What question did this study set out to answer?

This review evaluates the use of nanotechnology in cancer treatment and diagnostics, focusing on challenges in clinical application.

June 12, 2026Open Access

Nanotechnology integration in oncology for advanced nanoparticle based strategies in targeted cancer diagnosis and treatment

Key Points

This review evaluates the use of nanotechnology in cancer treatment and diagnostics, focusing on challenges in clinical application.
Examined various nanoparticle synthesis strategies: bottom-up, top-down, microfluidic, and green methods.
Reviewed structural characterization techniques and tumor-targeting mechanisms.
Discussed major classes of organic, inorganic, and hybrid nanocarriers.
Clinical translation of nanoparticles is inconsistent despite promising preclinical results.
Key challenges include inter- and intratumoral EPR variability, immune recognition, and regulatory hurdles.
Some approved nanomedicines have had a meaningful clinical impact, while others showed limited benefits.

Abstract

Cancer remains a major global health challenge. Conventional therapies are often limited by poor tumor selectivity, systemic toxicity, multidrug resistance, and suboptimal pharmacokinetics. Nanotechnology offers a transformative approach in oncology. It enables targeted drug delivery, controlled or stimuli-responsive release, and multifunctional platforms that combine therapy and diagnostics. Nanoparticles enhance drug solubility, prolong circulation, and improve intracellular uptake. These advances are achieved through passive enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) and active targeting mechanisms. Despite robust preclinical success, clinical translation remains inconsistent. Factors such as pronounced inter- and intratumoral EPR variability, long-term toxicity or biodistribution concerns, immune recognition, and stringent regulatory or manufacturing hurdles contribute to high attrition rates. Approved nanomedicines, such as liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil ® ) and albumin-bound paclitaxel (Abraxane ® ), have achieved meaningful clinical impact. Others, such as thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin (ThermoDox ® ), have shown variable or limited benefits. This gap highlights persistent differences between promise and performance. This review critically examines nanoparticle synthesis strategies (bottom-up, top-down, microfluidic, and green methods); structural and physicochemical characterization techniques; tumor-targeting mechanisms; and major classes of organic (liposomes, solid lipid nanoparticles, nanostructured lipid carriers, polymeric, micelles, dendrimers), inorganic (carbon-based, metallic, silica, magnetic), and hybrid nanocarriers. Emphasis is placed on mechanistic insights, comparative performance, and translational limitations. Key issues include batch-to-batch variability, lack of standardized nanotoxicology protocols, patient-specific heterogeneity, and regulatory challenges. This review aims to guide the successful integration of nanotechnology into precision cancer therapy.

Bookmark

View Full Paper