Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Biodistribution, Tumor Uptake and Efficacy of 5-FU-Loaded Liposomes: Why Size Matters

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

Purpose

We have investigated the impact of particle size on the biodistribution, tumor uptake and antiproliferative efficacy of 5-FU-loaded liposomes.

Methods

Three different batches of pegylated liposomes varying in size (i.e., 70, 120 and 250 nm respectively) were tested. The active compounds encapsulated were an equimolar mix of 5-FU, 2′-deoxyinosine and folinic acid. Liposomes were subsequently tested on the human breast cancer model MDA231 cells, a model previously found to be resistant to 5-FU. In vitro, antiproliferative efficacy and microscopy studies of liposomes uptake were carried out. In vivo, comparative biodistribution and efficacy studies were performed in tumor-bearing mice.

Results

Difference in size did not change in vitro antiproliferative activity. Fluorescence-Microscopy studies showed that liposomes were mainly uptaken by tumor cells through a direct internalization process, regardless of their size. Biodistribution profiles in tumor-bearing mice revealed higher accumulation of small liposomes in tumors throughout time as compared with normal and large liposomes (p < 0.05). Additionally, we observed that the bigger were the tumors, the more vascularised they were and the greater was the difference in accumulation between small and large liposomes. Consequently, in vivo efficacy studies showed at study conclusion that a 68% reduction in tumor size was achieved with small liposomes (p < 0.05), whereas larger liposomes failed to reduce significantly tumor growth. Similarly, at study conclusion a trend towards higher survival-rate in animals treated with smaller liposomes was observed.

Conclusion

This study suggests that particle size is critical to achieve higher selectivity and efficacy in experimental oncology, including in resistant tumors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Jain RK. Delivery of molecular medicine to solid tumors: lessons from in vivo imaging of gene expression and function. J Control Release. 2001;74(1–3):7–25.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen TM, Cullis PR. Drug delivery systems: entering the mainstream. Science. 2004;303(5665):1818–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Petros RA, DeSimone JM. Strategies in the design of nanoparticles for therapeutic applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(8):615–27.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Peer D, Karp JM, Hong S, Farokhzad OC, Margalit R, Langer R. Nanocarriers as an emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007;2(12):751–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Torchilin VP. Recent advances with liposomes as pharmaceutical carriers. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:145–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hirsjärvi S, Passirani C, Benoit JP. Passive and active tumour targeting with nanocarriers. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2011;8(3):188–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Couvreur P. Nanoparticles in drug delivery: past, present and future. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013;65(1):21–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Taurin S, Nehoff H, Greish K. Anticancer nanomedicine and tumor vascular permeability; where is the missing link? J Control Release. 2012;164(3):265–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Allen TM, Cheng WW, Hare JI, Laginha KM. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of lipidic nano-particles in cancer. Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 2006;6(6):513–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Li SD, Huang L. Pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of nanoparticles. Mol Pharm. 2008;5(4):496–504.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciccolini J, Cuq P, Evrard A, Giacometti S, Pelegrin A, Aubert C, et al. Combination of thymidine phosphorylase gene transfer and deoxyinosine treatment greatly enhances 5-fluorouracil antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. Mol Cancer Ther. 2001;1(2):133–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ciccolini J, Peillard L, Evrard A, Cuq P, Aubert C, Pelegrin A, et al. Enhanced antitumor activity of 5-fluorouracil in combination with 2′-deoxyinosine in human colorectal cell lines and human colon tumor xenografts. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(4):1529–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fanciullino R, Mollard S, Giacometti S, Berda-Haddad Y, Chefrour M, Aubert C, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of lipofufol, a new triple stealth liposomal formulation of modulated 5-fu: impact on efficacy and toxicity. Pharm Res. 2013;30(5):1281–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ishikawa T, Sekiguchi F, Fukase Y, Sawada N, Ishitsuka H. Positive correlation between the efficacy of capecitabine and doxifluridine and the ratio of thymidine phosphorylase to dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase activities in tumors in human cancer xenografts. Cancer Res. 1998;58(4):685–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Parhi P, Mohanty C, Sahoo SK. Nanotechnology-based combinational drug delivery: an emerging approach for cancer therapy. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17(17–18):1044–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Alley MC, Scudiero DA, Monks A, Hursey ML, Czerwinski MJ, Fine DL, et al. Feasability of drug screening with panels of human tumor cell lines using a microculture tetrazolium assay. Cancer Res. 1988;48(3):589–601.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fanciullino R, Giacometti S, Mercier C, Aubert C, Blanquicett C, Piccerelle P, et al. In vitro and in vivo reversal of resistance to 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer cells with a novel stealth double-liposomal formulation. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(7):919–26.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Moghini SM. Long-circulating and target-specific nanoparticles, theory to practice. Pharmacol Rev. 2001;53(2):283–318.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Torchilin VP. Passive and active drug targeting: drug delivery to tumors as an example. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2010;197:3–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Maeda H. Enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect: basis for drug targeting to tumors. In: Muzykantov V, Torchilin VP, editors. Biomedical aspects of drug targeting. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Maeda H. The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect in tumor vasculature, the key role of tumor-selective macromolecular drug targeting. Adv Enzym Regul. 2001;41:189–207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dams ET, Laverman P, Oyen WJ, Storm G, Scherphof GL, van Der Meer JW, et al. Accelerated blood clearance and altered biodistribution of repeated injections of sterically stabilized liposomes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000;292(3):1071–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Perche F, Torchilin VP. Recent trends in multifunctional liposomal nanocarriers for enhanced tumor targeting. J Drug Deliv. 2013;2013:705265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Litzinger DC, Buiting AM, van Rooijen N, Huang L. Effect of liposome size on the circulation time and intraorgan distribution of amphipathic poly(ethylene glycol)-containing liposomes. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1994;1190(1):99–107.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Takara K, Hatakeyama H, Kibria G, Ohga N, Hida K, Harashima H. Size-controlled, dual-ligand modified liposomes that target the tumor vasculature show promise for use in drug-resistant cancer therapy. J Control Release. 2012;162(1):225–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fanciullino R, Ciccolini J, Milano G. Challenges, expectations and limits for nanoparticles-based therapeutics in cancer: a focus on nano-albumin-bound drugs. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;88(3):504–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by grants from the Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer (ARC) and the GEFLUC Marseille Provence.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raphaelle Fanciullino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fanciullino, R., Mollard, S., Correard, F. et al. Biodistribution, Tumor Uptake and Efficacy of 5-FU-Loaded Liposomes: Why Size Matters. Pharm Res 31, 2677–2684 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-014-1364-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-014-1364-9

KEY WORDS

Navigation