Elsevier

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Volume 109, 15 January 2017, Pages 119-130
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Radiation effects on the tumor microenvironment: Implications for nanomedicine delivery

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2016.05.021Get rights and content

Abstract

The tumor microenvironment has an important influence on cancer biological and clinical behavior and radiation treatment (RT) response. However, RT also influences the tumor microenvironment in a complex and dynamic manner that can either reinforce or inhibit this response and the likelihood of long-term disease control in patients. It is increasingly evident that the interplay between RT and the tumor microenvironment can be exploited to enhance the accumulation and intra-tumoral distribution of nanoparticles, mediated by changes to the vasculature and stroma with secondary effects on hypoxia, interstitial fluid pressure (IFP), solid tissue pressure (STP), and the recruitment and activation of bone marrow-derived myeloid cells (BMDCs). The use of RT to modulate nanoparticle drug delivery offers an exciting opportunity to improve antitumor efficacy. This review explores the interplay between RT and the tumor microenvironment, and the integrated effects on nanoparticle drug delivery and efficacy.

Introduction

Radiotherapy (RT) is used to treat approximately 50% of all cancer patients and contributes to long-term disease control and cure in a substantial proportion [1]. The therapeutic benefit of RT is optimized based on the balance between tumor control and toxicity. Advances in technology, including image-guided and intensity-modulated RT, have substantially improved the ability to precisely deliver high doses of RT to tumors while minimizing dose to neighboring normal tissues and maintaining treatment side effects at acceptable levels. Nevertheless, tumor recurrence after RT remains a significant problem.

There has been extensive interest in combining RT with systemic treatment, either cytotoxic chemotherapy or biologically targeted agents as a means of further enhancing treatment efficacy. Much of this effort has focused on the use of chemotherapy to improve the curative potential of RT by offsetting accelerated tumor cell repopulation during a prolonged treatment course, sensitizing or directly killing radioresistant cells, targeting occult metastases outside of the irradiated volume, or protecting normal tissues from injury [2], [3]. Combined treatment with RT and concurrent weekly cisplatin is now the standard of care for head and neck, lung, esophageal, cervical, and bladder cancers among others, based on evidence from phase III trials demonstrating improved primary tumor control and/or patient survival compared to RT alone. However, the potential for further, significant improvements in clinical outcome using currently available cytotoxic chemotherapeutics in combination with RT is limited because of additive toxicity. Instead, the focus of investigation has shifted to better understanding the biological mechanisms that drive tumor recurrence after RT, including the interplay among genetic, microenvironmental, and immunologic effects, to guide more strategic molecular targeting of radioresistance pathways using drugs with non-overlapping toxicities. Abnormal vascular morphology and physiology, hypoxia, high interstitial fluid pressure (IFP), and tumor-infiltrating bone marrow-derived myeloid cells (BMDCs) have all been implicated as important drivers of tumor recurrence after RT and are potential therapeutic targets [4].

Despite past and continuing efforts over many years to use cytotoxic or molecular chemotherapeutics to enhance radiation response, there has been relatively little investigation of the role of RT to modify chemotherapy efficacy. RT is known to have profound, time-dependent effects on tumor, endothelial, and stromal cells that, in turn, would be expected to influence drug delivery to tumors, distribution within tumors, and uptake by cancer cells. This is likely to be even more relevant with new, long-circulating nanotherapeutics, including liposomal drug carriers. The biophysical principles that most strongly influence the transport of these agents are recognized to be different than for conventional, low-molecular-weight chemotherapeutics, resulting in a greater accumulation in tumors than in normal tissues. RT has been shown to enhance this accumulation and improves the intra-tumoral distribution of nanoparticles, leading to even greater therapeutic effect [5], [6]. This appears to be mediated by RT-induced changes to the tumor microenvironment including the vasculature and stroma, with secondary effects on hypoxia, IFP, and BMDC recruitment and activation. It has been proposed that nanomedicine-based radio-chemotherapy may leverage synergies between these two therapeutic approaches, with RT improving the tumor accumulation of drug delivery systems harboring payloads designed, in turn, to enhance radiation treatment response and further improve drug delivery [6].

This review explores the dynamic interplay between RT and the tumor microenvironment with a particular focus on RT to enhance nanoparticle transport, as summarized in Fig. 1. The effects of RT on the tumor vasculature and stroma, and the resultant change in hypoxia, IFP, and BMDC recruitment, are discussed in the context of nanoparticle delivery, uptake, and distribution. Perspectives on the current state of the art, potential clinical applicability, and limitations of using RT in combination with nanoparticle-based therapies are highlighted.

Section snippets

Pathophysiology of the tumor microenvironment

Solid tumors are composed of cancer cells surrounded by an extracellular matrix (ECM) of cross-linked collagen, hyaluronic acid, and glycoproteins that supports the tumor vasculature and a wide range of host-derived cells, including fibroblasts, lymphocytes, and myeloid cells that coexist in a dynamic and adaptive environment [7], [8], [9]. The vasculature in solid tumors is structurally and functionally abnormal because of an imbalance between pro- and antiangiogenic effects and loss of the

Radiation effects on the tumor vasculature, hypoxia, and IFP

There is complex interplay between the tumor vasculature and hypoxia. The abnormal vasculature drives the development of hypoxia from the earliest stages of tumor development by limiting oxygen delivery. Hypoxia, in turn, up-regulates angiogenesis and, paradoxically, further impairs vascular efficiency and oxygen availability. Radiation can influence this cascade at several points in a dynamic, dose-dependent manner through effects on both tumor and endothelial cells and the activation of

Nanomedicine-based radio-chemotherapy

There is a strong theoretical rationale for combining RT and nanomedicine [6]: RT can have profound effects on tumor, endothelial, and stromal cells with secondary effects on perfusion and IFP that can enhance nanomedicine delivery and efficacy. In turn, nanomedicines harboring drugs that target resistance pathways may enhance RT response and further improve drug delivery. Long-circulating nanoparticles containing radiation sensitizing agents have the potential to improve local tumor control

Conclusions and future direction

The tumor microenvironment has an important influence on cancer biological and clinical behavior and RT response. However, RT also influences the tumor microenvironment in a complex and dynamic manner that can either reinforce or inhibit this response and the likelihood of long-term disease control in patients. It is increasingly evident that the interplay between RT and the tumor microenvironment can be exploited to improve the accumulation and intra-tumoral distribution of nanoparticles.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Raquel De Souza in the preparation of this article.

References (127)

  • D.A. Hume et al.

    Therapeutic applications of macrophage colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) and antagonists of CSF-1 receptor (CSF-1R) signaling

    Blood

    (2012)
  • C.H. Ries et al.

    CSF-1/CSF-1R targeting agents in clinical development for cancer therapy

    Curr. Opin. Pharmacol.

    (2015)
  • P. Allavena et al.

    The inflammatory micro-environment in tumor progression: the role of tumor-associated macrophages

    Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol.

    (2008)
  • S.F. Schoppmann et al.

    Tumor-associated macrophages express lymphatic endothelial growth factors and are related to peritumoral lymphangiogenesis

    Am. J. Pathol.

    (2002)
  • P. Rubin et al.

    Microcirculation of tumors. II. The supervascularized state of irradiated regressing tumors

    Clin. Radiol.

    (1966)
  • Z. Fuks et al.

    Engaging the vascular component of the tumor response

    Cancer Cell

    (2005)
  • A.J. Giustini et al.

    Ionizing radiation increases systemic nanoparticle tumor accumulation Nanomed

    Nanotechnol. Biol. Med.

    (2012)
  • R.E. Vatner et al.

    Myeloid-derived cells in tumors: effects of radiation

    Semin. Radiat. Oncol.

    (2015)
  • M.E. Werner et al.

    Preclinical evaluation of Genexol-PM, a nanoparticle formulation of paclitaxel, as a novel radiosensitizer for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

    Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.

    (2013)
  • F.B. Cui et al.

    Enhancement of radiotherapy efficacy by docetaxel-loaded gelatinase-stimuli PEG-pep-PCL nanoparticles in gastric cancer

    Cancer Lett.

    (2014)
  • A.K. Iyer et al.

    Exploiting the enhanced permeability and retention effect for tumor targeting

    Drug Discov. Today

    (2006)
  • S.N. Ekdawi et al.

    Spatial and temporal mapping of heterogeneity in liposome uptake and microvascular distribution in an orthotopic tumor xenograft model

    J. Control. Release

    (2015)
  • S. Stapleton et al.

    Tumor perfusion imaging predicts the intra-tumoral accumulation of liposomes

    J. Control. Release

    (2013)
  • S. Stapleton et al.

    The intra-tumoral relationship between microcirculation, interstitial fluid pressure and liposome accumulation

    J. Control. Release

    (2015)
  • G. Delaney et al.

    The role of radiotherapy in cancer treatment: estimating optimal utilisation from a review of evidence-based guidelines

    Cancer

    (2006)
  • S.M. Bentzen et al.

    Exploitable mechanisms for combining drugs with radiation: concepts, achievements and future directions

    Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol.

    (2007)
  • D.R. Wahl et al.

    Integrating chemoradiation and molecularly targeted therapy

    Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.

    (2015)
  • H.E. Barker et al.

    The tumour microenvironment after radiotherapy: mechanisms of resistance and recurrence

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2015)
  • C.D.L. Davies et al.

    Radiation improves the distribution and uptake of liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) in human osteosarcoma xenografts

    Cancer Res.

    (2004)
  • T. Lammers et al.

    Image-guided and passively tumour-targeted polymeric nanomedicines for radiochemotherapy

    Br. J. Cancer

    (2008)
  • R.K. Jain

    Transport of molecules in the tumor interstitium: a review

    Cancer Res.

    (1987)
  • E. Cukierman et al.

    The mesenchymal tumor microenvironment: a drug-resistant niche

    Cell Adhes. Migr.

    (2012)
  • R.K. Jain

    Determinants of tumor blood flow: a review

    Cancer Res.

    (1988)
  • P. Vaupel et al.

    Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review

    Cancer Res.

    (1989)
  • R.G. Bristow et al.

    Hypoxia and metabolism: hypoxia, DNA repair and genetic instability

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2008)
  • M.W. Dewhirst et al.

    Cycling hypoxia and free radicals regulate angiogenesis and radiotherapy response

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2008)
  • J.M. Brown et al.

    Exploiting tumour hypoxia in cancer treatment

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2004)
  • R.G. Bristow et al.

    An arranged marriage for precision medicine: hypoxia and genomic assays in localized prostate cancer radiotherapy

    Br. J. Radiol.

    (2014)
  • M. Hockel et al.

    Association between tumor hypoxia and malignant progression in advanced cancer of the uterine cervix

    Cancer Res.

    (1996)
  • T.G. Graeber et al.

    Hypoxia-mediated selection of cells with diminished apoptotic potential in solid tumours

    Nature

    (1996)
  • J. Overgaard

    Hypoxic radiosensitization: adored and ignored

    J. Clin. Oncol.

    (2007)
  • R.K. Jain

    Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy

    Science

    (2005)
  • S.V. Kozin et al.

    Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2-blocking antibody potentiates radiation-induced long-term control of human tumor xenografts

    Cancer Res.

    (2001)
  • C.G. Lee et al.

    Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment augments tumor radiation response under normoxic or hypoxic conditions

    Cancer Res.

    (2000)
  • S.J. Lunt et al.

    Interstitial fluid pressure in tumors: therapeutic barrier and biomarker of angiogenesis

    Future Oncol.

    (2008)
  • P. Carmeliet et al.

    Molecular mechanisms and clinical applications of angiogenesis

    Nature

    (2011)
  • M. Stohrer et al.

    Oncotic pressure in solid tumors is elevated

    Cancer Res.

    (2000)
  • T.P. Padera et al.

    Lymphatic metastasis in the absence of functional intratumor lymphatics

    Science

    (2002)
  • Y. Boucher et al.

    Microvascular pressure is the principal driving force for interstitial hypertension in solid tumors: implications for vascular collapse

    Cancer Res.

    (1992)
  • A.B. Ariffin et al.

    Releasing pressure in tumors: what do we know so far and where do we go from here? A review

    Cancer Res.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    This review is part of the Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews theme issue on “Radiotherapy for Cancer: Present and Future”.

    View full text