst

. Long-term persistence and spectral blue shifting of quantum dots in vivo. Nano Lett 2009;9:2736–41.

45.

Klaassen

. Casarett & Doull's toxicology: the basic science of poisons. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001.

46.

Gwinn

Vallyathan

. Nanoparticles: health effects-pros and cons. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114:1818–25.

47.

Maeda

Matsumura

. Tumoritropic and lymphotropic principles of macromolecular drugs. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst 1989;6:193–210.

48.

Matsumura

Oda

Maeda

. General mechanism of intratumor accumulation of macromolecules: advantage of macromolecular therapeutics. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 1987;14(3 Pt 2):821–9.

49.

Rifkin

Gregory

Mohrbacher

Hussein

. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone provide significant reduction in toxicity compared with doxorubicin, vincristine, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a phase III multicenter randomized trial. Cancer 2006;106:848–58.

50.

Zhang

Yee

Wang

. Quantum dots for cancer diagnosis and therapy: biological and clinical perspectives. Nanomedicine (Lond) 2008;3:83–91.

51.

Caruthers

Winter

Wickline

Lanza

. Targeted magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Methods Mol Med 2006;124:387–400.

52.

Kaneda

Caruthers

Lanza

Wickline

. Perfluorocarbon nanoemulsions for quantitative molecular imaging and targeted therapeutics. Ann Biomed Eng 2009;37:1922–33.

53.

Kim

Park

Lee

. Antibiofouling polymer-coated gold nanoparticles as a contrast agent for in vivo X-ray computed tomography imaging. J Am Chem Soc 2007;129:7661–5.

54.

Oberdorster

. Pulmonary effects of inhaled ultrafine particles. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2001;74:1–8.

55.

Warheit

Laurence

Reed

. Comparative pulmonary toxicity assessment of single-wall carbon nanotubes in rats. Toxicol Sci 2004;77:117–25.

56.

Kolosnjaj

Szwarc

Moussa

. Toxicity studies of carbon nanotubes. Adv Exp Med Biol 2007;620:181–204.

57.

Firme

3rd Bandaru

. Toxicity issues in the application of carbon nanotubes to biological systems. Nanomedicine 2010;6:245–56.

58.

Stern

McNeil

. Nanotechnology safety concerns revisited. Toxicol Sci 2008;101:4–21.

59.

Schmidt

. Nanotechnology-related environment, health, and safety research: examining the national strategy. Environ Health Perspect 2009;117:A158–61.

60.

Whitesides

. The ‘right’ size in nanobiotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 2003;21:1161–5.

61.

Gilbert

. Nanoparticle safety in doubt. Nature 2009;460:937.

62.

Muller

Skepper

Tang

. Atorvastatin and uptake of ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (Ferumoxtran-10) in human monocyte-macrophages: implications for magnetic resonance imaging. Biomaterials 2008;29:2656–62.

63.

Harisinghani

Barentsz

Hahn

. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2491–9.

64.

Jun

Lee

Cheon

. Chemical design of nanoparticle probes for high-performance magnetic resonance imaging. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2008;47:5122–35.

65.

Terminology for medical, health and personal care applications of nanotechnology. British Standards Institute; 2007. Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 131.

66.

Balogh

Nigavekar

Nair

. Significant effect of size on the in vivo biodistribution of gold composite nanodevices in mouse tumor models. Nanomedicine 2007;3:281–96.

67.

Loo

Lin

Hirsch

. Nanoshell-enabled photonics-based imaging and therapy of cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004;3:33–40.

68.

Khan

Nigavekar

Minc

. In vivo biodistribution of dendrimers and dendrimer nanocomposites-implications for cancer imaging and therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2005;4:603–13.

69.

Lee

Kim

. Advanced porous gold nanofibers for highly efficient and stable molecular sensing platforms. Nanotechnology 2009;20:325–604.

70.

Song

Kim

Maslov

Wang

. Noninvasive in vivo spectroscopic nanorod-contrast photoacoustic mapping of sentinel lymph nodes. Eur J Radiol 2009;70:227–31.

71.

Liu

Chung

. Efficient near-IR hyperthermia and intense nonlinear optical imaging contrast on the gold nanorod-in-shell nanostructures. J Am Chem Soc 2009;131:14186–7.

72.

Mejac

Bryan

Lee

Tran

. Visualizing the size, shape, morphology, and localized surface plasmon resonance of individual gold nanoshells by near-infrared multispectral imaging microscopy. Anal Chem 2009;81:6687–94.

73.

Braun

Pallaoro

. Laser-activated gene silencing via gold nanoshell-siRNA conjugates. ACS Nano 2009;3:2007–15.

74.

O'Neal

Hirsch

Halas

. Photo-thermal tumor ablation in mice using near infrared-absorbing nanoparticles. Cancer Lett 2004;209:171–6.

75.

Jones

Brooks

. Injectable gold compounds: an overview. Br J Rheumatol 1996;35:1154–8.

76.

Fadeel

Garcia-Bennett

. Better safe than sorry: understanding the toxicological properties of inorganic nanoparticles manufactured for biomedical applications. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2010;62:362–74.

77.

Cai

Shin

Chen

. Peptide-labeled near-infrared quantum dots for imaging tumor vasculature in living subjects. Nano Lett 2006;6:669–76.

78.

Akerman

Chan

Laakkonen

. Nanocrystal targeting in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:12617–21.

79.

Kim

Lim

Soltesz

. Near-infrared fluorescent type II quantum dots for sentinel lymph node mapping. Nat Biotechnol 2004;22:93–7.

80.

Smith

Gao

Nie

. Quantum dot nanocrystals for in vivo molecular and cellular imaging. Photochem Photobiol 2004;80:377–85.

81.

Kim

Zimmer

Ohnishi

. Engineering InAs(x)P(1-x)/InP/ZnSe III-V alloyed core/shell quantum dots for the near-infrared. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127:10526–32.

82.

Allen

Bawendi

. Ternary I-III-VI quantum dots luminescent in the red to near-infrared. J Am Chem Soc 2008;130:9240–1.

83.

Frangioni

Kim

Ohnishi

. Sentinel lymph node mapping with type-II quantum dots. Methods Mol Biol 2007;374:147–60.

84.

Knapp

Adams

Degrand

. Sentinel lymph node mapping of invasive urinary bladder cancer in animal models using invisible light. Eur Urol 2007;52:1700–8.

85.

Ohnishi

Lomnes

Laurence

. Organic alternatives to quantum dots for intraoperative near-infrared fluorescent sentinel lymph node mapping. Mol Imaging 2005;4:172–81.

86.

Parungo

Colson

Kim

. Sentinel lymph node mapping of the pleural space. Chest 2005;127:1799–804.

87.

Parungo

Ohnishi

Kim

. Intraoperative identification of esophageal sentinel lymph nodes with near-infrared fluorescence imaging. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:844–50.

88.

Parungo

Soybel

Colson

. Lymphatic drainage of the peritoneal space: a pattern dependent on bowel lymphatics. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:286–98.

89.

Soltesz

Kim

. Sentinel lymph node mapping of the gastrointestinal tract by using invisible light. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:386–96.

90.

Soltesz

Kim

Laurence

. Intraoperative sentinel lymph node mapping of the lung using near-infrared fluorescent quantum dots. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:269–77; discussion 269-77.

91.

Tanaka

Choi

Fujii

. Image-guided oncologic surgery using invisible light: completed pre-clinical development for sentinel lymph node mapping. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:1671–81.

92.

Zimmer

Kim

Ohnishi

. Size series of small indium arsenide-zinc selenide core-shell nanocrystals and their application to in vivo imaging. J Am Chem Soc 2006;128:2526–7.

93.

Han

Gao

Nie

. Quantum-dot-tagged microbeads for multiplexed optical coding of biomolecules. Nat Biotechnol 2001;19:631–5.

94.

Ballou

Ernst

Andreko

. Sentinel lymph node imaging using quantum dots in mouse tumor models. Bioconjug Chem 2007;18:389–96.

95.

Burns

Sengupta

Zedayko

. Core/shell fluorescent silica nanoparticles for chemical sensing: towards single-particle laboratories. Small 2006;2:723–6.

96.

Cauda

Schlossbauer

Kecht

. Multiple core-shell functionalized colloidal mesoporous silica nanoparticles. J Am Chem Soc 2009;131:11361–70.

97.

Tan

Wang

. Bionanotechnology based on silica nanoparticles. Med Res Rev 2004;24:621–38.

98.

Burns

Vider

. Fluorescent silica nanoparticles with efficient urinary excretion for nanomedicine. Nano Lett 2009;9:442–8.

99.

Hirsch

Gobin

Lowery

. Metal nanoshells. Ann Biomed Eng 2006;34:15–22.

100.

van Schooneveld

Vucic

Koole

. Improved biocompatibility and pharmacokinetics of silica nanoparticles by means of a lipid coating: a multimodality investigation. Nano Lett 2008;8:2517–25.

101.

Kester

Heakal

Fox

. Calcium phosphate nanocomposite particles for in vitro imaging and encapsulated chemotherapeutic drug delivery to cancer cells. Nano Lett 2008;8:4116–21.

102.

Altinoglu

Russin

Kaiser

. Near-infrared emitting fluorophore-doped calcium phosphate nanoparticles for in vivo imaging of human breast cancer. ACS Nano 2008;2:2075–84.

103.

Zheng

O'Connell

Doorn

. Ultralong single-wall carbon nanotubes. Nat Mater 2004;3:673–6.

104.

Tasis

Tagmatarchis

Georgakilas

Prato

. Soluble carbon nanotubes. Chemistry 2003;9:4000–8.

105.

Mitchell

Gao

Wal

. Pulmonary and systemic immune response to inhaled multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Toxicol Sci 2007;100:203–14.

106.

Kostarelos

. The long and short of carbon nanotube toxicity. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:774–6.

107.

Worle-Knirsch

Pulskamp

Krug

. Oops they did it again! Carbon nanotubes hoax scientists in viability assays. Nano Lett 2006;6:1261–8.

108.

Wang

. Biomolecule-functionalized nanowires: from nanosensors to nanocarriers. Chemphyschem 2009;10:1748–55.

109.

Wang

Chen

Lin

. Label-free detection of small-molecule-protein interactions by using nanowire nanosensors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005;102:3208–12.

110.

Shalek

Robinson

Karp

. Vertical silicon nanowires as a universal platform for delivering biomolecules into living cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010;107:1870–5.

111.

Lee

. Small-diameter silicon nanowire surfaces. Science 2003;299:1874–7.

112.

Poland

Duffin

Kinloch

. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat Nanotechnol 2008;3:423–8.

113.

Lee

Mooney

. Hydrogels for tissue engineering. Chem Rev 2001;101:1869–79.

114.

Castaneda

Valle

Yang

. Collagen cross-linking with Au nanoparticles. Biomacromolecules 2008;9:3383–8.

115.

Vollmer

Vater

Licha

. Extra domain B fibronectin as a target for near-infrared fluorescence imaging of rheumatoid arthritis affected joints in vivo. Mol Imaging 2009;8:330–40.

116.

Langer

Blackshear

Chang

. Enzyme and drug delivery systems. ASAIO Trans 1986;32:639–45.

117.

Agrawal

Strijkers

Nicolay

. Chitosan-based systems for molecular imaging. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2010;62:42–58.

118.

Chen

Vucic

Leupold

. Incorporation of an apoEderived lipopeptide in high-density lipoprotein MRI contrast agents for enhanced imaging of macrophages in atherosclerosis. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2008;3:233–42.

119.

Cormode

Skajaa

van Schooneveld

. Nanocrystal core high-density lipoproteins: a multimodality contrast agent platform. Nano Lett 2008;8:3715–23.

120.

Shakesheff

Evora

Soriano

Langer

. The adsorption of poly(vinyl alcohol) to biodegradable microparticles studied by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). J Colloid Interface Sci 1997;185:538–47.

121.

Gref

Minamitake

Peracchia

. Biodegradable long-circulating polymeric nanospheres. Science 1994;263:1600–3.

122.

Zhang

Chan

. Nanoparticles in medicine: therapeutic applications and developments. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;83:761–9.

123.

Chan

Zhang

Yuet

. PLGA-lecithin-PEG core-shell nanoparticles for controlled drug delivery. Biomaterials 2009;30:1627–34.

124.

Tobio

Gref

Sanchez

. Stealth PLA-PEG nanoparticles as protein carriers for nasal administration. Pharm Res 1998;15:270–5.

125.

Dhar

Langer

. Targeted delivery of cisplatin to prostate cancer cells by aptamer functionalized Pt(IV) prodrug-PLGA-PEG nanoparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:17356–61.

126.

Smith

Dave

Nie

. Multicolor quantum dots for molecular diagnostics of cancer. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2006;6:231–44.

127.

Kobayashi

Sato

Kawamoto

. Comparison of the macromolecular MR contrast agents with ethylenediamine-core versus ammonia-core generation-6 polyamidoamine dendrimer. Bioconjug Chem 2001;12:100–7.

128.

Kobayashi

Brechbiel

. Nano-sized MRI contrast agents with dendrimer cores. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2005;57:2271–86.

129.

Baker

Jr . Dendrimer-based nanoparticles for cancer therapy. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2009:708–19.

130.

Wood

Little

Langer

Hammond

. A family of hierarchically self-assembling linear-dendritic hybrid polymers for highly efficient targeted gene delivery. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2005;44:6704–8.

131.

Peer

Karp

Hong

. Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotechnol 2007;2:751–60.

132.

Kamaly

Kalber

Ahmad

. Bimodal paramagnetic and fluorescent liposomes for cellular and tumor magnetic resonance imaging. Bioconjug Chem 2008;19:118–29.

133.

Kamaly

Kalber

Thanou

. Folate receptor targeted bimodal liposomes for tumor magnetic resonance imaging. Bioconjug Chem 2009;20:648–55.

134.

Morawski

Lanza

Wickline

. Targeted contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2005;16:89–92.

135.

Mulder

Strijkers

van Tilborg

. Nanoparticulate assemblies of amphiphiles and diagnostically active materials for multimodality imaging. Acc Chem Res 2009;42:904–14.

136.

Mulder

Strijkers

van Tilborg

. Lipid-based nanoparticles for contrast-enhanced MRI and molecular imaging. NMR Biomed 2006;19:142–64.

137.

Davies

. Nanotechnology oversight an agenda for the new administration. Project on emerging nanotechnologies. Available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

138.

National Nanotechnology Initative. NNI-strategy for nanotechnology related environmental, health, and safety research. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, Arlington, VA, 2008. Available at: www.nano.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

139.

Mantovani

Procari

Robinson

DKR

. Developments in nanotechnologies regulation and standards: report of the Observatory Nano. Available at: http://www.observatorynano.eu (accessed January 1, 2010).

140.

Environmental Protection Agency. Nanomaterial research strategy. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

141.

Markovic

. Regulatory considerations in evaluating extractable and leachable substances. AAPS National Biotechnology Conference, San Diego, CA, June 24-27, 2007. Arlington: The American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. Available at: http://www.aapspharmaceutica.com/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

142.

Huwyler

Drewe

Krahenbuhl

. Tumor targeting using liposomal antineoplastic drugs. Int J Nanomed 2008;3:21–9.

143.

Nanotechnology: small matter, many unknowns. Zurich: Swiss Reinsurance Company; 2004.

144.

Wick

Manser

Limbach

. The degree and kind of agglomeration affect carbon nanotube cytotoxicity. Toxicol Lett 2007;168:121–31.

145.

Sadrieh

. Regulatory considerations for nanomaterial-containing therapeutics: AAPS Annual Meeting and Exposition, Los Angeles, CA, Nov 8-11, 2009. Arlington: The American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. Available at: http://www.aapspharmaceutica.com/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

146.

National Toxicology Program. Available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

147.

Nanotechnology: horizon scanning health technology policy assessment. Toronto, ON: Medical Advisory Secretariat, Ontario Ministry of Health; 2006.

148.

Brower

. Is nanotechnology ready for primetime? J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:9–11.

149.

Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory. Available at: http://ncl.cancer.gov/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

150.

Nanoscale materials: nomination and review of toxicological literature. The Chemical Selection Working Group. Washington, DC: FDA; 2006.

151.

Small is different: a science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale/the Expert Panel on Nanotechnology. Ottawa, ON: The Council of Canadian Academies; 2008.

152.

Te Velde

Veerman

Subramaniam

Ruers

. The use of fluorescent dyes and probes in surgical oncology. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010;36:6–15.

153.

Lim

Kim

Nakayama

. Selection of quantum dot wavelengths for biomedical assays and imaging. Mol Imaging 2003;2:50–64.

154.

Kamata

Xia

. Synthesis and characterization of monodispersed core-shell spherical colloids with movable cores. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125:2384–5.

155.

Patolsky

Zheng

Lieber

. Nanowire sensors for medicine and the life sciences. Nanomedicine 2006;1:51–65.

156.

Food and Drug Administration. Combination products. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/CombinationProducts/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

157.

Food and Drug Administration. FDA-approved drug products. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/ (accessed January 1, 2010).

158.

Frangioni

. In vivo near-infrared fluorescence imaging. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2003;7:626–34.

159.

Chen

Herhold

Johnson

Alivisatos

. Size dependence of structural metastability in semiconductor nanocrystals. Science 1997;276:398–401.

160.

Bruchez

Moronne

Gin

. Semiconductor nanocrystals as fluorescent biological labels. Science 1998;281:2013–6.

161.

Chan

Nie

. Quantum dot bioconjugates for ultrasensitive nonisotopic detection. Science 1998;281:2016–8.

162.

Derfus

Chan

WCW

Bhatia

. Probing the cytotoxicity of semiconductor quantum dots Nano Lett 2004;4:11–8.

163.

Kim

Fisher

Eisler

Bawendi

. Type-II quantum dots: CdTe/CdSe(core/shell) and CdSe/ZnTe(core/shell) heterostructures. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125:11466–7.

164.

Kim

Bawendi

. Oligomeric ligands for luminescent and stable nanocrystal quantum dots. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125:14652–3.

165.

Michalet

Pinaud

Bentolila

. Quantum dots for live cells, in vivo imaging, and diagnostics. Science 2005;307:538–44.

166.

Troyan

Kianzad

Gibbs-Strauss

. The FLARE^TM intraoperative near-infrared fluorescence imaging system: a first-in-human clinical trial in breast cancer sentinel lymph node mapping. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:2943–52.

Nanoparticles for Biomedical Imaging: Fundamentals of Clinical Translation

Abstract

Definition of Nanotechnology

NPs and Nanotechnology in Molecular Imaging

Design Considerations in the Context of Human Physiology

Key Design Parameters for In Vivo Imaging

Routes of Administration and NP Biodistribution

Renal and Hepatic Clearance of NPs

RES and Immune-Mediated Metabolism/Elimination

Tumor-Targeting Strategies

Interference with Other Biomedical Imaging Modalities

Potential Toxicity of NPs

Classes of NPs for Biomedical Imaging, Diagnostics, Therapeutics, and Theragnostics

Metal Oxide NPs

Gold-Containing Nanostructures

Quantum Dots

Silica NPs

Molecular Dots

Carbon-Based NPs

Nanowires

Biologic NPs

Polymer Nanospheres

Dendrimers

Liposomes

Fundamentals of Clinical Translation

Regulation of Nanomaterial-Based Products

FDA-Approved Nanomaterial-Based Diagnostic and Therapeutic Agents

NP Structural Considerations for Clinical Translation

Government-Sponsored Resources Available to Assist with NP Clinical Translation

Food and Drug Administration

National Cancer Institute

National Nanotechnology Initiative

National Toxicology Program

Challenges and Perspective

Design Considerations of NPs Destined for Clinical Translation

Objective Assessment of QDs and Their Viability for Clinical Translation

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

References