Design of Nanoparticles for Focused Ultrasound Drug Delivery

  • Paul Cressey
  • Weiqi Zhang
  • Mihnea Turcanu
  • Sandy Cochran
  • Maya ThanouEmail author


As a well-established method for clinical imaging, ultrasound can also be used as source of focused waves to selectively affect tissues by activating drug carriers and/or improving drug uptake in tumors providing a novel strategy for targeted treatment [1]. In this chapter we describe the design of nanoparticles that can respond to effects induced by focused ultrasound that can be used in cancer therapy.


  1. 1.
    Al-Bataineh O, Jenne J, Huber P (2012) Clinical and future applications of high intensity focused ultrasound in cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 38:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodallec A, Fanciullino R, Lacarelle B, Ciccolini J (2018) Seek and destroy: improving PK/PD profiles of anticancer agents with nanoparticles. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 11:599–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee Y, Thompson DH (2017) Stimuli-responsive liposomes for drug delivery. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 9:e1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu X, Li F, Wang S, Xia F, Ling D (2018) Biological stimulus-driven assembly/disassembly of functional nanoparticles for targeted delivery, controlled activation, and bioelimination. Adv Healthc Mater 1800359:1–19Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murray JC, Carmichael J (1995) Targeting solid tumours: challenges, disappointments, and opportunities. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 17:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sriraman SK, Aryasomayajula B, Torchilin VP (1994) Barriers to drug delivery in solid tumors. Tissue Barriers 271:58–65Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tran S, DeGiovanni P-J, Piel B, Rai P (2017) Cancer nanomedicine: a review of recent success in drug delivery. Clin Transl Med 6:44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bobo D, Robinson KJ, Islam J, Thurecht KJ, Corrie SR (2016) Nanoparticle-based medicines: a review of FDA-approved materials and clinical trials to date. Pharm Res 33:2373–2387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pillai G (2014) Nanomedicines for cancer therapy: an update of FDA approved and those under various stages of development. SOJ Pharm Pharm Sci 1:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patel J (1996) Liposomal doxorubicin: Dox. J Oncol Pharm Pract 2:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Luca R, Blasi L, Alù M, Gristina V, Cicero G (2018) Clinical efficacy of nab-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Drug Des Devel Ther 12:1769–1775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petre CE, Dittmer DP (2007) Liposomal daunorubicin as treatment for Kaposi’s sarcoma. Int J Nanomedicine 2:277–288Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Masetti R, Pession A (2009) First-line treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia with pegasparaginase. Biologics 3:359–368Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sarris AH et al (2000) Liposomal vincristine in relapsed non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: early results of an ongoing phase II trial. Ann Oncol 11:69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang H, Yeh M (2012) Clinical development of liposome-based drugs: formulation, characterization, and therapeutic efficacy. Int J Nanomedicine 7:49–60Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dragovich T et al (2006) A phase 2 trial of the liposomal DACH platinum L-NDDP in patients with therapy-refractory advanced colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 58:759–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bao P et al (2016) Vincristine sulfate liposomes injection (VSLI, Marqibo): results from a phase I study in children, adolescents, and young adults with refractory solid tumors or leukemias. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63:997–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boulikas T (2009) Clinical overview on Lipoplatin™: a successful liposomal formulation of cisplatin. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 18:1197–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sartor O (2006) Eligard®6: a new form of treatment for prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Suppl 5:905–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang H (2016) Onivyde for the therapy of multiple solid tumors. Onco Targets Ther 9:3001–3007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lyon PC et al (2017) Clinical trial protocol for TARDOX: a phase I study to investigate the feasibility of targeted release of lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin (ThermoDox®) using focused ultrasound in patients with liver tumours. J Ther Ultrasound 5:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hong CW, Libutti SK, Wood BJ (2013) Liposomal doxorubicin plus radiofrequency ablation for complete necrosis of a hepatocellular carcinoma. Curr Oncol 20:274–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Solomon R, Gabizon AA (2008) Clinical pharmacology of liposomal anthracyclines: focus on pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma 8:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kobayashi H, Watanabe R, Choyke PL (2014) Improving conventional enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effects; what is the appropriate target? Theranostics 4:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kline CLB, El-Deiry WS (2013) Personalizing colon cancer therapeutics: targeting old and new mechanisms of action. Pharmaceuticals 6:988–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miele E, Spinelli GP, Miele E, Tomao F, Tomao S (2009) Albumin-bound formulation of paclitaxel (Abraxane® ABI-007) in the treatment of breast cancer. Int J Nanomedicine 4:99–105Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sartor O (2003) Eligard: leuprolide acetate in a novel sustained-release delivery system. Urology 61:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilson AC, Vadakkadath Meethal S, Bowen RL, Atwood CS (2007) Leuprolide acetate: a drug of diverse clinical applications. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 16:1851–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bulbake U, Doppalapudi S, Kommineni N, Khan W (2017) Liposomal formulations in clinical use: an updated review. Pharmaceutics 9:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Celsion (2018). Available at:
  31. 31.
    Mitragotri S (2005) Healing sound: the use of ultrasound in drug delivery and other therapeutic applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 4:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim Y, Rhim H, Choi MJ, Lim HK, Choi D (2008) High-intensity focused ultrasound therapy: an overview for radiologists. Korean J Radiol 9:291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carovac A, Smajlovic F, Junuzovic D (2011) Application of ultrasound in medicine. Acta Inform Medica 19:168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tu J et al (2012) Controllable in vivo hyperthermia effect induced by pulsed high intensity focused ultrasound with low duty cycles. Appl Phys Lett 101:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Edler I, Lindström K (2004) The history of echocardiography. Ultrasound Med Biol 30:1565–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Otto C (2000) Principles of echocardiographic image acquisition and Doppler analysis. Textbook Clin EchocardiogrGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toosonix. Available at: Accessed Oct 2018
  38. 38.
    Karaböce B, Şahin A, Ince AT, Skarlatos Y (2015) Characterization of pressure fields of focused transducers at TÜB̄TAK UME. Phys Procedia 70:1241–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhou Y, Zhai L, Simmons R, Zhong P (2006) Measurement of high intensity focused ultrasound fields by a fiber optic probe hydrophone. J Acoust Soc Am 120:676–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Haller J, Jenderka K-V, Durando G, Shaw A (2012) A comparative evaluation of three hydrophones and a numerical model in high intensity focused ultrasound fields. J Acoust Soc Am 131:1121–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Brien WD (2007) Ultrasound-biophysics mechanisms. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 93:212–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hijnen N, Langereis S, Grüll H (2014) Magnetic resonance guided high-intensity focused ultrasound for image-guided temperature-induced drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 72:65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zhou Y-F (2011) High intensity focused ultrasound in clinical tumor ablation. World J Clin Oncol 2:8–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Canney MS, Bailey MR, Crum LA, Khokhlova VA, Sapozhnikov OA (2008) Acoustic characterization of high intensity focused ultrasound fields: a combined measurement and modeling approach. J Acoust Soc Am 124:2406–2420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nelson TR, Fowlkes JB (2009) Ultrasound biosafety considerations for thepracticing sonographer and sonologist. J Ultrasound Med 28:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Smith NB, Temkin JM, Shapiro F, Hynynen K (2001) Thermal effects of focused ultrasound energy on bone tissue. Ultrasound Med Biol 27:1427–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Szabo TL, Lewin PA (2013) Ultrasound transducer selection in clinical imaging practice. J Ultrasound Med 32:573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Spadoni A, Daraio C (2010) Generation and control of sound bullets with a nonlinear acoustic lens. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:7230–7234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hynynen K et al (2006) Pre-clinical testing of a phased array ultrasound system for MRI-guided noninvasive surgery of the brain-A primate study. Eur J Radiol 59:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hutchinson EB, Hynynen K (1998) Intracavitary ultrasound phased arrays for prostate thermal therapies: MRI compatibility and in vivo testing. Med Phys 25:2392–2399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pernot M, Aubry JF, Tanter M, Thomas JL, Fink M (2003) High power transcranial beam steering for ultrasonic brain therapy. Phys Med Biol 48:2577–2589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Muthu MS, Leong DT, Mei L, Feng SS (2014) Nanotheranostics – application and further development of nanomedicine strategies for advanced theranostics. Theranostics 4:660–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rosenberg C et al (2013) PRFS-based MR thermometry versus an alternative T1 magnitude method – comparative performance predicting thermally induced necrosis in hepatic tumor ablation. PLoS One 8:1–11Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lewis MA, Staruch RM, Chopra R (2015) Thermometry and ablation monitoring with ultrasound. Int J Hyperth 31:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhi-Yu H et al (2017) A clinical study of thermal monitoring techniques of ultrasound-guided microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in high-risk locations. Sci Rep 7:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Roberts A (2008) Magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for uterine fibroids. Semin Intervent Radiol 25:394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lindner U et al (2012) Focal magnetic resonance guided focused ultrasound for prostate cancer: initial north American experience. Can Urol Assoc J 6:E283–E286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sun T et al (2015) Acoustic cavitation-based monitoring of the reversibility and permeability of ultrasound-induced blood-brain barrier opening. Phys Med Biol 60:9079–9094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kooiman K, Vos HJ, Versluis M, De Jong N (2014) Acoustic behavior of microbubbles and implications for drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 72:28–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Aw MS, Paniwnyk L, Losic D (2016) The progressive role of acoustic cavitation for non-invasive therapies, contrast imaging and blood-tumor permeability enhancement. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 13:1383–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Boissenot T, Bordat A, Fattal E, Tsapis N (2016) Ultrasound-triggered drug delivery for cancer treatment using drug delivery systems: from theoretical considerations to practical applications. J Control Release 241:144–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Moghimipour E, Handali S (2012) Utilization of thin film method for preparation of celecoxib loaded liposomes. Adv Pharm Bull 2:93–98Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhang H (2016) Thin-film hydration followed by extrusion method for liposome preparation. Liposomes:17–22Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Akbarzadeh A et al (2013) Liposome: classification, preparation, and applications. Nanoscale Res Lett 8:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Allen TM, Sapra P, Moase E (2002) Use of the post-insertion method for the formation of ligand-coupled liposomes. Cell Mol Biol Lett 7:889–894Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Gubernator J (2011) Active methods of drug loading into liposomes: recent strategies for stable drug entrapment and increased in vivo activity. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 8:567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rapoport N (2007) Physical stimuli-responsive polymeric micelles for anti-cancer drug delivery. Prog Polym Sci 32:962–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Miller T et al (2013) Drug loading of polymeric micelles. Pharm Res 30:584–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kataoka K, Matsumoto T, Yokoyama M, Okano T (2000) Doxorubicin-loaded poly(ethylene glycol)–poly(b-benzyl-l-aspartate) copolymer micelles: their pharmaceutical characteristics and biological significance. J Control Release 64:143–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zhang X et al (1997) An investigation of the antitumour activity and biodistribution of polymeric micellar paclitaxel. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 40:81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jette KK, Law D, Schmitt EA, Kwon GS (2016) Preparation and drug loading of poly(ethylene glycol)-block-poly(epsilon- caprolactone) micelles through the evaporation of a cosolvent azeotrope. Pharm Res 21:1184–1191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fournier E, Dufresne MH, Smith DC, Ranger M, Leroux JC (2004) A novel one-step drug-loading procedure for water-soluble amphiphilic nanocarriers. Pharm Res 21:962–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Sirsi S, Borden M (2009) Microbubble compositions, properties and biomedical applications. Bubble Sci Eng Technol 1:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Stride E, Edirisinghe M (2008) Novel microbubble preparation technologies. Soft Matter 4:2350–2359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Wu H et al (2013) Acoustic characterization and pharmacokinetic analyses of new nanobubble ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:2137–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Stetefeld J, McKenna SA, Patel TR (2016) Dynamic light scattering: a practical guide and applications in biomedical sciences. Biophys Rev 8:409–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Patravale V, Dandekar P, Jain R (2012) Characterization techniques for nanoparticulate carriers. In: Nanoparticulate drug delivery. Woodhead Publishing, Oxford, pp 87–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Demetzos C (2008) Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC): a tool to study the thermal behavior of lipid bilayers and liposomal stability. J Liposome Res 18:159–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Stewart F et al (2018) A prototype therapeutic capsule endoscope for ultrasound-mediated targeted drug delivery. J Med Robot Res 03:1840001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Chen H, Hwang JH (2013) Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction for chemotherapeutic drug delivery to solid tumors. J Ther Ultrasound 1:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Stewart FR et al (2017) Acoustic sensing and ultrasonic drug delivery in multimodal theranostic capsule endoscopy. Sensors (Switzerland) 17, 1553, 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Thanou M, Gedroyc W (2013) MRI-guided focused ultrasound as a new method of drug delivery. J Drug Deliv 2013:616197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Centelles MN et al (2018) Image guided thermosensitive liposomes for focused ultrasound drug delivery: using NIRF labelled lipids and topotecan to visualise the effects of hyperthermia in tumours. J Control Release 280:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lokerse WJM, Kneidl A, Petrini M, Lindner LH (2018) Liposomes for hyperthermia triggered drug release. In: Theranostics and image guided drug delivery. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, pp 137–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Needham D, Park JY, Wright AM, Tong J (2012) Materials characterization of the low temperature sensitive liposome (LTSL): effects of the lipid composition (lysolipid and DSPE-PEG2000) on the thermal transition and release of doxorubicin. Faraday Discuss 161:515–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kneidl B, Peller M, Winter G, Lindner LH, Hossann M (2014) Thermosensitive liposomal drug delivery systems: state of the art review. Int J Nanomedicine 9:4387–4398Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Li J et al (2014) A review on phospholipids and their main applications in drug delivery systems. Asian J Pharm Sci 10:81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Yatvin MB, Weinstein JN, Dennis WH, Blumenthal R (1978) Design of liposomes for enhanced local release of drugs by hyperthermia. Science 202:1290–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Lu T, ten Hagen TLM (2017) Inhomogeneous crystal grain formation in DPPC-DSPC based thermosensitive liposomes determines content release kinetics. J Control Release 247:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kao YJ, Juliano RL (1981) Interactions of liposomes with the reticuloendotherlial system. Effects of reticuloendotherlial blockade on the clearance of large unilamellar vesicles. Biochim Biophys Acta 677:453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Semple SC, Chonn A, Cullis PR (1996) Influence of cholesterol on the association of plasma proteins with liposomes. Biochemistry 35:2521–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    McMullen TPW, McElhaney RN (1996) Physical studies of cholesterol-phospholipid interactions. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 1:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Novell A et al (2015) Focused ultrasound influence on calcein-loaded thermosensitive stealth liposomes. Int J Hyperth 31:349–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Demel RA, De Kruyff B (1976) The function of sterols in membranes. BBA Rev Biomembr 457:109–132Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Merlin JL (1991) Encapsulation of doxorubicin in thermosensitive small unilamellar vesicle liposomes. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 27:1026–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Dos Santos N et al (2007) Influence of poly(ethylene glycol) grafting density and polymer length on liposomes: relating plasma circulation lifetimes to protein binding. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1768:1367–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kenworthy AK, Hristova K, Needham D, McIntosh TJ (1995) Range and magnitude of the steric pressure between bilayers containing phospholipids with covalently attached poly(ethylene glycol). Biophys J 68:1921–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Needham D, Park J, Wright M (2013) Materials characterization of the low temperature sensitive liposome (LTSL): effects of the lipid composition (lysolipid and DSPE – PEG2000) on the thermal transition and release of doxorubicin. Faraday Discuss 161:563–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Li L et al (2010) Triggered content release from optimized stealth thermosensitive liposomes using mild hyperthermia. J Control Release 143:274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Lin JC, Song CW (1993) Influence of vascular thermotolerance on the heat-induced changes in blood flow, pO2 and cell survival in tumors. Cancer Res 53:2076–2080Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Storm FK, Harrison WH, Elliott RS, Morton DL (1979) Normal tissue and solid tumor effects of hyperthermia in animal models and clinical trials normal tissue and solid tumor effects of hyperthermia in animal models and clinical trials. Cancer Res 39:2245Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Needham D, Anyarambhatla G, Kong G, Dewhirst MW (2000) A new temperature-sensitive liposome for use with mild hyperthermia: characterization and testing in a human tumor xenograft model. Cancer Res 60:1197–1201Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Anyarambhatla GR, Needham D (1999) Enhancement of the phase transition permeability of DPPC liposomes by incorporation of MPPC: a new temperature-sensitive liposome for use with mild hyperthermia. J Liposome Res 9:491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Mills JK, Needham D (2005) Lysolipid incorporation in dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine bilayer membranes enhances the ion permeability and drug release rates at the membrane phase transition. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1716:77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ickenstein LM, Arfvidsson MC, Needham D, Mayer LD, Edwards K (2003) Disc formation in cholesterol-free liposomes during phase transition. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1614:135–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ta T, Porter TM (2013) Thermosensitive liposomes for localized delivery and triggered release of chemotherapy. J Control Release 169:112–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Kong G et al (2000) Efficacy of liposomes and hyperthermia in a human tumor xenograft model: importance of triggered drug release. Cancer Res 60:6950–6957Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Tak WY et al (2018) Phase III HEAT study adding lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin to radiofrequency ablation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma lesions. Clin Cancer Res 24:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Banno B et al (2010) The functional roles of poly(ethylene glycol)-lipid and lysolipid in the drug retention and release from lysolipid-containing thermosensitive liposomes in vitro and in vivo. J Pharm Sci 99:2295–2308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Sandström MC, Ickenstein LM, Mayer LD, Edwards K (2005) Effects of lipid segregation and lysolipid dissociation on drug release from thermosensitive liposomes. J Control Release 107:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Tagami T, Ernsting MJ, Li SD (2011) Optimization of a novel and improved thermosensitive liposome formulated with DPPC and a Brij surfactant using a robust in vitro system. J Control Release 154:290–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Tagami T, Ernsting MJ, Li SD (2011) Efficient tumor regression by a single and low dose treatment with a novel and enhanced formulation of thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin. J Control Release 152:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ward MA, Georgiou TK (2011) Thermoresponsive polymers for biomedical applications. Polymers (Basel):1215–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wei H, Cheng S, Zhang X, Zhuo R (2009) Thermo-sensitive polymeric micelles based on poly (N-isopropylacrylamide) as drug carriers. Prog Polym Sci 34:893–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Twaites BR, De C, Alarco H, Go DC, Alexander C (2005) Thermoresponsive polymers as gene delivery vectors: cell viability, DNA transport and transfection studies. J Control Release 108:472–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Vihola H, Laukkanen A, Valtola L, Tenhu H, Hirvonen J (2005) Cytotoxicity of thermosensitive polymers poly (N-isopropylacrylamide), poly (N-vinylcaprolactam) and amphiphilically modified poly (N-vinylcaprolactam). Biomaterials 26:3055–3064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Ta T et al (2014) Localized delivery of doxorubicin in vivo from polymer-modified thermosensitive liposomes with MR-guided focused ultrasound-mediated heating. J Control Release 194:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Kono K, Hayashi H (1994) Temperature-sensitive liposomes: liposomes bearing poly (N-isopropylacrylamide). J Control Release 30:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Hayashi H, Kono K, Takagishi T (1996) Temperature-controlled release property of phospholipid vesicles bearing a thermo-sensitive polymer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1280:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Park SM et al (2013) Novel temperature-triggered liposome with high stability: formulation, in vitro evaluation, and in vivo study combined with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). J Control Release 170:373–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Urry D, Physical W (1997) Chemistry of biological free energy transduction as demonstrated by elastic. J Phys Chem 5647:11007–11028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Meyer DE, Chilkoti A (2004) Quantification of the effects of chain length and concentration on the thermal behavior of elastin-like polypeptides. Biomacromolecules:846–851Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Roy Chowdhury M, Schumann C, Bhakta-Guha D, Guha G (2016) Cancer nanotheranostics: strategies, promises and impediments. Biomed Pharmacother 84:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Jo SD, Ku SH, Won YY, Kim SH, Kwon IC (2016) Targeted nanotheranostics for future personalized medicine: recent progress in cancer therapy. Theranostics 6:1362–1377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Wright M, Centelles M, Gedroyc W, Thanou M (2018) Image guided focused ultrasound as a new method of targeted drug delivery. In: Theranostics and image guided drug delivery. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, pp 1–39Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Liang C, Xu L, Song G, Liu Z (2016) Emerging nanomedicine approaches fighting tumor metastasis: animal models, metastasis-targeted drug delivery, phototherapy, and immunotherapy. Chem Soc Rev 45:6250–6269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Mehlen P, Puisieux A (2006) Metastasis: a question of life or death. Nat Rev Cancer 6:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Guan X (2015) Cancer metastases: challenges and opportunities. Acta Pharm Sin B 5:402–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Seyfried TN, Huysentruyt LC (2013) On the origin of cancer metastasis. Crit Rev Oncol 18:43–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Kovatcheva R et al (2015) Ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of breast fibroadenoma – a multicenter experience. J Ther Ultrasound 3:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Li S, Wu P-H (2013) Magnetic resonance image-guided versus ultrasound-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound in the treatment of breast cancer. Chin J Cancer 32:441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Kim YS (2015) Advances in MR image-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy. Int J Hyperth 31:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Quesson B, De Zwart JA, Moonen CTW (2000) Magnetic resonance temperature imaging for guidance of thermotherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 12:525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    De Smet M, Langereis S, van den Bosch S, Grüll H (2010) Temperature-sensitive liposomes for doxorubicin delivery under MRI guidance. J Control Release 143:120–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    De Smet M, Heijman E, Langereis S, Hijnen NM, Grüll H (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging of high intensity focused ultrasound mediated drug delivery from temperature-sensitive liposomes: an in vivo proof-of-concept study. J Control Release 150:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Unger E, Shen DK, Wu GL, Fritz T (1991) Liposomes as MR contrast agents: pros and cons. Magn Reson Med 22:304–308; discussion 313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Rizzitelli S et al (2016) The release of Doxorubicin from liposomes monitored by MRI and triggered by a combination of US stimuli led to a complete tumor regression in a breast cancer mouse model. J Control Release 230:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Affram K et al (2017) Smart thermosensitive liposomes for effective solid tumor therapy and in vivo imaging. PLoS One 12:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Rosca EV et al (2015) Thermosensitive, near-infrared-labeled nanoparticles for topotecan delivery to tumors. Mol Pharm 12:1335–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Kamaly N et al (2008) Bimodal paramagnetic and fluorescent liposomes for cellular and tumor magnetic resonance imaging. Bioconjug Chem 19:118–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Senneville BD et al (2007) MR thermometry for monitoring tumor ablation. Eur Radiol 17:2401–2410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Rieke V, Pauly K (2008) MR thermometry. J Magn Reson Imaging 27:376–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 143.
    Sboros V (2008) Response of contrast agents to ultrasound. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60:1117–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Wang M et al (2018) Sonoporation-induced cell membrane permeabilization and cytoskeleton disassembly at varied acoustic and microbubble-cell parameters. Sci Rep 8:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    van Wamel A et al (2006) Vibrating microbubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation. J Control Release 112:149–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Kudo N, Okada K, Yamamoto K (2009) Sonoporation by single-shot pulsed ultrasound with microbubbles adjacent to cells. Biophys J 96:4866–4876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Mehier-Humbert S, Bettinger T, Yan F, Guy RH (2005) Plasma membrane poration induced by ultrasound exposure: implication for drug delivery. J Control Release 104:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Fan Z, Kumon RE, Deng CX (2014) Mechanisms of microbubble-facilitated sonoporation for drug and gene delivery. Ther Deliv 5:467–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Lentacker I, De Cock I, Deckers R, De Smedt SC, Moonen CTW (2014) Understanding ultrasound induced sonoporation: definitions and underlying mechanisms. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 72:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Qin P, Han T, Yu ACH, Xu L (2018) Mechanistic understanding the bioeffects of ultrasound-driven microbubbles to enhance macromolecule delivery. J Control Release 272:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Abbott NJ (2013) Blood-brain barrier structure and function and the challenges for CNS drug delivery. J Inherit Metab Dis 36:437–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Kumar Pandey P, Kumar Sharma A, Gupta U (2016) Blood brain barrier: an overview on strategies in drug delivery, realistic in vitro modeling and in vivo live tracking. Tissue Barriers 4:1–14Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Mesiwala AH et al (2002) High-intensity focused ultrasound selectively disrupts the blood-brain barrier in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 28:389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Sheikov N, McDannold N, Sharma S, Hynynen K (2008) Effect of focused ultrasound applied with an ultrasound contrast agent on the tight junctional integrity of the brain microvascular endothelium. Ultrasound Med Biol 34:1093–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Deng J et al (2012) The role of caveolin-1 in blood-brain barrier disruption induced by focused ultrasound combined with microbubbles. J Mol Neurosci 46:677–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Lipsman N et al (2018) Blood-brain barrier opening in Alzheimer’s disease using MR-guided focused ultrasound. Nat Commun 9:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Burgess A, Shah K, Hough O, Hynynen K (2015) Focused ultrasound-mediated drug delivery through the blood- brain barrier. Expert Rev Neurother 15:477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Kinoshita M, McDannold N, Jolesz FA, Hynynen K (2006) Targeted delivery of antibodies through the blood-brain barrier by MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 340:1085–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Kinoshita M, McDannold N, Jolesz FA, Hynynen K (2006) Noninvasive localized delivery of Herceptin to the mouse brain by MRI-guided focused ultrasound-induced blood-brain barrier disruption. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:11719–11723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Liu H-L et al (2010) Blood-brain barrier disruption with focused ultrasound enhances delivery of chemotherapeutic drugs for glioblastoma treatment. Radiology 255:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Liu H-L et al (2010) Magnetic resonance monitoring of focused ultrasound/magnetic nanoparticle targeting delivery of therapeutic agents to the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:15205–15210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Treat LH et al (2007) Targeted delivery of doxorubicin to the rat brain at therapeutic levels using MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Int J Cancer 121:901–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Eisenbrey JR et al (2010) Development and optimization of a doxorubicin loaded poly(lactic acid) contrast agent for ultrasound directed drug delivery. J Control Release 143:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Yang H et al (2016) Novel dual-mode nanobubbles as potential targeted contrast agents for female tumors exploration. Tumor Biol 37:14153–14163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Fan X et al (2016) Inhibition of prostate cancer growth using doxorubicin assisted by ultrasound-targeted nanobubble destruction. Int J Nanomedicine 11:3585–3596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Zhang L et al (2018) Size-modulable nanoprobe for high-performance ultrasound imaging and drug delivery against cancer. ACS Nano 12:3449–3460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Javadi M, Pitt WG, Belnap DM, Tsosie NH, Hartley JM (2012) Encapsulating nanoemulsions inside eliposomes for ultrasonic drug delivery. Langmuir 28:14720–14729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Kost J, Leong K, Langer R (1989) Ultrasound-enhanced polymer degradation and release of incorporated substances. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86:7663–7666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Quader S, Kataoka K (2017) Nanomaterial-enabled cancer therapy. Mol Ther 25:1501–1513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Marin A, Muniruzzaman M, Rapoport N (2001) Acoustic activation of drug delivery from polymeric micelles: effect of pulsed ultrasound. J Control Release 71:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Tan JS, Butterfield DE, Voycheck CL, Caldwell KD, Li JT (1993) Surface modification of nanoparticles by PEO/PPO block copolymers to minimize interactions with blood components and prolong blood circulation in rats. Biomaterials 14:823–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Gao ZG, Fain HD, Rapoport N (2005) Controlled and targeted tumor chemotherapy by micellar-encapsulated drug and ultrasound. J Control Release 102:203–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Ma J et al (2016) Biodegradable double-targeted PTX-mPEG-PLGA nanoparticles for ultrasound contrast enhanced imaging and antitumor therapy in vitro. Oncotarget 7:80008–80018Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Cressey
    • 1
  • Weiqi Zhang
    • 2
  • Mihnea Turcanu
    • 3
  • Sandy Cochran
    • 3
  • Maya Thanou
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical SciencesKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.School of EngineeringUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations