Conventional anticancer nano-therapies often rely on passive accumulation through the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, resulting in insufficient penetration of tumor tissue and heterogeneous cellular uptake. Smart nanocarriers that are able to respond to specific stimuli through conformational, charge-reversal, or structural phase changes to improve targeting efficacy at the tumor site have been proposed as promising alternatives. These stimuli-responsive smart nanocarriers undergo conformational changes or transitions in charge, solubility, or structure when exposed to a specific triggering stimulus. Smart nanocarriers can be triggered by either endogenous biochemical perturbations associated with the tumor microenvironment or external ex vivo physical triggers. The former includes the extracellular and endosomal pH gradients, the increased intracellular glutathione redox potential, and dysregulated proteolytic enzymes in the tumor microenvironment, while the latter includes near-infrared light, alternating magnetic fields, and high-intensity focused ultrasound. This article reviews the fundamental bio responsive molecular mechanisms, nanocarrier types, clinical reality, translational barriers, and design-by-quality principles relevant to the development of responsive nanotherapeutics for clinical oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: