You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 Munima Haque -- 3832 2023-04-10 04:23:34 |
2 update references and layout Rita Xu Meta information modification 3832 2023-04-10 04:47:42 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Haque, M.; Shakil, M.S.; Mahmud, K.M. Nanoparticles-Based Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42890 (accessed on 05 December 2025).
Haque M, Shakil MS, Mahmud KM. Nanoparticles-Based Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42890. Accessed December 05, 2025.
Haque, Munima, Md Salman Shakil, Kazi Mustafa Mahmud. "Nanoparticles-Based Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42890 (accessed December 05, 2025).
Haque, M., Shakil, M.S., & Mahmud, K.M. (2023, April 10). Nanoparticles-Based Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42890
Haque, Munima, et al. "Nanoparticles-Based Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment." Encyclopedia. Web. 10 April, 2023.
Nanoparticles-Based Radiotherapy in Cancer Treatment
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/cancers15061892

Radiotherapy (RT) is used worldwide as a gold standard treatment approach for cancer management. The RT treatment modality contains limitations along with numerous side effects. Nanoparticles (NPs) have unique properties that can be utilized in the field of cancer treatment. Therefore, the combination of NPs with RT opens a new arena in cancer treatment. Their synergistic effect strengthens ionizing radiation sensitivity and allows for tumor-selective treatment while reducing side effects.

cancer treatment radiotherapy radiation treatment nanoparticles

1. Introduction

Cancer is a great threat to global public health [1]. It is one of the main causes of significant morbidity and global deaths per year [2]. In 2022, approximately 1,918,030 cancer cases and 609,360 cancer related deaths were reported [3], and 26 million new cancer cases are projected to occur by 2030 [4]. Cancer develops by uncontrolled proliferation of cells due to pathophysiological alterations of the inherent cell division process that later disseminate to different tissues [5][6]. Radiotherapy (RT) is actively used to treat primary, as well as terminal, tumors [7]. This course of treatment damages cancer cells upon exposure to ionization radiation [8]. A beam of high-energy ionization radiation destroys intracellular components of tumors, killing cancer cells [9]. Radiation treatment is effectual for more than half of cancer patients [10][11][12] and is applied in two-thirds of cancer treatment regimens in Western countries as a significant treatment modality for locoregional tumors [13]. Approximately 30–50% of all cancer patients receive RT, either alone or as an adjuvant treatment [14].
However, RT has limitations that includes dose heterogeneity, intrinsic as well as acquired resistance to RT, and tumor recurrence [15][16]. In addition, delivering sufficient tumoricidal radiation doses induces toxicity in both cancer and nearby non-cancerous cells since both cells have similar mass energy absorption tendencies [17]. Therefore, RT is restricted by the highest tolerated dose to the surrounding normal tissues [13]. Moreover, hypoxic tumors resist radiation treatment [18]. RT also exhibits side effects (acute, consequential, or late complications) causing radiation toxicity in the skin, mucosa, liver, lungs, kidneys, and heart [19][20][21][22][23].
The advent of nanoparticles (NPs) has assisted in the evolution of traditional RT from a “one-size-fits-all” concept to tailored and dynamic treatment modalities [13]. High surface-to-volume ratios, increased cellular uptake, and adjustability make NPs a suitable choice for tumor-targeted and less toxic treatment approaches [24][25][26][27][28][29]. NPs that are prepared from high Z materials act as radiosensitizers, receiving external beams of ionizing radiation [30][31]. Additionally, NPs can be modified by target molecules, and radiosensitizers are able to penetrate and accumulate in tumors to achieve tumor selectivity, as well as enhanced therapeutic doses [32][33][34][35]. Such NP-based radiosensitizing agents draw contrasts between cancer and non-cancerous cells owing to variability in their mass absorption coefficients [17]. Nanostructured radiosensitizers intensify radiation to increase the local dose and overcome hypoxia and rapid proliferation [36][37]. The combination of phototherapy with NP-based RT further improvises cancer management by increasing significant anticancer activity while reducing the limitations of both photothermal and photodynamic treatment [38].

2. Combinational Use of RT and Chemotherapy

Radiotherapy utilizes high-energy beams to destroy cancer cells and thereby shrink tumors [39]. On the other hand, chemotherapy (CT) uses cytotoxic drugs that are capable of killing cancer cells and inhibit cancer cell growth [40]. These conventional treatments have limitations, such as insufficient therapeutic properties and side effects [41]. In this regard, combination of RT with CT offers an improved therapeutic effect compared to using a single approach. CT is widely used in lung cancer [42], esophageal cancer [43], rectal cancer [44], and hepatocellular carcinoma [45]. However, toxic side effects and a lack of selectivity and synergy between RT and CT are key problems in chemotherapeutic treatment. In addition, severe side effects of Pt-based anticancer drugs have restricted their clinical application [41][46]. On the other hand, RT is often off-target and damages surrounding healthy cells, and it is difficult to obtain optimum radiation [47]. The application of nanostructured radiosensitizers in RT has attained great attention recently. Using high Z materials as nano radiosensitizers enhances RT owing to their Compton scattering and photoelectric effects [48]. Moreover, introducing platinum-based anticancer drugs, such as cisplatin (II), oxaliplatin (II), and carboplatin (II), as radiosensitizers has yielded more effective RT strategies [49].
A key advantage to combined treatment is the prospect of achieving a greater organ-preservation rate. Another advantage is its independent cell-destroying effect. RT aims to control the primary tumor, whereas CT eliminates distant metastasis. The combined treatment modality is also advocated based on clinical trial results. Phase II trials have reported convincing results of combined treatments [50]. However, the combined approach has some challenges to overcome. Several parameters, such as the dose, duration, administration sequence, should be optimized properly [51]. Therefore, further research is needed to explore these limitations.

3. How Radiation Reacts with Radiosensitizers of High Z Materials

The bombarding of ionizing radiation with NPs gives rise to several outcomes, including photoelectric effects, the Compton electron effect, and Auger electron effects (Figure 1) [40]. The radiation energy is imparted to the electrons of the NPs’ atoms, causing the ejection of electrons from their orbits [41]. Such electronic ejection occurs with a kinetic energy that is equivalent to the radiation wave energy minus the binding energy of the electrons and assesses the electron range in tissue [42].
Cancers 15 01892 g001
Figure 1. NP interaction with ionizing radiation. (A) The collision of incident photons with inner orbital electrons causes a photoelectric effect. The inner electron absorbs photon energy and ejects it as a photoelectron. Due to the ejection of photoelectrons, electrons from outer shell fill the gap resulting in the emitting of X-rays or the Auger electron. (B) On the other hand, the collision of incident photons with outer orbital electrons causes the Compton effect. The Compton electron absorbing photon energy is ejected from the atom, which may excite and ionize subsequent atoms. The photon loses a fraction of its energy and either continues on its course or is alternatively involved in further process, such as photoelectric effects or the Compton effect.
Photoelectric effects occur when low-energy photons interacts with materials (<60 keV). The photon energy is exclusively absorbed by inner orbital electrons and is ejected from its orbit. This phenomenon causes the electrons of outer orbits to shift to inner orbits and empty space. Thus, liberated fluorescence photons with specific wavelengths depend on the difference between the energy of two orbits, called secondary radiation (Figure 1). Later, Auger electrons are emitted when outer orbit electrons fill the empty space of the inner orbit due to photoelectric effects. This process relinquishes energy to outer orbits electrons, leading to ejection of electrons from higher orbits (Figure 1) [17]. The Auger electrons have high linear energy transfer properties and hence could be extremely injurious to cells [43]. The probability of photoelectric effects occurring is assessed by the formula (Z/E)3, where E = the incoming photon’s energy, and Z = the absorber molecule’s atomic number. Thus, the possibility of photoelectric effects is enhanced with increased absorber atoms, but it decreases with increased energy of incident photons. Photoelectric effects contribute more to radiation interaction with high Z metal NPs than to absorption in soft tissue. Therefore, photoelectrons, secondary photons, and Auger electrons released from high-Z metal NPs enhance localized doses, along with focal ionization of nearby cells via photoelectric effects. Since photoelectric effects decrease with increased energy of photons, most of the nanoparticles combining with radiation treatment use keV photons to optimize the radiosensitization and enhance the local dose by 10–150 times [44][45][46].
The Compton interaction dominates within 25 keV–25 MeV of photon energy. Since most RT is performed at an energy level of 6–20 MeV, this effect is the most common interaction between incident photons and cancer tissue. In the case of the Compton effect, incident photons strike weakly bound outer orbit electrons and donate part of their energy to the electrons, stimulating electrons to leave the outer orbit. Concurrently, the photons become scattered after giving part of their energy and further interacting with other atoms (Figure 1). Afterward, the emitted electrons continue to ionize adjacent tissues. The possibility of a Compton interaction depends inversely on the incoming photon’s energy but is not dependent on the material’s atomic number. Therefore, high-Z metal NPs do not have a substantial role in the Compton effect [17][40][46][47].

4. Biological Response of NPs-Based RT

Complementing nanotherapeutics with ionizing radiation exhibits an enhanced biological response in cancer management through several approaches. The major mechanisms include inhibiting DNA-repair processes, producing reactive oxygen species (ROS), which damage DNA or other biomolecules by oxidation, inhibiting tumor metastasis by controlling the tumor microenvironment (TME), and arresting the cell cycle (Figure 2).
Cancers 15 01892 g002
Figure 2. Biological responses of NPs aiding RT. Ionizing radiation causes direct damage to DNA, which is repaired by the cells’ own repair mechanism. However, NPs with RT interfere with the DNA-repair process, leading to cancer cell death. Moreover, ionization induces ROS generation, which damage DNA-killing cancer cells. In addition, radiation together with NPs arrests the G2/M phase of the cell cycle and results in cancer cells death eventually.

4.1. DNA Damage

Ionizing with X-rays, γ-rays, or proton radiation itself causes spontaneous double strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA by breaking atomic and molecular bonds [48][49][50], and un-repairing of DSB leads to genetic instability, cell division termination, and reduced proliferation and consequently to death [51][52]. However, such DSBs are repaired by the cellular DNA damage response (DDR) [53]. Three main proteins from the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-related kinase family, namely ataxia-telangiectasia mutated (ATM), ATM and Rad3 related (ATR), and DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK), are involved in identifying and repairing DNA DSBs [54]. Three different types of sensor protein complexes are responsible for the recruitment, as well as activation, of these three proteins of the PI3K family at damaged DNA sites, i.e., MRE11/RAD50/NBS1 (MRN) for ATM, RPA/ATRIP for ATR, and KU70–KU80/86 for DNA-PK [55].
The main goal of DDR machinery is to delay the progression of the cell cycle and fix the damage [56]. When cancer cells are exposed to IR, they undergo transient cell cycle arrest to repair DSBs either by non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) throughout the entire cell cycle or by homologous recombination (HR) during the S and G2 phase [57]. ATM is primarily responsible for activating the HR pathway. Other proteins, including breast and ovarian susceptibility protein (Brca2), Rad51, and X-ray repair cross complementing protein 2 (XRCC2), are also involved in the HR pathway [58]. On the other hand, DNA-PK mainly regulates the NHEJ pathway in association with DNA ligase IV and X-ray repair cross complementing protein 4 [59][60]. Another pathway involves both ATM and ATR. Here, MRN sensor protein complex senses damage sites and activates ATM [61]. Autophosphorylation of ATM kinase sends signals to transducers such as checkpoint kinase 2 (Chk2) and the transcription factor p53. p53 controls the expression of p21, which interacts with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) complex and arrests the G1 phase of the cell cycle [62]. Modification of chromatin also occurs together with the process, and then the DNA repair process is initiated. However, mutation of the p53 makes the G1 checkpoint defective in most of the cancer cells. Hence, the G2 checkpoint plays a crucial role for surviving cancer cells. RPA/ATRIP sensor protein complex recognizes and activates ATR. Here, ATR phosphorylates checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), which degrades cell division cycle 25A (CDC25A) through further phosphorylation and slows the progression of DNA replication during the S phase. The ATM-Chk2 and ATR-Chk1 signaling pathway acts together with DNA-PK phosphorylate p53, which controls genes required for DNA repair, arresting the cell cycle, and apoptosis [55][61][63].
For this purpose, DNA double-strand repair inhibition (DSBRI) appears to a promising strategy for RT [64]. However, it is a challenge to achieve tumor selective DSBRI-based radiotherapeutic treatment since such approaches often sensitize normal cells [65]. Interestingly, introduction of NP-based radiotherapeutic approaches mediates tumor-specific DSBRI owing to their increased permeability and retention effects [66][67]. Zhang et al. developed nano-constructure by combining androgen receptor (AR) with shRNA and folate-targeted H1 nanopolymer (NP AR-shRNA). NP AR-shRNA selectively destroyed prostate cancer cells by mimicking DNA DSBs and activated kinase activity, in turn impeding DNA damage repair signaling pathways (Figure 2) [68]. The presence of γ-H2AX is used as an indicator to detect DNA DSB in higher eukaryotes [69][70]. NP AR-shRNA in combination with IR (4 Gy) increases the expression of γ-H2AX in PC3 and 22Rv1 cells by nearly three-fold compared to IR alone (4 Gy). In vivo experiments showed that irradiation downregulated the expression of AR protein while increasing γ-H2AX expression in 22Rv1 tumors. Additionally, mice bearing PC3 and 22Rv1 cells were exposed to NP AR-shRNA under X-ray (total 9 Gy) and displayed significant tumor reduction compared to only X-ray treatment [68]. Similarly, Yao et al. formulated nanoparticles by conjugating DSB bait (Dbait) with H1 polymer (Dbait@H1 NPs), selectively killing prostate cancer cells upon exposure to radiation by inhibiting DSB repair [71]. Dbait@H1 NPs attached selectively to folate receptor and mimicked DNA DSBs upon release into the nucleus [72][73]. Dbait of Dbait@H1 NPs activates DNA-PK and phosphorylate γ-H2AX. Then, factors associated with DNA damage repair are assembled at the free end of Dbait, preventing them from affecting the DSB sites of the real chromosome and resulting in prolonged defects in DSB repair [74][75][76][77]. Irradiating (4 Gy) PC-3 cells with Dbait@H1 NPs induced γ-H2AX foci numbers three times higher than radiation alone (4 Gy). Moreover, the same radiation dose also increases phosphorylation of DNA-PK and H2AX of both PC-3 and 22Rv1 cells. Moreover, an in vivo study showed that mice carrying both PC-3 and 22Rv1 cells were exposed to 9 Gy of radiation and 60 μg/kg of Dbait@H1 NPs and exhibited 1.67- and 2.5-fold reduced tumor volumes, respectively, compared to only radiation (9 Gy) [71]. Similarly, HeLa cells exposed to AuNPs and irradiation at 4 Gy of 220 kVp and 6 MVp caused enhanced γ-H2AX, suggesting induction of possible DNA DSB [78]. Combined treatment with PEGylated-AuNPs and 4 Gy RT (150 kVp) increased DNA damage 1.7-fold in U251 cells compared to radiation alone [79]. Additionally, Zheng et al. reported that AuNPs at a radiation dose of 6 Gy induced DSB in HepG2 cells [80].
Chen et al. modified AuNPs with bovine serum albumin (BSA@AuNPs), which induced a 2.02-fold increase in γ-H2AX density compared to X-ray radiation only in U87 cells upon exposure to a 3-Gy dose of 160 kVp X-ray. Moreover, treating mice with BSA@AuNPs under X-ray radiation (5 Gy) reduced tumor volume significantly compared to X-ray radiation alone [81]. Similarly, a nanoformulation of KU55933 (NPs@KU55933) impeded the repair process of DSBs and exhibited enhanced tumor volume reduction in vivo.

4.2. Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)

Ionization in combination with NPs brings about indirect necrosis or apoptosis via oxidation of biomolecules, including proteins, lipids, and DNA, along with mitochondrial dysfunction [7][82][83]. High-intensity ionizing radiation generates ROS, including superoxide anion radicals (O2−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxyl radicals (•OH), through water radiolysis, and they interact with cellular biomolecules, leading to apoptosis/cellular death [7][84][85][86][87][88], as well as suppressing tumor progression [89]. Therefore, sufficient ROS production is crucial to mediate DNA damage, as well as suppress DNA repair (Figure 2).
Zhao et al. fabricated Gd-bearing polyoxometalates linked with chitosan nanospheres and integrated with hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) siRNA (GdW10@CS_HsiRNA) that showed enhanced radiosensitization in hypoxic tumors. GdW10@CS functions as an external radiosensitizer for depositing ionizing radiation doses and as a nanocarrier of HIF-1α siRNA to stop DNA DSB restoration. Additionally, GdW10@CS annihilates intracellular reduced glutathione (GSH) levels upon exposure to X-ray radiation, leading to overproduction of ROS through W6+-triggered GSH oxidation, thereby facilitating radiotherapeutic efficiency. Irradiating BEL-7402 cells with 6 Gy of X-ray and GdW10@CS (100 μM) produced Compton and Auger electrons, which interact with surrounding H2O or O2 molecules, thus producing 10-fold more ROS, as well as exhausting GSH levels three times more compared to X-ray treatment alone. Furthermore, 20 μL of GdW10@CS along with 10 Gy of X-ray radiation were administered into BALB/c mice bearing BEL-7402 tumors and reduced tumor volumes by nearly five- and eight-fold compared to GdW10@CS_HsiRNA without RT and RT without GdW10@CS_HsiRNA, respectively [90]. Zhan et al. designed a nano-enabled coordination platform with bismuth and cisplatin prodrug (NP@PVP) that improves the efficiency of chemoradiotherapy by X-ray radiation. The bismuth in NP@PVP increases generation of ROS to intensify DNA damage after X-ray irradiation. Treating EMT-6 cells with NP@PVP and X-ray irradiation (5 Gy) generated 3.21-fold more ROS compared to platinum-based drugs along with X-ray irradiation at the same dose. In vivo results showed that mice carrying EMT-6 tumors treated with NP@PVP (2 mg kg−1) under irradiation with X-rays (5 Gy) showed 54.7% inhibited tumor growth compared to X-ray treatment only [91]. Choi et al. synthesized radiation-responsive PEGylated gold nanoparticles containing dihydrohodamine 123 (DHR-123) (RPAuNPs). RPAuNPs absorbs the X-ray energy and transfers it to nearby molecules through electrons, including photoelectrons, Compton election, and Auger electrons, which generate ROS by water radiolysis. Exposure of RPAuNPs (7.75 μg/mL) at to Gy of X-ray radiation increases the fluorescence by 7-fold owing to the local generation of ROS. The same treatment of MDA-MB-231 cells yields similar results, with increased ROS levels in nearby cells. Mice bearing MDA-MB-231 xenografts treated with RPAuNPs at a concentration of 6 μg/100 μL and irradiation of 6 Gy at 225 kVp exhibited 3- to 6-fold higher ROS production compared to the treatment with RPAuNPs without X-ray irradiation [92]. In addition, mitochondria are an important source of cellular ROS production [93]. Tang et al. constructed Gd-doped titanium dioxide nanosensitizer (G@TiO2 NPs), which targets mitochondria for effective RT. G@TiO2 NPs generates ROS effectively since it possesses a large photoelectric cross-section for X-rays [94].

4.3. Tumor Microenvironment (TME)

The tumor microenvironment (TME) consists of various types of cells (endothelial cells, immune cells, fibroblasts, etc.) and extracellular components (extracellular matrix, growth factors, cytokines, etc.) that surrounds tumors and are nourished by blood and the lymphatic vascular network [95][96]. The TME functions critically in the regulation of tumor progression, immune escape, and metastasis [97]. It has significant influence on therapeutic effectivity [98]. Therefore, TME-associated NP-based RT offers potentiality in destroying cancer cells efficiently [99].
ROS are among the key players to alternate the tumor microenvironment (TME) during RT [100]. Among many other features of the TME, hypoxia mostly compromises tumor sensitivity to anticancer drugs, along with reactivity toward free radicals, thus creating hurdles in RT [7]. The anoxic and hypoxic TME of solid tumors compromises the production of ROS, causing poor responses to tumor cells [101][102]. Furthermore, hypoxia=activated hypoxia inducing factor-1 promotes resistance to RT and increases expression of genes involved in angiogenesis and metastasis of tumors [103][104][105]. Therefore, management of the TME is critical in killing cancer cells.
O2 is indispensable during RT since it reacts with DNA breaks to avoid repair of DNA by tumor cells, thus relieving hypoxia and enhancing RT-mediated cell killing [106]. Considering this point, Liu et al. prepared a nanostructure system, PFC@PLGA-RBCM, by enveloping perfluorocarbon (PFC) within poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA), which then was coated with a red-blood-cell membrane (RBCM). PFC@PLGA-RBCM NPs contains a PFC core, which is able to dissolve O2 to a great extent, and the RBCM coating contributes to enhanced blood circulation of NPs. PFC@PLGA-RBCM NPs deliver oxygen efficiently to the TME, which helps to relieve tumor hypoxia and enhance the efficacy of RT. Injecting 4T1-tumor-bearing mice with PFC@PLGA-RBCM NPs (200 µL) and exposing them to X-ray radiation (8 Gy) showed enhanced tumor volume reduction by nearly 8- and 2.5-fold compared to PFC@PLGA-RBCM NPs without irradiation and X-ray irradiation only, respectively [107]. Chen et al. fabricated NPs via encapsulating catalase (Cat) by poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid and hydrophobic imiquimod (Cat@PLGA_R837). Moreover, X-ray irradiation induced gold NPs with silica cores (SAuNPs) to exhibit enhanced antitumor effects under a hypoxic environment. At 8 Gy of radiation, SAuNPs caused 20% more cellular death of CT26 cells than in a control group under hypoxic conditions, while only 5% death occurred under normoxic condition. In addition, irradiation with X-rays increased ROS production by 40% in normoxic conditions compared to 20% in hypoxic conditions [108].

4.4. Targeting the Cell Cycle

Targeting the cell cycle is an effective approach in cancer treatment. Different nano formulations in combination with radiation mediate disruption of the cell cycle, leading to apoptosis [84]. Furthermore, cell cycle phases have distinctive effects on radiosensitivity. For instance, the late S-phase is the most radioresistant, while G2 is the most radiosensitive phase [109]. Cells activate cell cycle checkpoints in the G1, S, and G2 phases in response to radiation to repair genomic defects, maintenance integrity, or prevent cell division through activation of cell death mechanisms [110]. The literatures has reported that NPs with radiation arrest mostly the G2/M phase while reducing cells in the G0/G1 phase of the cell cycle (Figure 2) [111][112][113].
Roa et al. constructed gold NPs capped with glucose (Glu-AuNPs), showing improved cell-targeting capacity and excellent radio-sensitization. Glu-AuNPs stimulated activation of cyclin dependent kinase (CDK), leading to an accelerated G0/G1 phase and halting the G2/M phase of the cell cycle by activating CDK1 and CDK2. Irradiating DU-145 cells with 2 Gy of ortho-voltage together with Glu-AuNPs (15 nM) arrested the cell cycle at the G2/M phase and exhibited enhanced growth inhibition by 1.5- to 2-fold compared to X-ray alone. Glu-GNPs inhibited cyclin A’s expression by 42.3%. Cyclin A together with CDK2 form cyclin A–CDK2 complex and initiate the transition of G2/M. Hence, inhibiting cyclin A caused G2/M transition delay [114]. Chen et al. synthesized ultra-small selenium NPs (SeNPs) of 27.5 nm by chemical methods [115]. SeNPs have shown excellent biological activity and low toxicity [116][117]. Upon irradiation, SeNPs arrested the G2/M phase while accelerating the G1/S phase. X-ray irradiation of SeNPs (0.15 μg/mL) at 6 Gy on MCF-7 cells upsurged the G2/M phase proportion by 7.4-fold compared to radiation alone [115]. Xu et al. conjugated gold with glycine (G), arginine (R), and aspartate (D) peptides (Au-G-R-D). While exposed to 6-mV X-rays with a 4-Gy dose, Au-G-R-D (50 μg/mL) arrested the G2/M phase significantly (6.4%) in A375 melanoma cells compared to radiation alone [118].

5. The Effects of NPs-Based RT in Cancer Stem Cells

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are common in most cancers; they cause metastases and function as a cancer cell reservoir, causing tumor relapse after CT, radiotherapy, or surgery [119]. CSCs’ ability to proliferate unlimitedly and their resistance to drugs pose great threats in cancer management [120]. CSCs are characteristically resistant to CT due to their quiescence, capacity to repair DNA, and ABC-transporter expression [121]. The self-renewal property allows them to extend tumor cell numbers after chemo- or radiotherapy [122][123]. Conventional treatments are not able to destroy CSCs; therefore, novel treatment strategies are highly demanded.
Fiorillo et al. developed graphene oxide (GO)-based nanostructures that were able to prevent tumor-sphere formation in six different cancer cell lines, including MCF7 for breast cancer, SKOV3 for ovarian cancer, PC3 for prostate cancer, MIA-PaCa-2 for pancreatic cancer, A549 for lung cancer, and U87-MG for brain cancer. They applied tumor sphere assay to measure the formation of tumor spheres to evaluate the effect on GO. The results suggested that GO targets the phenotypic prosperity of CSCs and reduces bona fide CSC numbers by inducing their differentiation and inhibiting their proliferation. More specifically, GO-based treatment inhibited several major signal pathways, including WNT- and Notch-driven signaling, STAT1/3 signaling, and the NRF2-dependent anti-oxidant response, together with inducing the differentiation of CSC, thus decreasing the general stemness [124]. Likewise, Yao et al. designed gastric CSCs targeting carbon nanotubes based on chitosan and loaded with salinomycin with hyaluronic acid (SWCNTs), which selectively eradicate gastric CSCs [125]. Later, Al Faraj et al. modified SWCNTs with CD44 antibodies and showed enhanced targeting of breast CSCs and promise in clinical studies [126].

References

  1. Gaidai, O.; Yan, P.; Xing, Y. Future world cancer death rate prediction. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 303.
  2. Chhikara, B.S.; Parang, K. Global Cancer Statistics 2022: The trends projection analysis. Chem. Biol. Lett. 2023, 10, 451.
  3. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Fuchs, H.E.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022, 72, 7–33.
  4. Thun, M.J.; DeLancey, J.O.; Center, M.M.; Jemal, A.; Ward, E.M. The global burden of cancer: Priorities for prevention. Carcinogenesis 2010, 31, 100–110.
  5. Shakil, M.S.; Mahmud, K.M.; Sayem, M.; Niloy, M.S.; Halder, S.K.; Hossen, M.S.; Uddin, M.F.; Hasan, M.A. Using Chitosan or Chitosan Derivatives in Cancer Therapy. Polysaccharides 2021, 2, 795–816.
  6. Matthews, H.K.; Bertoli, C.; de Bruin, R.A.M. Cell cycle control in cancer. Nat. Reviews Mol. Cell Biol. 2022, 23, 74–88.
  7. Chen, Y.; Yang, J.; Fu, S.; Wu, J. Gold Nanoparticles as Radiosensitizers in Cancer Radiotherapy. Int. J. Nanomed. 2020, 15, 9407–9430.
  8. Her, S.; Jaffray, D.A.; Allen, C. Gold nanoparticles for applications in cancer radiotherapy: Mechanisms and recent advancements. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2017, 109, 84–101.
  9. Leroi, N.; Lallemand, F.; Coucke, P.; Noel, A.; Martinive, P. Impacts of Ionizing Radiation on the Different Compartments of the Tumor Microenvironment. Front. Pharmacol. 2016, 7, 78.
  10. Song, G.; Cheng, L.; Chao, Y.; Yang, K.; Liu, Z. Emerging Nanotechnology and Advanced Materials for Cancer Radiation Therapy. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1700996.
  11. Liu, Y.; Zhang, P.; Li, F.; Jin, X.; Li, J.M.; Chen, W.; Li, Q.J.T. Metal-based NanoEnhancers for Future Radiotherapy: Radiosensitizing and Synergistic Effects on Tumor Cells. Theranostics 2018, 8, 1824–1849.
  12. Baumann, M.; Krause, M.; Overgaard, J.; Debus, J.; Bentzen, S.M.; Daartz, J.; Richter, C.; Zips, D.; Bortfeld, T. Radiation oncology in the era of precision medicine. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2016, 16, 234–249.
  13. Chen, H.H.W.; Kuo, M.T. Improving radiotherapy in cancer treatment: Promises and challenges. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 62742–62758.
  14. Barton, M.B.; Jacob, S.; Shafiq, J.; Wong, K.; Thompson, S.R.; Hanna, T.P.; Delaney, G.P. Estimating the demand for radiotherapy from the evidence: A review of changes from 2003 to 2012. Radiother. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Ther. Radiol. Oncol. 2014, 112, 140–144.
  15. Morrison, R.; Schleicher, S.M.; Sun, Y.; Niermann, K.J.; Kim, S.; Spratt, D.E.; Chung, C.H.; Lu, B. Targeting the Mechanisms of Resistance to Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy with the Cancer Stem Cell Hypothesis. J. Oncol. 2011, 2011, 941876.
  16. Nagi, N.M.S.; Khair, Y.A.M.; Abdalla, A.M.E. Capacity of gold nanoparticles in cancer radiotherapy. Jpn. J. Radiol. 2017, 35, 555–561.
  17. Butterworth, K.T.; McMahon, S.J.; Currell, F.J.; Prise, K.M. Physical basis and biological mechanisms of gold nanoparticle radiosensitization. Nanoscale 2012, 4, 4830–4838.
  18. Sørensen, B.S.; Horsman, M.R. Tumor Hypoxia: Impact on Radiation Therapy and Molecular Pathways. Front. Oncol. 2020, 10, 562.
  19. Dörr, W.; Hamilton, C.S.; Boyd, T.; Reed, B.; Denham, J.W. Radiation-induced changes in cellularity and proliferation in human oral mucosa. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. 2002, 52, 911–917.
  20. Adams, M.J.; Hardenbergh, P.H.; Constine, L.S.; Lipshultz, S.E. Radiation-associated cardiovascular disease. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 2003, 45, 55–75.
  21. Nakajima, T.; Ninomiya, Y.; Nenoi, M. Radiation-Induced Reactions in the Liver—Modulation of Radiation Effects by Lifestyle-Related Factors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3855.
  22. Klaus, R.; Niyazi, M.; Lange-Sperandio, B. Radiation-induced kidney toxicity: Molecular and cellular pathogenesis. Radiat. Oncol. 2021, 16, 43.
  23. Boerma, M.; Sridharan, V.; Mao, X.-W.; Nelson, G.A.; Cheema, A.K.; Koturbash, I.; Singh, S.P.; Tackett, A.J.; Hauer-Jensen, M. Effects of ionizing radiation on the heart. Mutat. Res./Rev. Mutat. Res. 2016, 770, 319–327.
  24. Xie, D.; Wang, M.P.; Qi, W.H. A simplified model to calculate the surface-to-volume atomic ratio dependent cohesive energy of nanocrystals. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2004, 16, L401.
  25. Mahmud, K.M.; Hossain, M.M.; Polash, S.A.; Takikawa, M.; Shakil, M.S.; Uddin, M.F.; Alam, M.; Ali Khan Shawan, M.M.; Saha, T.; Takeoka, S.; et al. Investigation of Antimicrobial Activity and Biocompatibility of Biogenic Silver Nanoparticles Synthesized using Syzigyum cymosum Extract. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 27216–27229.
  26. Pallares, R.M.; Choo, P.; Cole, L.E.; Mirkin, C.A.; Lee, A.; Odom, T.W. Manipulating Immune Activation of Macrophages by Tuning the Oligonucleotide Composition of Gold Nanoparticles. Bioconjugate Chem. 2019, 30, 2032–2037.
  27. Engels, E.; Westlake, M.; Li, N.; Vogel, S.; Gobert, Q.; Thorpe, N.; Rosenfeld, A.; Lerch, M.; Corde, S.; Tehei, M. Thulium Oxide Nanoparticles: A new candidate for image-guided radiotherapy. Biomed. Phys. Eng. Express 2018, 4, 044001.
  28. Lu, A.H.; Salabas, E.L.; Schüth, F. Magnetic nanoparticles: Synthesis, protection, functionalization, and application. Angew. Chem. 2007, 46, 1222–1244.
  29. Sedlmeier, A.; Gorris, H.H. Surface modification and characterization of photon-upconverting nanoparticles for bioanalytical applications. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 1526–1560.
  30. Hainfeld, J.F.; Dilmanian, F.A.; Slatkin, D.N.; Smilowitz, H.M. Radiotherapy enhancement with gold nanoparticles. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 2010, 60, 977–985.
  31. Roeske, J.C.; Nunez, L.; Hoggarth, M.; Labay, E.; Weichselbaum, R.R. Characterization of the theorectical radiation dose enhancement from nanoparticles. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 2007, 6, 395–401.
  32. Wu, P.H.; Onodera, Y.; Ichikawa, Y.; Rankin, E.B.; Giaccia, A.J.; Watanabe, Y.; Qian, W.; Hashimoto, T.; Shirato, H.; Nam, J.M. Targeting integrins with RGD-conjugated gold nanoparticles in radiotherapy decreases the invasive activity of breast cancer cells. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 5069–5085.
  33. Du, F.; Lou, J.; Jiang, R.; Fang, Z.; Zhao, X.; Niu, Y.; Zou, S.; Zhang, M.; Gong, A.; Wu, C. Hyaluronic acid-functionalized bismuth oxide nanoparticles for computed tomography imaging-guided radiotherapy of tumor. Int. J. Nanomed. 2017, 12, 5973–5992.
  34. Sykes, E.A.; Dai, Q.; Sarsons, C.D.; Chen, J.; Rocheleau, J.V.; Hwang, D.M.; Zheng, G.; Cramb, D.T.; Rinker, K.D.; Chan, W.C.W. Tailoring nanoparticle designs to target cancer based on tumor pathophysiology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E1142–E1151.
  35. Bennie, L.A.; McCarthy, H.O.; Coulter, J.A. Enhanced nanoparticle delivery exploiting tumour-responsive formulations. Cancer Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 10.
  36. Bonnet, M.; Hong, C.R.; Wong, W.W.; Liew, L.P.; Shome, A.; Wang, J.; Gu, Y.; Stevenson, R.J.; Qi, W.; Anderson, R.F.; et al. Next-Generation Hypoxic Cell Radiosensitizers: Nitroimidazole Alkylsulfonamides. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 1241–1254.
  37. Gal, O.; Betzer, O.; Rousso-Noori, L.; Sadan, T.; Motiei, M.; Nikitin, M.; Friedmann-Morvinski, D.; Popovtzer, R.; Popovtzer, A. Antibody Delivery into the Brain by Radiosensitizer Nanoparticles for Targeted Glioblastoma Therapy. J. Nanotheranostics 2022, 3, 177–188.
  38. Yoon, S.W.; Tsvankin, V.; Shrock, Z.; Meng, B.; Zhang, X.; Dewhirst, M.; Fecci, P.; Adamson, J.; Oldham, M. Enhancing Radiation Therapy Through Cherenkov Light-Activated Phototherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 100, 794–801.
  39. Cao, W.; Gu, Y.; Meineck, M.; Xu, H. The combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy towards more efficient drug delivery. Chem.–Asian J. 2014, 9, 48–57.
  40. Laprise-Pelletier, M.; Simão, T.; Fortin, M.-A. Gold Nanoparticles in Radiotherapy and Recent Progress in Nanobrachytherapy. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2018, 7, 1701460.
  41. McMahon, S.J.; Paganetti, H.; Prise, K.M. Optimising element choice for nanoparticle radiosensitisers. Nanoscale 2016, 8, 581–589.
  42. Kwatra, D.; Venugopal, A.; Anant, S. Nanoparticles in radiation therapy: A summary of various approaches to enhance radiosensitization in cancer. Transl. Cancer Res. 2013, 2, 330–342.
  43. Ku, A.; Facca, V.J.; Cai, Z.; Reilly, R.M. Auger electrons for cancer therapy-a review. EJNMMI Radiopharm. Chem. 2019, 4, 27.
  44. Kuncic, Z.; Lacombe, S. Nanoparticle radio-enhancement: Principles, progress and application to cancer treatment. Phys. Med. Biol. 2018, 63, 02TR01.
  45. Rancoule, C.; Magné, N.; Vallard, A.; Guy, J.-B.; Rodriguez-Lafrasse, C.; Deutsch, E.; Chargari, C. Nanoparticles in radiation oncology: From bench-side to bedside. Cancer Lett. 2016, 375, 256–262.
  46. Choi, J.; Kim, G.; Cho, S.B.; Im, H.-J. Radiosensitizing high-Z metal nanoparticles for enhanced radiotherapy of glioblastoma multiforme. J. Nanobiotechnology 2020, 18, 122.
  47. Retif, P.; Pinel, S.; Toussaint, M.; Frochot, C.; Chouikrat, R.; Bastogne, T.; Barberi-Heyob, M. Nanoparticles for Radiation Therapy Enhancement: The Key Parameters. Theranostics 2015, 5, 1030–1044.
  48. Cordelli, E.; Eleuteri, P.; Grollino, M.G.; Benassi, B.; Blandino, G.; Bartoleschi, C.; Pardini, M.C.; Di Caprio, E.V.; Spanò, M.; Pacchierotti, F.; et al. Direct and delayed X-ray-induced DNA damage in male mouse germ cells. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2012, 53, 429–439.
  49. Kotb, O.M.; Brozhik, D.S.; Verbenko, V.N.; Gulevich, E.P.; Ezhov, V.F.; Karlin, D.L.; Pak, F.A.; Paston, S.V.; Polyanichko, A.M.; Khalikov, A.I.; et al. Investigation of DNA Damage Induced by Proton and Gamma Radiation. Biophysics 2021, 66, 202–208.
  50. Carter, R.J.; Nickson, C.M.; Thompson, J.M.; Kacperek, A.; Hill, M.A.; Parsons, J.L. Complex DNA Damage Induced by High Linear Energy Transfer Alpha-Particles and Protons Triggers a Specific Cellular DNA Damage Response. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2018, 100, 776–784.
  51. Ui, A.; Chiba, N.; Yasui, A. Relationship among DNA double-strand break (DSB), DSB repair, and transcription prevents genome instability and cancer. Cancer Sci. 2020, 111, 1443–1451.
  52. Xu, Y.; Xu, D. Repair pathway choice for double-strand breaks. Essays Biochem. 2020, 64, 765–777.
  53. Ciccia, A.; Elledge, S.J. The DNA damage response: Making it safe to play with knives. Mol. Cell 2010, 40, 179–204.
  54. Hoeijmakers, J.H. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature 2001, 411, 366–374.
  55. Menolfi, D.; Zha, S. ATM, ATR and DNA-PKcs kinases—The lessons from the mouse models: Inhibition ≠ deletion. Cell Biosci. 2020, 10, 8.
  56. Huang, R.-X.; Zhou, P.-K. DNA damage response signaling pathways and targets for radiotherapy sensitization in cancer. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2020, 5, 60.
  57. Iliakis, G.; Wang, H.; Perrault, A.R.; Boecker, W.; Rosidi, B.; Windhofer, F.; Wu, W.; Guan, J.; Terzoudi, G.; Pantelias, G. Mechanisms of DNA double strand break repair and chromosome aberration formation. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 2004, 104, 14–20.
  58. Elbakry, A.; Löbrich, M. Homologous Recombination Subpathways: A Tangle to Resolve. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 723847.
  59. Khanna, K.K.; Jackson, S.P. DNA double-strand breaks: Signaling, repair and the cancer connection. Nat. Genet. 2001, 27, 247–254.
  60. Jackson, S.P.; Bartek, J. The DNA-damage response in human biology and disease. Nature 2009, 461, 1071–1078.
  61. Li, L.-Y.; Guan, Y.-D.; Chen, X.-S.; Yang, J.-M.; Cheng, Y. DNA Repair Pathways in Cancer Therapy and Resistance. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 11, 629266.
  62. Alhmoud, J.F.; Woolley, J.F.; Al Moustafa, A.-E.; Malki, M.I. DNA Damage/Repair Management in Cancers. Cancers 2020, 12, 1050.
  63. Andrs, M.; Korabecny, J.; Jun, D.; Hodny, Z.; Bartek, J.; Kuca, K. Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase (PI3K) and Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase-Related Kinase (PIKK) Inhibitors: Importance of the Morpholine Ring. J. Med. Chem. 2015, 58, 41–71.
  64. Curtin, N.J. Inhibiting the DNA damage response as a therapeutic manoeuvre in cancer. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2013, 169, 1745–1765.
  65. Bhattacharya, S.; Asaithamby, A. Repurposing DNA repair factors to eradicate tumor cells upon radiotherapy. Transl. Cancer Res. 2017, 6, S822–S839.
  66. Jain, R.K.; Stylianopoulos, T. Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors. Nat. Reviews Clin. Oncol. 2010, 7, 653–664.
  67. Mahmud, K.M.; Niloy, M.S.; Shakil, M.S.; Islam, M.A. Ruthenium Complexes: An Alternative to Platinum Drugs in Colorectal Cancer Treatment. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1295.
  68. Zhang, X.; Liu, N.; Shao, Z.; Qiu, H.; Yao, H.; Ji, J.; Wang, J.; Lu, W.; Chen, R.C.; Zhang, L. Folate-targeted nanoparticle delivery of androgen receptor shRNA enhances the sensitivity of hormone-independent prostate cancer to radiotherapy. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2017, 13, 1309–1321.
  69. Löbrich, M.; Shibata, A.; Beucher, A.; Fisher, A.; Ensminger, M.; Goodarzi, A.A.; Barton, O.; Jeggo, P.A. gammaH2AX foci analysis for monitoring DNA double-strand break repair: Strengths, limitations and optimization. Cell Cycle 2010, 9, 662–669.
  70. Olive, P.L. Detection of DNA damage in individual cells by analysis of histone H2AX phosphorylation. Methods Cell Biol. 2004, 75, 355–373.
  71. Yao, H.; Qiu, H.; Shao, Z.; Wang, G.; Wang, J.; Yao, Y.; Xin, Y.; Zhou, M.; Wang, A.Z.; Zhang, L. Nanoparticle formulation of small DNA molecules, Dbait, improves the sensitivity of hormone-independent prostate cancer to radiotherapy. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2016, 12, 2261–2271.
  72. Xia, W.; Low, P.S. Folate-targeted therapies for cancer. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53, 6811–6824.
  73. Quanz, M.; Berthault, N.; Roulin, C.; Roy, M.; Herbette, A.; Agrario, C.; Alberti, C.; Josserand, V.; Coll, J.L.; Sastre-Garau, X.; et al. Small-molecule drugs mimicking DNA damage: A new strategy for sensitizing tumors to radiotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 2009, 15, 1308–1316.
  74. Quanz, M.; Chassoux, D.; Berthault, N.; Agrario, C.; Sun, J.S.; Dutreix, M. Hyperactivation of DNA-PK by double-strand break mimicking molecules disorganizes DNA damage response. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6298.
  75. Biau, J.; Devun, F.; Jdey, W.; Kotula, E.; Quanz, M.; Chautard, E.; Sayarath, M.; Sun, J.S.; Verrelle, P.; Dutreix, M. A preclinical study combining the DNA repair inhibitor Dbait with radiotherapy for the treatment of melanoma. Neoplasia 2014, 16, 835–844.
  76. Devun, F.; Biau, J.; Huerre, M.; Croset, A.; Sun, J.S.; Denys, A.; Dutreix, M. Colorectal cancer metastasis: The DNA repair inhibitor Dbait increases sensitivity to hyperthermia and improves efficacy of radiofrequency ablation. Radiology 2014, 270, 736–746.
  77. Herath, N.I.; Devun, F.; Lienafa, M.C.; Herbette, A.; Denys, A.; Sun, J.S.; Dutreix, M. The DNA Repair Inhibitor DT01 as a Novel Therapeutic Strategy for Chemosensitization of Colorectal Liver Metastasis. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2016, 15, 15–22.
  78. Chithrani, D.B.; Jelveh, S.; Jalali, F.; van Prooijen, M.; Allen, C.; Bristow, R.G.; Hill, R.P.; Jaffray, D.A. Gold Nanoparticles as Radiation Sensitizers in Cancer Therapy. J. Radiat. Res. 2010, 173, 719–728.
  79. Joh, D.Y.; Sun, L.; Stangl, M.; Al Zaki, A.; Murty, S.; Santoiemma, P.P.; Davis, J.J.; Baumann, B.C.; Alonso-Basanta, M.; Bhang, D.; et al. Selective Targeting of Brain Tumors with Gold Nanoparticle-Induced Radiosensitization. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62425.
  80. Zheng, Q.; Yang, H.; Wei, J.; Tong, J.-l.; Shu, Y.-q. The role and mechanisms of nanoparticles to enhance radiosensitivity in hepatocellular cell. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2013, 67, 569–575.
  81. Chen, N.; Yang, W.; Bao, Y.; Xu, H.; Qin, S.; Tu, Y. BSA capped Au nanoparticle as an efficient sensitizer for glioblastoma tumor radiation therapy. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 40514–40520.
  82. Porosnicu, I.; Butnaru, C.M.; Tiseanu, I.; Stancu, E.; Munteanu, C.V.A.; Bita, B.I.; Duliu, O.G.; Sima, F. Y2O3 Nanoparticles and X-ray Radiation-Induced Effects in Melanoma Cells. Molecules 2021, 26, 3403.
  83. Hasegawa, T.; Takahashi, J.; Nagasawa, S.; Doi, M.; Moriyama, A.; Iwahashi, H. DNA Strand Break Properties of Protoporphyrin IX by X-Ray Irradiation against Melanoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2302.
  84. Rosa, S.; Connolly, C.; Schettino, G.; Butterworth, K.T.; Prise, K.M. Biological mechanisms of gold nanoparticle radiosensitization. Cancer Nanotechnol. 2017, 8, 2.
  85. Goel, S.; Ni, D.; Cai, W. Harnessing the Power of Nanotechnology for Enhanced Radiation Therapy. ACS Nano 2017, 11, 5233–5237.
  86. Li, Y.; Yang, J.; Sun, X. Reactive Oxygen Species-Based Nanomaterials for Cancer Therapy. Front. Chem. 2021, 9, 650587.
  87. Xie, A.; Li, H.; Hao, Y.; Zhang, Y. Tuning the Toxicity of Reactive Oxygen Species into Advanced Tumor Therapy. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 142.
  88. Aggarwal, V.; Tuli, H.S.; Varol, A.; Thakral, F.; Yerer, M.B.; Sak, K.; Varol, M.; Jain, A.; Khan, M.A.; Sethi, G.J.B. Role of reactive oxygen species in cancer progression: Molecular mechanisms and recent advancements. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 735.
  89. Singh, R.; Manna, P.P. Reactive oxygen species in cancer progression and its role in therapeutics. Explor. Med. 2022, 3, 43–57.
  90. Yong, Y.; Zhang, C.; Gu, Z.; Du, J.; Guo, Z.; Dong, X.; Xie, J.; Zhang, G.; Liu, X.; Zhao, Y. Polyoxometalate-Based Radiosensitization Platform for Treating Hypoxic Tumors by Attenuating Radioresistance and Enhancing Radiation Response. ACS Nano 2017, 11, 7164–7176.
  91. Ma, Y.-C.; Tang, X.-F.; Xu, Y.-C.; Jiang, W.; Xin, Y.-J.; Zhao, W.; He, X.; Lu, L.-G.; Zhan, M.-X. Nano-enabled coordination platform of bismuth nitrate and cisplatin prodrug potentiates cancer chemoradiotherapy via DNA damage enhancement. Biomater. Sci. 2021, 9, 3401–3409.
  92. Choi, B.J.; Jung, K.O.; Graves, E.E.; Pratx, G. A gold nanoparticle system for the enhancement of radiotherapy and simultaneous monitoring of reactive-oxygen-species formation. Nanotechnology 2018, 29, 504001.
  93. Murphy, M.P. How mitochondria produce reactive oxygen species. Biochem. J. 2009, 417, 1–13.
  94. Chen, Y.; Li, N.; Wang, J.; Zhang, X.; Pan, W.; Yu, L.; Tang, B. Enhancement of mitochondrial ROS accumulation and radiotherapeutic efficacy using a Gd-doped titania nanosensitizer. Theranostics 2019, 9, 167–178.
  95. Chen, F.; Zhuang, X.; Lin, L.; Yu, P.; Wang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Hu, G.; Sun, Y. New horizons in tumor microenvironment biology: Challenges and opportunities. BMC Med. 2015, 13, 45.
  96. Weinberg, F.; Ramnath, N.; Nagrath, D.J.C. Reactive oxygen species in the tumor microenvironment: An overview. Cancers 2019, 11, 1191.
  97. Whiteside, T.L. The tumor microenvironment and its role in promoting tumor growth. Oncogene 2008, 27, 5904–5912.
  98. Wu, T.; Dai, Y. Tumor microenvironment and therapeutic response. Cancer Lett. 2017, 387, 61–68.
  99. Zhu, S.; Gu, Z.; Zhao, Y. Harnessing Tumor Microenvironment for Nanoparticle-Mediated Radiotherapy. Adv. Ther. 2018, 1, 1800050.
  100. Gu, H.; Huang, T.; Shen, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, F.; Jin, Y.; Sattar, H.; Wei, Y. Reactive Oxygen Species-Mediated Tumor Microenvironment Transformation: The Mechanism of Radioresistant Gastric Cancer. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2018, 2018, 5801209.
  101. Wang, Y.; Shang, W.; Niu, M.; Tian, J.; Xu, K. Hypoxia-active nanoparticles used in tumor theranostic. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 3705–3722.
  102. Horsman, M.R.; Overgaard, J. The impact of hypoxia and its modification of the outcome of radiotherapy. J. Radiat. Res. 2016, 57, i90–i98.
  103. Semenza, G.L. Hypoxia-inducible factors: Mediators of cancer progression and targets for cancer therapy. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2012, 33, 207–214.
  104. Schito, L.; Semenza, G.L. Hypoxia-Inducible Factors: Master Regulators of Cancer Progression. Trends Cancer 2016, 2, 758–770.
  105. Patiar, S.; Harris, A.L. Role of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha as a cancer therapy target. Endocr.-Relat. Cancer 2006, 13 (Suppl. 1), S61–S75.
  106. Vaupel, P. Tumor microenvironmental physiology and its implications for radiation oncology. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 2004, 14, 198–206.
  107. Gao, M.; Liang, C.; Song, X.; Chen, Q.; Jin, Q.; Wang, C.; Liu, Z. Erythrocyte-Membrane-Enveloped Perfluorocarbon as Nanoscale Artificial Red Blood Cells to Relieve Tumor Hypoxia and Enhance Cancer Radiotherapy. Adv. Mater. 2017, 29, 1701429.
  108. Kim, M.S.; Lee, E.-J.; Kim, J.-W.; Chung, U.S.; Koh, W.-G.; Keum, K.C.; Koom, W.S. Gold nanoparticles enhance anti-tumor effect of radiotherapy to hypoxic tumor. Radiat. Oncol. J. 2016, 34, 230–238.
  109. Pawlik, T.M.; Keyomarsi, K. Role of cell cycle in mediating sensitivity to radiotherapy. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2004, 59, 928–942.
  110. Kastan, M.B.; Bartek, J. Cell-cycle checkpoints and cancer. Nature 2004, 432, 316–323.
  111. Geng, F.; Song, K.; Xing, J.Z.; Yuan, C.; Yan, S.; Yang, Q.; Chen, J.; Kong, B. Thio-glucose bound gold nanoparticles enhance radio-cytotoxic targeting of ovarian cancer. Nanotechnology 2011, 22, 285101.
  112. Mackey, M.A.; Saira, F.; Mahmoud, M.A.; El-Sayed, M.A. Inducing Cancer Cell Death by Targeting Its Nucleus: Solid Gold Nanospheres versus Hollow Gold Nanocages. Bioconjugate Chem. 2013, 24, 897–906.
  113. Turner, J.; Koumenis, C.; Kute, T.E.; Planalp, R.P.; Brechbiel, M.W.; Beardsley, D.; Cody, B.; Brown, K.D.; Torti, F.M.; Torti, S.V. Tachpyridine, a metal chelator, induces G2 cell-cycle arrest, activates checkpoint kinases, and sensitizes cells to ionizing radiation. Blood 2005, 106, 3191–3199.
  114. Roa, W.; Zhang, X.; Guo, L.; Shaw, A.; Hu, X.; Xiong, Y.; Gulavita, S.; Patel, S.; Sun, X.; Chen, J.; et al. Gold nanoparticle sensitize radiotherapy of prostate cancer cells by regulation of the cell cycle. Nanotechnology 2009, 20, 375101.
  115. Chen, F.; Zhang, X.H.; Hu, X.D.; Liu, P.D.; Zhang, H.Q. The effects of combined selenium nanoparticles and radiation therapy on breast cancer cells in vitro. Artif. Cells Nanomed. Biotechnol. 2018, 46, 937–948.
  116. Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Xu, T. Elemental selenium at nano size (Nano-Se) as a potential chemopreventive agent with reduced risk of selenium toxicity: Comparison with se-methylselenocysteine in mice. Toxicol. Sci. Off. J. Soc. Toxicol. 2008, 101, 22–31.
  117. Bhattacharjee, A.; Basu, A.; Ghosh, P.; Biswas, J.; Bhattacharya, S. Protective effect of Selenium nanoparticle against cyclophosphamide induced hepatotoxicity and genotoxicity in Swiss albino mice. J. Biomater. Appl. 2014, 29, 303–317.
  118. Xu, W.; Luo, T.; Li, P.; Zhou, C.; Cui, D.; Pang, B.; Ren, Q.; Fu, S. RGD-conjugated gold nanorods induce radiosensitization in melanoma cancer cells by downregulating α(v)β₃ expression. Int. J. Nanomed. 2012, 7, 915–924.
  119. Sinha, N.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Das, D.N.; Panda, P.K.; Bhutia, S.K. Relevance of cancer initiating/stem cells in carcinogenesis and therapy resistance in oral cancer. Oral Oncol. 2013, 49, 854–862.
  120. Aponte, P.M.; Caicedo, A. Stemness in Cancer: Stem Cells, Cancer Stem Cells, and Their Microenvironment. Stem Cells Int. 2017, 2017, 5619472.
  121. Qin, W.; Huang, G.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Y. Nanomaterials in Targeting Cancer Stem Cells for Cancer Therapy. Front. Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 1.
  122. Dean, M.; Fojo, T.; Bates, S. Tumour stem cells and drug resistance. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2005, 5, 275–284.
  123. Eyler, C.E.; Rich, J.N. Survival of the Fittest: Cancer Stem Cells in Therapeutic Resistance and Angiogenesis. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 2839–2845.
  124. Fiorillo, M.; Verre, A.F.; Iliut, M.; Peiris-Pagés, M.; Ozsvari, B.; Gandara, R.; Cappello, A.R.; Sotgia, F.; Vijayaraghavan, A.; Lisanti, M.P. Graphene oxide selectively targets cancer stem cells, across multiple tumor types: Implications for non-toxic cancer treatment, via “differentiation-based nano-therapy”. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 3553–3562.
  125. Yao, H.-J.; Zhang, Y.-G.; Sun, L.; Liu, Y. The effect of hyaluronic acid functionalized carbon nanotubes loaded with salinomycin on gastric cancer stem cells. Biomaterials 2014, 35, 9208–9223.
  126. Faraj, A.A.; Shaik, A.S.; Sayed, B.A.; Halwani, R.; Jammaz, I.A. Specific targeting and noninvasive imaging of breast cancer stem cells using single-walled carbon nanotubes as novel multimodality nanoprobes. Nanomedicine 2016, 11, 31–46.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : Munima Haque , Md Salman Shakil , Kazi Mustafa Mahmud
View Times: 923
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 10 Apr 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Notice
    You are not a member of the advisory board for this topic. If you want to update advisory board member profile, please contact office@encyclopedia.pub.
    OK
    Confirm
    Only members of the Encyclopedia advisory board for this topic are allowed to note entries. Would you like to become an advisory board member of the Encyclopedia?
    Yes
    No
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback