Designing an In Vivo Efficacy Study of Nanomedicines for Preclinical Tumor Growth Inhibition

  • Pavan P. AdiseshaiahEmail author
  • Stephan T. Stern
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1682)


Novel nanoformulated chemotherapeutics and diagnostics require demonstration of efficacy and safety in appropriate animal models prior to conducting early-phase clinical trials. In vivo efficacy experiments are tailored to the tumor model type and route of administration as well as several parameters related to the nanoformulation, like drug loading to determine dosing volume. When designing in vivo efficacy studies for nanomedicines, understanding the relationship between tumor biology and the nanoformulation characteristics is critical to achieving meaningful results, along with applying appropriate drug and nanoformulation controls. In particular, nanoparticles can have multifunctional roles such as targeting and imaging capabilities that require additional considerations when designing in vivo efficacy studies and choosing tumor models. In this chapter, we outline a general study design for a subcutaneously implanted tumor model along with an example of tumor growth inhibition and survival analysis.

Key words

Nanoformulation Tumor model Subcutaneous Statistical analysis Biology 



Frederick National Laboratory is accredited by AAALAC International and follows the Public Health Service Policy for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Health Research Extension Act of 1985, Public Law 99-158, 1986). Animal care is provided in accordance with the procedures outlined in the “Guide for Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (National Research Council, 1996; National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.). All animal protocols are approved by the FNL Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Any experiments performed are scientifically justified and are not an unnecessary duplication of previous work by others.

This project has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.


  1. 1.
    Sparreboom A, Scripture CD, Trieu V, Williams PJ, De T, Yang A, Beals B, Figg WD, Hawkins M, Desai N (2005) Comparative preclinical and clinical pharmacokinetics of a cremophor-free, nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (ABI-007) and paclitaxel formulated in Cremophor (Taxol). Clin Cancer Res 11(11):4136–4143. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-04-2291 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desai NP, Trieu V, Hwang LY, Wu R, Soon-Shiong P, Gradishar WJ (2008) Improved effectiveness of nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel versus polysorbate-based docetaxel in multiple xenografts as a function of HER2 and SPARC status. Anticancer Drugs 19(9):899–909. doi: 10.1097/CAD.0b013e32830f9046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maeda H (2015) Toward a full understanding of the EPR effect in primary and metastatic tumors as well as issues related to its heterogeneity. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 91:3–6. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hobbs SK, Monsky WL, Yuan F, Roberts WG, Griffith L, Torchilin VP, Jain RK (1998) Regulation of transport pathways in tumor vessels: role of tumor type and microenvironment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95(8):4607–4612CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Monsky WL, Fukumura D, Gohongi T, Ancukiewcz M, Weich HA, Torchilin VP, Yuan F, Jain RK (1999) Augmentation of transvascular transport of macromolecules and nanoparticles in tumors using vascular endothelial growth factor. Cancer Res 59(16):4129–4135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adiseshaiah PP, Hall JB, McNeil SE (2010) Nanomaterial standards for efficacy and toxicity assessment. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2(1):99–112. doi: 10.1002/wnan.66 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cai W, Chen K, Mohamedali KA, Cao Q, Gambhir SS, Rosenblum MG, Chen X (2006) PET of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor expression. J Nucl Med 47(12):2048–2056PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heldin C-H, Rubin K, Pietras K, Ostman A (2004) High interstitial fluid pressure [mdash] an obstacle in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 4(10):806–813CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diop-Frimpong B, Chauhan VP, Krane S, Boucher Y, Jain RK (2011) Losartan inhibits collagen I synthesis and improves the distribution and efficacy of nanotherapeutics in tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(7):2909–2914. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1018892108 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Folarin AA, Konerding MA, Timonen J, Nagl S, Pedley RB (2010) Three-dimensional analysis of tumour vascular corrosion casts using steroimaging and micro-computed tomography. Microvasc Res 80(1):89–98. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2010.03.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yuan F, Dellian M, Fukumura D, Leunig M, Berk DA, Torchilin VP, Jain RK (1995) Vascular permeability in a human tumor xenograft: molecular size dependence and cutoff size. Cancer Res 55(17):3752–3756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diehl K-H, Hull R, Morton D, Pfister R, Rabemampianina Y, Smith D, Vidal J-M, Vorstenbosch CVD (2001) A good practice guide to the administration of substances and removal of blood, including routes and volumes. J Appl Toxicol 21(1):15–23. doi: 10.1002/jat.727 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shah H (2011) How to calculate sample size for animal studies? Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 1(1):35–39Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cancer Research Technology Program, Nanotechnology Characterization LaboratoryLeidos Biomedical Research, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer ResearchFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations