Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cancer remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide, posing challenges for healthcare systems despite advancements in diagnostics and treatments. Traditional therapies, including chemotherapy and radiation, often struggle with issues such as non-specific targeting of cancer cells and the development of drug resistance. Recent progress in nanomedicine presents new opportunities to overcome these obstacles through refined methods of drug delivery and enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Among the various strategies, biologically derived small extracellular vesicles (sEVs) have gained significant attention due to their natural compatibility with biological systems and potential to induce immune responses, thereby offering more effective cancer treatment alternatives. Sustainable approaches in nanomedicine focus on the use of renewable and biocompatible materials, with sEVs from natural sources emerging as promising candidates. These vesicles possess unique properties, including low immunogenicity and effective cellular uptake mechanisms, which can aid in personalized therapy. Research indicates that these sEVs can be engineered to carry therapeutic agents, enhancing targeted delivery while minimizing systemic side effects. However, challenges in isolating and purifying sEVs remain a barrier to their widespread application. This review discusses the potential of biologically sourced sEVs in nanomedicine, exploring their role in targeted cancer therapies, and addresses the hurdles in their isolation and purification processes. Our approach emphasizes the use of bio-based sEVs, like the ones derived from cell lines or plasma/serum, as a viable alternative to the traditional methods that involve isolating sEVs from animals or employing synthetic molecules. Ultimately, we aim to highlight how sustainable strategies can optimize the yield and efficacy of sEVs for their use as drug delivery system, paving the way for advancements in cancer treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seth et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: