Microbubbles Based Drug Delivery Systems: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Catherine Yang and Version 1 by Kibeom Kim.

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is one of the most selective endothelial barriers that protect the brain and maintains homeostasis in neural microenvironments. This barrier restricts the passage of molecules into the brain, except for gaseous or extremely small hydrophobic molecules. Thus, the BBB hinders the delivery of drugs with large molecular weights for the treatment of brain cancers. Various methods have been used to deliver drugs to the brain by circumventing the BBB; however, they have limitations such as drug diversity and low delivery efficiency. To overcome this challenge, microbubbles (MBs)-based drug delivery systems have garnered a lot of interest in recent years. MBs are widely used as contrast agents and are recently being researched as a vehicle for delivering drugs, proteins, and gene complexes. The MBs are 1–10 μm in size and consist of a gas core and an organic shell, which cause physical changes, such as bubble expansion, contraction, vibration, and collapse, in response to ultrasound.

  • microbubble
  • ultrasound
  • brain cancer
  • blood-brain barrier
  • drug delivery

1. Introduction

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a unique interface composed of blood capillaries in the central nervous system (CNS) that maintains homeostasis in the neural microenvironment and protects the brain parenchyma from foreign toxic substances [1,2,3,4,5,6,7][1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Tight junctions between the brain capillaries and endothelial cells (ECs) prevent the transport of molecules, except for small-sized molecules and lipid molecules, into the brain. In addition to the tight junctions, the brain capillary ECs, which have extraordinarily low transcytosis rates and no fenestrations, inhibit the transcellular transport of macromolecules [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. In the treatment of brain cancers, chemotherapy is a major treatment method for suppressing cancer expression to prevent cancer recurrence after surgical resection [16,17][16][17]. However, the barrier properties of the BBB and efflux transporters P-glycoproteins and breast cancer-resistant proteins that are highly expressed in BBB are the primary cause hindering the delivery of drugs to the CNS for cancer treatment [12,18][12][18]. Therefore, although several studies have been conducted on approaches for delivering anticancer drugs to the CNS, limitations such as high invasiveness, poor distribution, insufficient efficacy, and intolerable toxicity remain [12].
Due to the unique structure of the brain, the treatment of brain-related diseases has involved various technological attempts to overcome this hindrance effectively by promoting drug delivery to the CNS [2,19][2][19]. Among these attempts, thermal ablation using high temperature generated by focused ultrasound energy, whose safety and efficacy have been verified, is being actively attempted worldwide as a surgical treatment for brain diseases such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, mental disorders such as depression, and intractable pain [20,21,22,23][20][21][22][23]. Particularly, various clinical trials have been conducted to treat brain diseases effectively by promoting drug delivery to the CNS via control of the BBB through the stable and inertial cavitation phenomenon of microbubbles (MBs) that occur when focused ultrasound is applied to the cerebral blood vessels [24,25,26][24][25][26]. Additionally, the MB-based system is of great interest for the effective delivery of drugs across the BBB due to its non-invasive, transient, reversible, and localized properties [27,28,29,30,31,32][27][28][29][30][31][32].
In the 1930s, Dr. Karl Dussik first published a paper on the use of ultrasound to visualize cerebral ventricles in the brain by measuring reflections of ultrasound through the head and in the late 1960s, Dr. Claude Joyner first noted the development of MBs as a contrast medium, and the clinical use of MBs started after Gramiak and Shah acknowledged this subject [33,34,35][33][34][35]. However, the vast potential of MBs as drug-delivery vehicles was recognized only in the late 1990s [36,37,38][36][37][38]. The structure of the MBs comprises an inner center (core) and an outer layer (shell). MBs physically interact with the surrounding medium through stable cavitation or inertial cavitation, depending on the ultrasound intensity used. On the one hand, stable cavitation generated by ultrasound excitation causes continuous oscillation, which induces a liquid flow around the MBs. On the other hand, inertial cavitation at higher ultrasonic intensities results in the implosion or collapse of the MBs, generating violent mechanical stresses, microjets, and shock waves [17,39,40,41,42,43][17][39][40][41][42][43]. In addition, since the required acoustic energy and response differ depending on the size and concentration of microbubbles, the physical parameters of ultrasound, such as period per pulse, pulse amplitude, pulse repetition frequency, and exposure length, must be adjusted to determine the optimal ultrasound and microbubble combination [44,45][44][45]. These phenomena induce biological changes in the BBB, such as increased endocytosis/transcytosis, paracellular passage, and opening of the tight junctions, thus increasing the permeability of the BBB macrostructure for brain cancer therapy [17,46,47,48,49][17][46][47][48][49].

2. Structure and Composition of MBs

The structure of the MBs comprises the core and shell structures, each with different physicochemical properties. Various materials have been used as the core and shell structural components to increase the stability and efficiency of MBs for brain cancer therapy [34,50][34][50].

2.1. Core Structure

The first-generation MBs had low stability in solution because atmospheric air constituted the core, and they lacked a stabilizing shell. The stability was increased in the next generation of MBs by incorporating a shell; however, MBs that have an air core have low stability in the biological environment because air dissolves in the blood [38,51,52][38][51][52]. Therefore, in brain cancer therapy, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) or perfluorocarbons, which have higher molecular weights and lower blood solubility than those of atmospheric air, are used as the core in MBs. SonoVue® (SF6), Definity® (perfluoropropane [C3F8]), and Optison® (C3F8), which are commercially used, have a perfluorochemical as the material constituting the core. Additionally, other studies have utilized perfluorochemicals such as perfluorobutane (C4F10) and perfluoropentane (C5F12) as the core components [38,52][38][52]. Particularly, C5F12, a volatile gas with a boiling point of 26 °C, exists in liquid form during the MBs’ manufacturing process and forms the MBs while changing to the gaseous state at body temperature after injection [34,38,52,53][34][38][52][53].

2.2. Shell Structure

The shell structure comprises polymers, proteins, surfactants, or phospholipids to prevent gas leakage, breakdown, and coalescence [34,36,53,54][34][36][53][54]. Notably, the shell structure significantly reduces the surface tension of MBs, which is closely related to their stability [54,55,56][54][55][56]. The water and gas molecules at the MB gas–water interface form hydrogen bonds horizontally along the interface line. This creates a contraction force on the surface of the MBs, which generates surface tension in the inward direction and induces an increase in the pressure inside them. Higher pressure increases the dissolution rate of the gas, reducing the stability of the MBs. The shell structure that covers the surface of the core increases the stability of the MBs by preventing the formation of ordered hydrogen bonds and reducing the inner pressure of the MBs [28,38,53,56][28][38][53][56].
The constituent shell materials mainly used in the brain cancer therapy system are phospholipids and phospholipid derivatives. Moreover, a broad range of phospholipids with various hydrophobic chain lengths and electrostatic charges have been utilized [53,57,58][53][57][58]. Thus, it facilitates the customization of the system according to the characteristics of the delivered material. The hydrophobicity of phospholipids affects the drug-loading capacity and stability of the MBs [59]. Moreover, polyethylene glycol-modified phospholipid (PEG-PL) endows the MBs with a stealth effect to evade clearance by the reticuloendothelial system Phospholipids such as dipalmitoyl phosphoric acid (DPPA), dipalmitoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DPPE), dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC), dipalmitoylphosphatidylglycerol (DPPG), distearoylphosphatidylcholine (DSPC), and distearoylphosphatidylglycerol (DSPG) are used to form the shell of the MBs (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Structure of phospholipids used in microbubble synthesis. (DPPA, dipalmitoyl phosphoric acid; DPPE, dipalmitoylphosphatidylethanolamine; DPPC, dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine; DPPG, dipalmitoylphosphatidylglycerol; DSPC, distearoylphosphatidylcholine; DSPG, distearoylphosphatidylglycerol).

2.3. Multi-Functionalization of MBs

The effects of brain cancer therapy can be enhanced by modifying the MBs comprising a core and shell with cancer drugs, cancer-targeting ligands, DNA, and nanomedicine. These materials develop an association with the MBs shell via electrostatic or hydrophobic interactions, van der Waals forces, physical encapsulation, host-guest interactions, or covalent bonds [28,38,60,61][28][38][60][61]. Furthermore, functionalized MBs’ structures were designed by modifying the material properties and interactions between the MBs. Hydrophilic DNA is attached to the surface of the MBs comprising positively charged lipid shells via electrostatic interactions (Scheme 2a) [62]. Lipophilic or hydrophobic drugs can be encapsulated in the phospholipid shells (Scheme 2b) [63,64,65][63][64][65]. The host-guest interaction of avidin-biotin was used to modify the targeting ligand on the MBs’ surface (Scheme 2c) [62,65][62][65]. Because the surface area or shell volume of the MBs is restricted, modification of the liposomes on the MBs’ surface provides a larger space for accommodating medicinal materials (Scheme 2d) [28,66,67,68,69,70][28][66][67][68][69][70].
Scheme 2. Illustration of the various structures of functionalized microbubbles. (a) DNA can be loaded on the surface of the MBs (b) Hydrophobic drugs can be encapsulated in the shell of the MBs. (c) Targeting ligands can be modified to the surface of the MBs. (d) Drug-loaded liposomes can be attached to the surface of the MBs. (MB, microbubble).

References

  1. Lockman, P.; Mumper, R.; Khan, M.; Allen, D. Nanoparticle technology for drug delivery across the blood-brain barrier. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 2002, 28, 1–13.
  2. Banks, W.A. From blood-brain barrier to blood-brain interface: New opportunities for CNS drug delivery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2016, 15, 275–292.
  3. Parodi, A.; Rudzinska, M.; Deviatkin, A.A.; Soond, S.M.; Baldin, A.V.; Zamyatnin, A.A., Jr. Established and Emerging Strategies for Drug Delivery Across the Blood-Brain Barrier in Brain Cancer. Pharmaceutics 2019, 11, 245.
  4. Steeg, P.S. The blood-tumour barrier in cancer biology and therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 18, 696–714.
  5. Pandit, R.; Chen, L.; Gotz, J. The blood-brain barrier: Physiology and strategies for drug delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2020, 165–166, 1–14.
  6. Abbott, N.J. Blood-brain barrier structure and function and the challenges for CNS drug delivery. J. Inherit. Metab. Dis. 2013, 36, 437–449.
  7. McCrorie, P.; Vasey, C.E.; Smith, S.J.; Marlow, M.; Alexander, C.; Rahman, R. Biomedical engineering approaches to enhance therapeutic delivery for malignant glioma. J. Control. Release 2020, 328, 917–931.
  8. Schoen Jr, S.; Kilinc, M.S.; Lee, H.; Guo, Y.; Degertekin, F.L.; Woodworth, G.F.; Arvanitis, C. Towards controlled drug delivery in brain tumors with microbubble-enhanced focused ultrasound. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2022, 180, 114043.
  9. Alonso, A.; Reinz, E.; Jenne, J.W.; Fatar, M.; Schmidt-Glenewinkel, H.; Hennerici, M.G.; Meairs, S. Reorganization of gap junctions after focused ultrasound blood-brain barrier opening in the rat brain. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 2010, 30, 1394–1402.
  10. Mitusova, K.; Peltek, O.O.; Karpov, T.E.; Muslimov, A.R.; Zyuzin, M.V.; Timin, A.S. Overcoming the blood-brain barrier for the therapy of malignant brain tumor: Current status and prospects of drug delivery approaches. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2022, 20, 412.
  11. Agrahari, V.; Agrahari, V.; Mitra, A.K. Nanocarrier fabrication and macromolecule drug delivery: Challenges and opportunities. Ther. Deliv. 2016, 7, 257–278.
  12. Wu, S.K.; Tsai, C.L.; Huang, Y.; Hynynen, K. Focused Ultrasound and Microbubbles-Mediated Drug Delivery to Brain Tumor. Pharmaceutics 2020, 13, 15.
  13. Sheikov, N.; McDannold, N.; Sharma, S.; Hynynen, K. Effect of focused ultrasound applied with an ultrasound contrast agent on the tight junctional integrity of the brain microvascular endothelium. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2008, 34, 1093–1104.
  14. Liu, H.L.; Fan, C.H.; Ting, C.Y.; Yeh, C.K. Combining microbubbles and ultrasound for drug delivery to brain tumors: Current progress and overview. Theranostics 2014, 4, 432–444.
  15. Upton, D.H.; Ung, C.; George, S.M.; Tsoli, M.; Kavallaris, M.; Ziegler, D.S. Challenges and opportunities to penetrate the blood-brain barrier for brain cancer therapy. Theranostics 2022, 12, 4734–4752.
  16. Bai, M.; Dong, Y.; Huang, H.; Fu, H.; Duan, Y.; Wang, Q.; Du, L. Tumour targeted contrast enhanced ultrasound imaging dual-modal microbubbles for diagnosis and treatment of triple negative breast cancer. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 5682–5691.
  17. Song, K.H.; Harvey, B.K.; Borden, M.A. State-of-the-art of microbubble-assisted blood-brain barrier disruption. Theranostics 2018, 8, 4393–4408.
  18. Dasgupta, A.; Liu, M.; Ojha, T.; Storm, G.; Kiessling, F.; Lammers, T. Ultrasound-mediated drug delivery to the brain: Principles, progress and prospects. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 2016, 20, 41–48.
  19. Stockwell, J.; Abdi, N.; Lu, X.; Maheshwari, O.; Taghibiglou, C. Novel central nervous system drug delivery systems. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2014, 83, 507–520.
  20. Yi, S.; Han, G.; Shang, Y.; Liu, C.; Cui, D.; Yu, S.; Liao, B.; Ao, X.; Li, G.; Li, L. Microbubble-mediated ultrasound promotes accumulation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell to the prostate for treating chronic bacterial prostatitis in rats. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19745.
  21. Isik, U.; Aydogan Avsar, P.; Aktepe, E.; Doguc, D.K.; Kilic, F.; Buyukbayram, H.I. Serum zonulin and claudin-5 levels in children with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Nord. J. Psychiatry 2020, 74, 346–351.
  22. Lotfi, S.; Patel, A.S.; Mattock, K.; Egginton, S.; Smith, A.; Modarai, B. Towards a more relevant hind limb model of muscle ischaemia. Atherosclerosis 2013, 227, 1–8.
  23. Wang, F.; Wei, X.X.; Chang, L.S.; Dong, L.; Wang, Y.L.; Li, N.N. Ultrasound Combined With Microbubbles Loading BDNF Retrovirus to Open BloodBrain Barrier for Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 615104.
  24. Chien, C.Y.; Xu, L.; Pacia, C.P.; Yue, Y.; Chen, H. Blood-brain barrier opening in a large animal model using closed-loop microbubble cavitation-based feedback control of focused ultrasound sonication. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16147.
  25. Burgess, M.T.; Apostolakis, I.; Konofagou, E.E. Power cavitation-guided blood-brain barrier opening with focused ultrasound and microbubbles. Phys. Med. Biol. 2018, 63, 065009.
  26. Kooiman, K.; Roovers, S.; Langeveld, S.A.G.; Kleven, R.T.; Dewitte, H.; O’Reilly, M.A.; Escoffre, J.M.; Bouakaz, A.; Verweij, M.D.; Hynynen, K.; et al. Ultrasound-Responsive Cavitation Nuclei for Therapy and Drug Delivery. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2020, 46, 1296–1325.
  27. Klibanov, A.L. Preparation of targeted microbubbles: Ultrasound contrast agents for molecular imaging. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2009, 47, 875–882.
  28. Ibsen, S.; Schutt, C.E.; Esener, S. Microbubble-mediated ultrasound therapy: A review of its potential in cancer treatment. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 2013, 7, 375–388.
  29. Blomley, M.J.; Cooke, J.C.; Unger, E.C.; Monaghan, M.J.; Cosgrove, D.O.J.B. Microbubble contrast agents: A new era in ultrasound. BMJ 2001, 322, 1222–1225.
  30. Arvanitis, C.D.; Askoxylakis, V.; Guo, Y.; Datta, M.; Kloepper, J.; Ferraro, G.B.; Bernabeu, M.O.; Fukumura, D.; McDannold, N.; Jain, R.K. Mechanisms of enhanced drug delivery in brain metastases with focused ultrasound-induced blood-tumor barrier disruption. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E8717–E8726.
  31. Mainprize, T.; Lipsman, N.; Huang, Y.; Meng, Y.; Bethune, A.; Ironside, S.; Heyn, C.; Alkins, R.; Trudeau, M.; Sahgal, A.; et al. Blood-Brain Barrier Opening in Primary Brain Tumors with Non-invasive MR-Guided Focused Ultrasound: A Clinical Safety and Feasibility Study. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 321.
  32. Cai, X.; Yang, F.; Gu, N. Applications of magnetic microbubbles for theranostics. Theranostics 2012, 2, 103–112.
  33. Dussik, K. On the possibility of using ultrasound waves as a diagnostic aid. Neurol. Psychiat. 1942, 174, 153–168.
  34. Stride, E.; Edirisinghe, M. Novel microbubble preparation technologies. Soft Matter. 2008, 4, 2350–2359.
  35. Gramiak, R.; Shah, P.M. Echocardiography of the aortic root. Investig. Radiol. 1968, 3, 356–366.
  36. De Cock, I.; Zagato, E.; Braeckmans, K.; Luan, Y.; de Jong, N.; De Smedt, S.C.; Lentacker, I. Ultrasound and microbubble mediated drug delivery: Acoustic pressure as determinant for uptake via membrane pores or endocytosis. J. Control. Release 2015, 197, 20–28.
  37. Teng, W.; Huneiti, Z.; Machowski, W.; Evans, J.; Edirisinghe, M.; Balachandran, W. Towards particle-by-particle deposition of ceramics using electrostatic atomization. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 1997, 16, 1017–1019.
  38. Tinkov, S.; Bekeredjian, R.; Winter, G.; Coester, C. Microbubbles as ultrasound triggered drug carriers. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 98, 1935–1961.
  39. Surya, V.; Manaz, M.; Sharon, P.; Shanmugam, K. Ultrasound-Targeted Microbubble Destruction (UTMD): Targeted Nanodrug Delivery in Cancer. BOHR Int. J. Cancer Res. 2022, 1, 13–15.
  40. He, J.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, X.; Xia, H.; Gao, H.; Lu, J. Ultrasonic Microbubble Cavitation Enhanced Tissue Permeability and Drug Diffusion in Solid Tumor Therapy. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1642.
  41. Yang, F.Y.; Wang, H.E.; Lin, G.L.; Teng, M.C.; Lin, H.H.; Wong, T.T.; Liu, R.S. Micro-SPECT/CT-based pharmacokinetic analysis of 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid in rats with blood-brain barrier disruption induced by focused ultrasound. J. Nucl. Med. 2011, 52, 478–484.
  42. Tung, Y.S.; Vlachos, F.; Feshitan, J.A.; Borden, M.A.; Konofagou, E.E. The mechanism of interaction between focused ultrasound and microbubbles in blood-brain barrier opening in mice. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2011, 130, 3059–3067.
  43. Singh, B.; Shukla, N.; Cho, C.-H.; Kim, B.S.; Park, M.-H.; Kim, K. Effect and application of micro- and nanobubbles in water purification. Toxicol. Environ. Health Sci. 2021, 13, 9–16.
  44. Kamaev, P.P.; Hutcheson, J.D.; Wilson, M.L.; Prausnitz, M.R. Quantification of Optison bubble size and lifetime during sonication dominant role of secondary cavitation bubbles causing acoustic bioeffects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2004, 115, 1818–1825.
  45. Azmin, M.; Harfield, C.; Ahmad, Z.; Edirisinghe, M.; Stride, E. How do microbubbles and ultrasound interact? Basic physical, dynamic and engineering principles. Curr. Pharm. Design 2012, 18, 2118–2134.
  46. Jangjou, A.; Meisami, A.H.; Jamali, K.; Niakan, M.H.; Abbasi, M.; Shafiee, M.; Salehi, M.; Hosseinzadeh, A.; Amani, A.M.; Vaez, A. The promising shadow of microbubble over medical sciences: From fighting wide scope of prevalence disease to cancer eradication. J. Biomed. Sci. 2021, 28, 49.
  47. Abrahao, A.; Meng, Y.; Llinas, M.; Huang, Y.; Hamani, C.; Mainprize, T.; Aubert, I.; Heyn, C.; Black, S.E.; Hynynen, K.; et al. First-in-human trial of blood-brain barrier opening in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis using MR-guided focused ultrasound. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4373.
  48. Zhan, W. Effects of Focused-Ultrasound-and-Microbubble-Induced Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption on Drug Transport under Liposome-Mediated Delivery in Brain Tumour: A Pilot Numerical Simulation Study. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 69.
  49. Lipsman, N.; Meng, Y.; Bethune, A.J.; Huang, Y.; Lam, B.; Masellis, M.; Herrmann, N.; Heyn, C.; Aubert, I.; Boutet, A.; et al. Blood-brain barrier opening in Alzheimer’s disease using MR-guided focused ultrasound. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2336.
  50. Stride, E.; Edirisinghe, M. Novel preparation techniques for controlling microbubble uniformity: A comparison. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2009, 47, 883–892.
  51. Roovers, S.; Segers, T.; Lajoinie, G.; Deprez, J.; Versluis, M.; De Smedt, S.C.; Lentacker, I. The Role of Ultrasound-Driven Microbubble Dynamics in Drug Delivery: From Microbubble Fundamentals to Clinical Translation. Langmuir 2019, 35, 10173–10191.
  52. Sheeran, P.S.; Matsunaga, T.O.; Dayton, P.A. Phase change events of volatile liquid perfluorocarbon contrast agents produce unique acoustic signatures. Phys. Med. Biol. 2014, 59, 379–401.
  53. Su, C.; Ren, X.; Nie, F.; Li, T.; Lv, W.; Li, H.; Zhang, Y. Current advances in ultrasound-combined nanobubbles for cancer-targeted therapy: A review of the current status and future perspectives. RSC Adv. 2021, 11, 12915–12928.
  54. Stride, E.; Segers, T.; Lajoinie, G.; Cherkaoui, S.; Bettinger, T.; Versluis, M.; Borden, M. Microbubble agents: New directions. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2020, 46, 1326–1343.
  55. Abou-Saleh, R.H.; McLaughlan, J.R.; Bushby, R.J.; Johnson, B.R.; Freear, S.; Evans, S.D.; Thomson, N.H. Molecular Effects of Glycerol on Lipid Monolayers at the Gas-Liquid Interface: Impact on Microbubble Physical and Mechanical Properties. Langmuir 2019, 35, 10097–10105.
  56. Tran, W.T.; Iradji, S.; Sofroni, E.; Giles, A.; Eddy, D.; Czarnota, G.J. Microbubble and ultrasound radioenhancement of bladder cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2012, 107, 469–476.
  57. Wu, T.; Huang, C.; Yao, Y.; Du, Z.; Liu, Z. Suicide Gene Delivery System Mediated by Ultrasound-Targeted Microbubble Destruction: A Promising Strategy for Cancer Therapy. Hum. Gene. Ther. 2022, 33, 1246–1259.
  58. Fan, C.H.; Wang, T.W.; Hsieh, Y.K.; Wang, C.F.; Gao, Z.; Kim, A.; Nagasaki, Y.; Yeh, C.K. Enhancing Boron Uptake in Brain Glioma by a Boron-Polymer/Microbubble Complex with Focused Ultrasound. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2019, 11, 11144–11156.
  59. Schwendener, R.A.; Schott, H. Liposome Formulations of Hydrophobic Drugs. Methods Mol. Biol. 2017, 1522, 73–82.
  60. Prasad, C.; Banerjee, R. Ultrasound-Triggered Spatiotemporal Delivery of Topotecan and Curcumin as Combination Therapy for Cancer. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2019, 370, 876–893.
  61. Al-Jawadi, S.; Thakur, S.S. Ultrasound-responsive lipid microbubbles for drug delivery: A review of preparation techniques to optimise formulation size, stability and drug loading. Int. J. Pharm. 2020, 585, 119559.
  62. Chang, E.L.; Ting, C.Y.; Hsu, P.H.; Lin, Y.C.; Liao, E.C.; Huang, C.Y.; Chang, Y.C.; Chan, H.L.; Chiang, C.S.; Liu, H.L.; et al. Angiogenesis-targeting microbubbles combined with ultrasound-mediated gene therapy in brain tumors. J. Control. Release 2017, 255, 164–175.
  63. Fan, C.H.; Cheng, Y.H.; Ting, C.Y.; Ho, Y.J.; Hsu, P.H.; Liu, H.L.; Yeh, C.K. Ultrasound/Magnetic Targeting with SPIO-DOX-Microbubble Complex for Image-Guided Drug Delivery in Brain Tumors. Theranostics 2016, 6, 1542–1556.
  64. Ting, C.Y.; Fan, C.H.; Liu, H.L.; Huang, C.Y.; Hsieh, H.Y.; Yen, T.C.; Wei, K.C.; Yeh, C.K. Concurrent blood-brain barrier opening and local drug delivery using drug-carrying microbubbles and focused ultrasound for brain glioma treatment. Biomaterials 2012, 33, 704–712.
  65. Fan, C.H.; Ting, C.Y.; Liu, H.L.; Huang, C.Y.; Hsieh, H.Y.; Yen, T.C.; Wei, K.C.; Yeh, C.K. Antiangiogenic-targeting drug-loaded microbubbles combined with focused ultrasound for glioma treatment. Biomaterials 2013, 34, 2142–2155.
  66. Ha, S.W.; Hwang, K.; Jin, J.; Cho, A.S.; Kim, T.Y.; Hwang, S.I.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, C.Y. Ultrasound-sensitizing nanoparticle complex for overcoming the blood-brain barrier: An effective drug delivery system. Int. J. Nanomed. 2019, 14, 3743–3752.
  67. Zhao, G.; Huang, Q.; Wang, F.; Zhang, X.; Hu, J.; Tan, Y.; Huang, N.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Cheng, Y. Targeted shRNA-loaded liposome complex combined with focused ultrasound for blood brain barrier disruption and suppressing glioma growth. Cancer Lett. 2018, 418, 147–158.
  68. Yang, F.Y.; Lin, G.L.; Horng, S.C.; Chang, T.K.; Wu, S.Y.; Wong, T.T.; Wang, H.E. Pulsed high-intensity focused ultrasound enhances the relative permeability of the blood-tumor barrier in a glioma-bearing rat model. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2011, 58, 964–970.
  69. Dong, L.; Li, N.; Wei, X.; Wang, Y.; Chang, L.; Wu, H.; Song, L.; Guo, K.; Chang, Y.; Yin, Y.; et al. A Gambogic Acid-Loaded Delivery System Mediated by Ultrasound-Targeted Microbubble Destruction: A Promising Therapy Method for Malignant Cerebral Glioma. Int. J. Nanomed. 2022, 17, 2001–2017.
  70. Park, S.H.; Yoon, Y.I.; Moon, H.; Lee, G.H.; Lee, B.H.; Yoon, T.J.; Lee, H.J. Development of a novel microbubble-liposome complex conjugated with peptide ligands targeting IL4R on brain tumor cells. Oncol. Rep. 2016, 36, 131–136.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback