Development of Novel Prodrug Systems to Improve Bioavailability and Therapeutic Efficacy in Cancer Chemotherapy

Standard chemotherapy agents work by halting cell division or by disrupting a specific stage of the cell cycle rather than by selectively recognizing malignant cells [1]. Because of this mechanism, they also damage healthy tissues that divide quickly — bone marrow, hair follicles, the lining of the gut, red blood cell precursors, and lymphoid tissue — which restricts how long a patient can safely stay on treatment. A further complication is that most solid human cancers actually grow slowly, so conventional chemotherapy is often poorly suited to eliminating them [2]. Clinicians frequently compensate by escalating the dose, but higher doses raise the risk of serious harm to normal proliferating tissue, sometimes forcing treatment to stop before the cancer is fully eradicated.

Turning a chemotherapeutic into a targeted prodrug is one of the more promising ways to address this selectivity problem. A prodrug is a pharmacologically inactive, chemically altered version of a drug that is converted back into the active compound once inside the body [3]. In its classical form, this chemical modification is used simply to improve traits such as aqueous or lipid solubility, chemical stability, absorption across the gut wall or into the brain, or to reduce unwanted properties like bad taste, local irritation, pain on injection, premature metabolism, or general toxicity [4,5]. The present discussion moves beyond these classical goals to focus on prodrug designs aimed specifically at improving cancer selectivity.

To achieve cancer selectivity, a prodrug can be built to recognize antigens, peptide transporters, or enzymes that cancer cells express at unusually high levels relative to normal tissue. This is typically done by attaching a cancer-directed ligand or a polymer to the cytotoxic drug through a linker that can later be broken [6]. A fully engineered targeted prodrug can therefore be thought of as having up to four parts: the active drug or a close derivative of it; a chemically fragile linker that connects a reactive group on the drug (hydroxyl, carboxylic acid, amine, carbonyl, or phosphate) to the rest of the molecule (the "promoiety"); an optional spacer — either a polymer or an enzyme-sensitive segment — that frees the drug once the right enzyme is present; and a targeting group that directs the whole assembly to cancer cells (Fig. 1).

2. Chemical Linkers Used in Prodrug Design

Any prodrug needs a reactive site on the parent drug where the promoiety can be chemically attached. The connecting linker is usually chosen so that it breaks down either spontaneously or under a defined trigger — an enzyme, or a shift in pH — releasing the free drug at the right time and place. The promoiety itself is what gives the conjugate its improved drug-like behavior or its ability to reach the intended tissue [3].

Ester bonds are the linkage used most often because the necessary hydroxyl or carboxylic acid groups are common on both drugs and promoieties, and because esterase enzymes are present throughout the body and readily hydrolyze the bond [7]. Depending on the exact chemical environment, an ester linkage can persist from minutes to hours [8,9]. The paper illustrates this variability with two PEGylated camptothecin derivatives that share a similar parent drug and the same type of ester bond: one, EZN-2208, has a plasma half-life of roughly twelve minutes [10], while the other, IT-101, lasts closer to 1.7 hours [11,12].

The likely explanation is structural — EZN-2208 uses a 40 kDa, four-arm branched PEG core coupled directly to SN-38 through a short spacer, which leaves the ester linkage relatively exposed to circulating esterases, whereas IT-101 self-assembles into a micelle-like structure (via an inclusion complex between cyclodextrin and camptothecin) that physically shields the ester bond from the same enzymes. Not all ester linkages behave the same way either; carbamate esters, for instance, tend to be considerably more stable than carboxyl, phosphate, or carbonate esters [3].

Amide bonds, formed between an amine and a carboxylic acid, are chemically sturdier than esters and can survive in plasma for many hours or even days without a dedicated enzyme present. Because of this stability, amide-linked prodrugs are usually engineered to be broken specifically by one particular enzyme, which enhances selectivity while limiting premature toxicity. Peptide linkers such as GFLG (cleaved by lysosomal enzymes concentrated in cancers) and SSKYQ (a substrate recognized only by prostate-specific antigen) exemplify this strategy. GFLG appears in a number of drug conjugates that have reached clinical testing, including PK1, PK2, PNU166945, and DX-8951 [13], while SSKYQ-based prodrugs such as L-377202 have advanced into Phase I/II trials [14].

Other, less common linkage chemistries include oxime and imine bonds [15], disulfide bonds [16], and non-cleavable thioether bonds [17]. Whatever chemistry is used, the connecting bond generally needs to survive circulation in the blood and only break once the prodrug has reached its target. Linker choice is therefore an important optimization step. Hydrazone linkages, for example, are stable near neutral pH but degrade once the pH drops to around 5, which happens naturally once the prodrug is taken up into acidic endosomes and lysosomes [18]. Peptide-based linkers behave similarly in the sense that they resist degradation in serum but are readily cut by cancer-associated proteases once inside the cell [19]. Disulfide linkers add another layer of selectivity because they are opened specifically by intracellular thiols such as glutathione, which is present at much higher concentration inside cancer cells than in normal tissue [20]. Interestingly, a linker that resists breaking down entirely can still be useful if the targeting component itself carries some therapeutic activity of its own [17].

Fig. 1 — General design of a prodrug [components: chemical linker (e.g., triazolyl bridge, hydrazone), spacer (polymer), and targeting moiety (antibody, peptide)].

Table 1 — Newer linkers used in prodrug and bioconjugate design

Name	Linker class	Chemistry
Triazolyl bridge	1,2,3-Triazole linker
Stimuli-responsive (pH)	Hydrazone
Stimuli-responsive (pH)	Acetal / ketal
Stimuli-responsive (redox/thiol)	Vinyl sulfone
Photocleavable	o-Nitrobenzyl
Stimuli-responsive (ROS)	Boronate ester
Enzyme-cleavable (glycosidase)	β-Glucuronide
Enzyme-cleavable / self-immolative (ADC)	Val–Cit–PAB dipeptide

Several other antibody-conjugated drugs remain in later-stage trials, most notably trastuzumab-DM1 (T-DM1) and inotuzumab ozogamicin (CMC-544) [37,38]. HER2, the target of trastuzumab, is over-expressed in roughly a fifth to a quarter of breast cancers and is linked to more aggressive disease, making it an attractive therapeutic target; trastuzumab itself was approved by the FDA in 1998 for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer [17,39]. Because a substantial share of patients still fails to respond to trastuzumab alone, combining it with a cytotoxic payload has been an appealing next step. T-DM1 links trastuzumab to DM1, a potent antimitotic maytansine derivative, and researchers found that a non-reducible thioether linker outperformed cleavable disulfide alternatives in this particular conjugate [17]. In a Phase I trial, the maximum tolerated dose was 3.6 mg/kg, giving a half-life of 3.5 days and markedly slower clearance than at lower doses [40]; in a subsequent Phase II trial, roughly a third of 110 patients showed meaningful improvement with tolerable side effects [37].

CMC-544 pairs a humanized anti-CD22 antibody with N-acetyl gamma calicheamicin dimethylhydrazide via an acid-sensitive linker — the same drug and linker chemistry as Mylotarg, but directed against CD22, a marker restricted to mature and malignant B lymphocytes. Binding to CD22 on malignant B cells triggers rapid internalization and payload release [38]. Early studies put its maximum tolerated dose at 1.8 mg/m² with an initial half-life near 24 hours that lengthened to about 4 days after repeated dosing, alongside markedly slower clearance [41]; it has since advanced to Phase III testing for B-lymphoid malignancies.

Fig. 2 — Structure of Mylotarg, Trastuzumab-DM1, CMC-544, Besponsa, and Kadcyla

3.2 Peptide–Drug Conjugates

Peptides offer several practical advantages over antibodies as targeting groups: they are much smaller, penetrate cells more readily, are easier to synthesize, and are simpler to chemically modify [39]. They can be designed to recognize either a cancer-associated antigen or an over-expressed transporter.

Minko and colleagues linked an LHRH (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone) peptide to camptothecin through a PEG spacer, exploiting the fact that LHRH receptors, while present at low levels in healthy prostate, breast, and ovarian tissue, are considerably more abundant on breast, prostate, ovarian, and endometrial cancer cells [42,43]. This construct showed markedly better efficacy with reduced harm to healthy organs, and its small size gave it an advantage in reaching both solid cancer masses and individual metastatic cells.

Separately, a cyclic RGD peptide, E[c(RGDyK)]₂, was conjugated to paclitaxel to exploit αvβ3 integrin, a receptor that is elevated on metastatic cancer cells and activated endothelium but largely absent from resting, healthy vasculature; in vivo testing showed selective cancer accumulation within four hours of dosing [44].

A third example targets GRP78 (glucose-regulated protein 78), which is over-expressed on colon, skin, prostate, and breast cancer cells but only weakly expressed in normal tissue [45,46]. Pep42, a 13-residue cyclic peptide, binds GRP78 and is internalized into lysosomes containing cathepsin B, so a Val-Cit linker — stable in plasma but cleavable by cathepsin B — was used to attach Pep42 to paclitaxel and doxorubicin [47]. Both conjugates showed increased cytotoxicity relative to the free drugs in osteosarcoma cell testing [45].

3.3 Aptamer–Drug Conjugates

Aptamers are short single-stranded DNA or RNA sequences that fold into three-dimensional shapes capable of binding a target with very high affinity, sometimes in the nanomolar-to-picomolar range [48]. Compared with antibodies, they are smaller, easier to manufacture with tight quality control, less likely to provoke an immune reaction, chemically stable, and straightforward to modify [49,51]. Aptamers are typically discovered through SELEX, an iterative screening process applied to large nucleic-acid libraries [50].

One well-studied example targets PSMA, which is abundant on prostate cancer cells and on the cancer vasculature of some non-prostate cancers such as breast and lung [52–54]. An RNA aptamer against PSMA (the A10 aptamer) was attached to cisplatin-loaded polymeric nanoparticles; the resulting conjugate was roughly four times more potent than unmodified nanoparticles and about tenfold more potent than free cisplatin in PSMA-positive prostate cancer cells [55,56].

In another example, doxorubicin was linked to the sgc8c DNA aptamer, which recognizes protein tyrosine kinase 7 (PTK7), a receptor highly expressed on T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells, for treating that disease [57,58]. A control aptamer with a different binding target produced far less cellular uptake, confirming that the sgc8c conjugate's activity depended on specific target recognition [57].

3.4 Folic Acid–Drug Conjugates

Folic acid binds its receptor with extremely high affinity and is one of the most widely used small-molecule targeting groups. The folate receptor is over-expressed on many malignant cell types — breast, ovarian, lung, kidney, and endometrial cancers among them — while remaining largely confined to a small subset of normal epithelial tissue elsewhere in the body. Folic acid also has low immunogenicity and simpler chemistry than antibody-, peptide-, or aptamer-based targeting [20,59–61].

Researchers have linked folic acid to camptothecin through a disulfide-containing peptide spacer, giving a conjugate that is both more soluble and more selective than the free drug; it showed strong activity (IC₅₀ near 10 nM) against a folate-receptor-rich cervical cancer cell line, and pre-saturating the receptor with excess free folic acid abolished this activity, confirming receptor-mediated uptake [59]. In a separate design, doxorubicin was modified with both folic acid and D-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate (TPGS) to improve solubility and membrane permeability alongside cancer targeting; the resulting conjugate extended circulation time, was roughly 45 times more potent than unmodified doxorubicin, and produced less accumulation in cardiac tissue, the organ most vulnerable to doxorubicin toxicity [61].

4. Membrane-Transporter-Associated Prodrugs

Membrane transporters move nutrients such as sugars, nucleosides, amino acids, and small peptides across the cell membrane, and historically they have been exploited to improve oral absorption of poorly permeable drugs. More recently, several transporters that are unusually active in cancer cells have become targets in their own right [4].

Peptide transporters — particularly PEPT1 and PEPT2, which move di- and tripeptides in a sequence-independent but stereoselective way, alongside the related PHT1/PHT2 histidine transporters — are the most extensively used of these [62]. PEPT1 is notably over-expressed in several cancer cell lines, including pancreatic lines AsPC-1 [63] and Capan-2 [64] and the fibrosarcoma line HT-1080 [65], while remaining largely absent from normal cells.

Bestatin, a peptide-mimetic anticancer agent and known PEPT1 substrate, accumulated selectively in PEPT1-expressing HeLa cells and suppressed cancer growth in a naturally PEPT1-over-expressing line, confirming that its uptake depends specifically on this transporter [66]. Separately, a PEPT1-recognized substrate was attached to floxuridine via an ester bond, giving a prodrug that accumulated preferentially in PEPT1-positive cancer cells and selectively slowed their growth while sparing PEPT1-negative cells [64].

Gemcitabine, used clinically against breast, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, and bladder cancers, has also been modified with amino-acid ester groups; radiolabeled uptake studies showed that these derivatives are recognized by PEPT1, PEPT2, or both [67].

The sodium-dependent multivitamin transporter (SMVT), which normally carries biotin, lipoate, pantothenate, and certain peptides across the gut lining [68,69], has likewise been exploited: a biotinylated, PEG-conjugated camptothecin increased cytotoxicity in both drug-sensitive and multidrug-resistant human ovarian cancer cell lines that express high SMVT levels [70], and biotinylated PAMAM dendrimer and HPMA polymer conjugates showed similarly enhanced uptake in HeLa and murine ID8 ovarian cancer cells, respectively, via the same transporter [71,72].

Fig. 3 — Schematic diagram of ADEPT

Fig. — Schematic diagram of GDEPT

CONCLUSION

Prodrug chemistry offers a versatile way to improve a drug's pharmaceutical properties through chemical modification or conjugation to a promoiety, but targeted prodrug design specifically remains a relatively young field with much still to establish. The withdrawal of Mylotarg, the first FDA-approved antibody–drug conjugate, from the market in 2010 due to disappointing efficacy and safety in post-approval trials — and its later re-approval in 2017 at a revised dose — is a reminder both of how much work remains and of how targeted-prodrug programs can recover from early setbacks. Even so, many other targeted prodrugs have advanced into clinical testing once preclinical proof-of-concept was established. Immunogenicity, cell permeability, and target specificity remain the three central obstacles to building an effective targeted prodrug.

Humanized antibodies, along with alternative ligands such as peptides and aptamers, have gone a long way toward solving the immunogenicity problem, and smaller antibody fragments or ligands generally improve tissue penetration as well. At the core of any targeted prodrug strategy is the need for a cancer-specific antigen that a natural or engineered ligand can recognize, so identifying and validating such antigens — and confirming their specificity in animal models rather than relying solely on in vitro data — remains critical, since many candidate antigens turn out to also be expressed, at some level, in normal tissue. Likewise, discovering high-affinity peptide or aptamer ligands is a slow and difficult screening process. Continued progress toward identifying cancer-specific ligands that combine high affinity, high specificity, strong stability, low immunogenicity, and good tissue permeability will be essential for targeted prodrugs to reach their full clinical potential.

REFERENCES

1. R.J. Knox, T.A. Connors, Prodrugs in cancer chemotherapy, Pathol. Oncol. Res. 3(4) (1997) 309–324.
2. W.A. Denny, Prodrug strategies in cancer therapy, Eur. J. Med. Chem. 36(7–8) (2001) 577–595.
3. J. Rautio, et al., Prodrugs: design and clinical applications, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7(3) (2008) 255–270.
4. Y. Singh, M. Palombo, P.J. Sinko, Recent trends in targeted anticancer prodrug and conjugate design, Curr. Med. Chem. 15(18) (2008) 1802–1826.
5. C.E. Muller, Prodrug approaches for enhancing the bioavailability of drugs with low solubility, Chem. Biodivers. 6(11) (2009) 2071–2083.
6. H.K. Han, G.L. Amidon, Targeted prodrug design to optimize drug delivery, AAPS PharmSci 2(1) (2000) E6.
7. B.M. Liederer, R.T. Borchardt, Enzymes involved in the bioconversion of ester-based prodrugs, J. Pharm. Sci. 95(6) (2006) 1177–1195.
8. J.Z. Yang, W. Chen, R.T. Borchardt, In vitro stability and in vivo pharmacokinetic studies of a model opioid peptide, H-Tyr-D-Ala-Gly-Phe-D-Leu-OH (DADLE), and its cyclic prodrugs, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 303(2) (2002) 840–848.
9. F. Meyer-Losic, et al., DTS-108, a novel peptidic prodrug of SN38: in vivo efficacy and toxicokinetic studies, Clin. Cancer Res. 14(7) (2008) 2145–2153.
10. G. Pasut, F.M. Veronese, PEG conjugates in clinical development or use as anticancer agents: an overview, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61(13) (2009) 1177–1188.
11. J. Cheng, et al., Synthesis of linear, beta-cyclodextrin-based polymers and their camptothecin conjugates, Bioconjug. Chem. 14(5) (2003) 1007–1017.
12. M.E. Davis, Design and development of IT-101, a cyclodextrin-containing polymer conjugate of camptothecin, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 61(13) (2009) 1189–1192.
13. C. Li, S. Wallace, Polymer–drug conjugates: recent development in clinical oncology, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 60(8) (2008) 886–898.
14. D. DeFeo-Jones, et al., A peptide-doxorubicin 'prodrug' activated by prostate-specific antigen selectively kills prostate cancer cells positive for prostate-specific antigen in vivo, Nat. Med. 6(11) (2000) 1248–1252.
15. P.R. Kumaresan, et al., Evaluation of ketone-oxime method for developing therapeutic on-demand cleavable immunoconjugates, Bioconjug. Chem. 19(6) (2008) 1313–1318.
16. K. Cheng, et al., Enhanced hepatic uptake and bioactivity of type alpha1(I) collagen gene promoter-specific triplex-forming oligonucleotides after conjugation with cholesterol, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 317(2) (2006) 797–805.
17. G.D. Lewis Phillips, et al., Targeting HER2-positive breast cancer with trastuzumab-DM1, an antibody-cytotoxic drug conjugate, Cancer Res. 68(22) (2008) 9280–9290.
18. P.D. Senter, Potent antibody drug conjugates for cancer therapy, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 13(3) (2009) 235–244.
19. S.O. Doronina, et al., Novel peptide linkers for highly potent antibody–auristatin conjugate, Bioconjug. Chem. 19(10) (2008) 1960–1963.
20. S. Jaracz, et al., Recent advances in cancer-targeting anticancer drug conjugates, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 13(17) (2005) 5043–5054.
21. M.C. Garnett, Targeted drug conjugates: principles and progress, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 53(2) (2001) 171–216.
22. D. Schrama, R.A. Reisfeld, J.C. Becker, Antibody targeted drugs as cancer therapeutics, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5(2) (2006) 147–159.
23. M. Stohrer, et al., Oncotic pressure in solid cancers is elevated, Cancer Res. 60(15) (2000) 4251–4255.
24. G.P. Adams, et al., Increased affinity leads to improved selective cancer delivery of single-chain Fv antibodies, Cancer Res. 58(3) (1998) 485–490.
25. B.A. Teicher, Antibody–drug conjugate targets, Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 9(8) (2009) 982–1004.
26. O. Gires, Cancer-Associated Antigens: Identification, Characterization, and Clinical Applications, 2009.
27. W. Wang, et al., PSMA expression in Schwannoma: a potential clinical mimicker of metastatic prostate carcinoma, Urol. Oncol. 27(5) (2009) 525–528.
28. M.E. Spearman, R.M. Goodwin, D. Kau, Disposition of the monoclonal antibody-vinca alkaloid conjugate, KS1/4-DAVLB (LY256787), in Fischer 344 rats and rhesus monkeys, Drug Metab. Dispos. 15(5) (1987) 640–647.
29. S. Quiles, et al., Synthesis and preliminary biological evaluation of high-drug-load paclitaxel-antibody conjugates for cancer-targeted chemotherapy, J. Med. Chem. 53(2) (2010) 586–594.
30. P.R. Hamann, et al., An anti-MUC1 antibody-calicheamicin conjugate for treatment of solid cancers. Choice of linker and overcoming drug resistance, Bioconjug. Chem. 16(2) (2005) 346–353.
31. E.R. Boghaert, et al., The oncofetal protein, 5T4, is a suitable target for antibody-guided anti-cancer chemotherapy with calicheamicin, Int. J. Oncol. 32(1) (2008) 221–234.
32. I.E. Krop, et al., Phase I study of trastuzumab-DM1, an HER2 antibody–drug conjugate, given every 3 weeks to patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, J. Clin. Oncol. 28(16) (2010) 2698–2704.
33. E.L. Sievers, Antibody-targeted chemotherapy of acute myeloid leukemia using gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg), Blood Cells Mol. Dis. 31(1) (2003) 7–10.
34. V.H. van Der Velden, et al., Targeting of the CD33-calicheamicin immunoconjugate Mylotarg (CMA-676) in acute myeloid leukemia: in vivo and in vitro saturation and internalization by leukemic and normal myeloid cells, Blood 97(10) (2001) 3197–3204.
35. M. Buckwalter, et al., Pharmacokinetics of gemtuzumab ozogamicin as a single-agent treatment of pediatric patients with refractory or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia, J. Clin. Pharmacol. 44(8) (2004) 873–880.
36. Mylotarg (gemtuzumab ozogamicin): Market Withdrawal; U.S. FDA MedWatch Safety Alert.
37. I. Krop, et al., A phase 2 study of trastuzumab-DM1 (T-DM1), a novel HER2 antibody–drug conjugate, in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with conventional chemotherapy, lapatinib and trastuzumab, San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 2009.
38. J.F. DiJoseph, et al., Anticancer efficacy of a combination of CMC-544 (inotuzumab ozogamicin), a CD22-targeted cytotoxic immunoconjugate of calicheamicin, and rituximab against non-Hodgkin's B-cell lymphoma, Clin. Cancer Res. 12(1) (2006) 242–249.
39. W. Tai, R. Mahato, K. Cheng, The role of HER2 in cancer therapy and targeted drug delivery, J. Control. Release 146(3) (2010) 264–275.
40. I.E. Krop, et al., Phase I study of trastuzumab-DM1, an HER2 antibody–drug conjugate, given every 3 weeks to patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, J. Clin. Oncol. 28(16) (2010) 2698–2704.
41. A. Advani, et al., Preliminary report of a phase 1 study of CMC-544, an antibody-targeted chemotherapy agent, in patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), American Society of Hematology Annual Meeting, 2005.
42. J.J. Khandare, et al., Novel polymeric prodrug with multivalent components for cancer therapy, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 317(3) (2006) 929–937.
43. S.S. Dharap, et al., Cancer-specific targeting of an anticancer drug delivery system by LHRH peptide, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102(36) (2005) 12962–12967.
44. X. Chen, et al., Synthesis and biological evaluation of dimeric RGD peptide-paclitaxel conjugate as a model for integrin-targeted drug delivery, J. Med. Chem. 48(4) (2005) 1098–1106.
45. Y. Yoneda, et al., A cell-penetrating peptidic GRP78 ligand for cancer cell-specific prodrug therapy, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18(5) (2008) 1632–1636.
46. B.K. Shin, et al., Global profiling of the cell surface proteome of cancer cells uncovers an abundance of proteins with chaperone function, J. Biol. Chem. 278(9) (2003) 7607–7616.
47. G.M. Dubowchik, R.A. Firestone, Cathepsin B-sensitive dipeptide prodrugs. 1. A model study of structural requirements for efficient release of doxorubicin, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 8(23) (1998) 3341–3346.
48. S.M. Nimjee, C.P. Rusconi, B.A. Sullenger, Aptamers: an emerging class of therapeutics, Annu. Rev. Med. 56 (2005) 555–583.
49. J. Zhou, et al., Selection, characterization and application of new RNA HIV gp120 aptamers for facile delivery of Dicer substrate siRNAs into HIV infected cells, Nucleic Acids Res. 37(9) (2009) 3094–3109.
50. K. Sefah, et al., Development of DNA aptamers using Cell-SELEX, Nat. Protoc. 5(6) (2010) 1169–1185.
51. T.C. Chu, et al., Aptamer mediated siRNA delivery, Nucleic Acids Res. 34(10) (2006) e73.
52. O.C. Farokhzad, et al., Nanoparticle-aptamer bioconjugates: a new approach for targeting prostate cancer cells, Cancer Res. 64(21) (2004) 7668–7672.
53. M.J. Morris, et al., Phase I evaluation of J591 as a vascular targeting agent in progressive solid cancers, Clin. Cancer Res. 13(9) (2007) 2707–2713.
54. M.I. Milowsky, et al., Vascular targeted therapy with anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen monoclonal antibody J591 in advanced solid cancers, J. Clin. Oncol. 25(5) (2007) 540–547.
55. S. Dhar, et al., Targeted delivery of cisplatin to prostate cancer cells by aptamer functionalized Pt(IV) prodrug-PLGA-PEG nanoparticles, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105(45) (2008) 17356–17361.
56. N. Kolishetti, et al., Engineering of self-assembled nanoparticle platform for precisely controlled combination drug therapy, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107(42) (2010) 17939–17944.
57. Y.F. Huang, et al., Molecular assembly of an aptamer-drug conjugate for targeted drug delivery to cancer cells, Chembiochem 10(5) (2009) 862–868.
58. D. Shangguan, et al., Aptamers evolved from live cells as effective molecular probes for cancer study, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103(32) (2006) 11838–11843.
59. W.A. Henne, et al., Synthesis and activity of a folate peptide camptothecin prodrug, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16(20) (2006) 5350–5355.
60. O. Aronov, et al., Folate-targeted PEG as a potential carrier for carboplatin analogs. Synthesis and in vitro studies, Bioconjug. Chem. 14(3) (2003) 563–574.
61. V. Anbharasi, N. Cao, S.S. Feng, Doxorubicin conjugated to D-alpha-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol succinate and folic acid as a prodrug for targeted chemotherapy, J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A. 94(3) (2010) 730–743.
62. I. Rubio-Aliaga, et al., Targeted disruption of the peptide transporter Pept2 gene in mice defines its physiological role in the kidney, Mol. Cell. Biol. 23(9) (2003) 3247–3252.
63. T. Kodama, Antibodies that inhibit transport activity of peptide transporters, US Patent 20100247539, 2010.
64. C.P. Landowski, et al., Targeted delivery to PEPT1-overexpressing cells: acidic, basic, and secondary floxuridine amino acid ester prodrugs, Mol. Cancer Ther. 4(4) (2005) 659–667.
65. T. Nakanishi, et al., Carrier-mediated transport of oligopeptides in the human fibrosarcoma cell line HT1080, Cancer Res. 57(18) (1997) 4118–4122.
66. T. Nakanishi, et al., Cancer cell-targeted drug delivery utilizing oligopeptide transport activity, Int. J. Cancer 88(2) (2000) 274–280.
67. M.A. Gallop, Gemcitabine Prodrugs, Pharmaceuticals Compositions and Uses Thereof, XenoPort, Inc., Santa Clara, CA (US), 2010, pp. 1–52.
68. V.J. Stella, Prodrugs: Challenges and Rewards, Part 1, 2007.
69. S. Ramanathan, et al., Targeting the sodium-dependent multivitamin transporter (SMVT) for improving the oral absorption properties of a retro-inverso Tat nonapeptide, Pharm. Res. 18(7) (2001) 950–956.
70. T. Minko, et al., Enhancing the anticancer efficacy of camptothecin using biotinylated poly(ethylene glycol) conjugates in sensitive and multidrug-resistant human ovarian carcinoma cells, Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 50(2) (2002) 143–150.
71. G. Russell-Jones, et al., Vitamin-mediated targeting as a potential mechanism to increase drug uptake by tumours, J. Inorg. Biochem. 98(10) (2004) 1625–1633.
72. W. Yang, et al., Targeting cancer cells with biotin-dendrimer conjugates, Eur. J. Med. Chem. 44(2) (2009) 862–868.
73. T. Yamaoka, Y. Tabata, Y. Ikada, Distribution and tissue uptake of poly(ethylene glycol) with different molecular weights after intravenous administration to mice, J. Pharm. Sci. 83(4) (1994) 601–606.
74. M.A. Eldon, et al., NKTR-102, a novel PEGylated-irinotecan conjugate, results in sustained cancer growth inhibition in mouse models of human colorectal and lung cancers that is associated with increased and sustained cancer SN38 exposure, 2007 AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics, 2007, p. C157.
75. M.A. Eldon, et al., Anti-cancer activity and pharmacokinetics of NKTR-102, a novel PEGylated-irinotecan conjugate, in irinotecan-resistant colorectal cancers implanted in mice, 14th European Cancer Conference, 2007, p. P-0722.
76. D.D. Von Hoff, et al., First Phase I Trial of NKTR-102 (PEG-irinotecan) reveals early evidence of broad anti-cancer activity in three different schedules, 2008 EORTC-NCI-AACR Symposium, 2008, p. P-595.
77. R.D. Ronit Satchi-Fainaro, Polymer therapeutics: polymers as drugs, conjugates and gene delivery systems, Adv. Polym. Sci., 2006, pp. 36–37.
78. P. Sapra, et al., Novel delivery of SN38 markedly inhibits cancer growth in xenografts, including a camptothecin-11-refractory model, Clin. Cancer Res. 14(6) (2008) 1888–1896.
79. M.A. Eldon, et al., NKTR-118 (oral PEG-Naloxol), a PEGylated derivative of Naloxone: demonstration of selective peripheral opioid antagonism after oral administration in preclinical models, American Academy of Pain Management 18th Annual Clinical Meeting, 2007, p. P-28.
80. T.A. Neumann, et al., Clinical investigation of NKTR-118 as a selective oral peripheral opioid antagonist, American Academy of Pain Management 18th Annual Clinical Meeting, 2007, p. P-27.
81. P. Sabbatini, et al., Phase II study of CT-2103 in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, J. Clin. Oncol. 22(22) (2004) 4523–4531.
82. P.A. Vasey, et al., Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of PK1 [N-(2-hydroxypropyl)methacrylamide copolymer doxorubicin]: first member of a new class of chemotherapeutic agents-drug-polymer conjugates. Cancer Research Campaign Phase I/II Committee, Clin. Cancer Res. 5(1) (1999) 83–94.
83. L.W. Seymour, et al., Phase II studies of polymer-doxorubicin (PK1, FCE28068) in the treatment of breast, lung and colorectal cancer, Int. J. Oncol. 34(6) (2009) 1629–1636.
84. R. Bhatt, et al., Synthesis and in vivo anticancer activity of poly(l-glutamic acid) conjugates of 20S-camptothecin, J. Med. Chem. 46(1) (2003) 190–193.
85. N.U. Lin, et al., Phase II study of CT-2103 as first- or second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: unexpected incidence of hypersensitivity reactions, Invest. New Drugs 25(4) (2007) 369–375.
86. J. Homsi, et al., Phase I trial of poly-L-glutamate camptothecin (CT-2106) administered weekly in patients with advanced solid malignancies, Clin. Cancer Res. 13(19) (2007) 5855–5861.
87. Y. Matsumura, Poly (amino acid) micelle nanocarriers in preclinical and clinical studies, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 60(8) (2008) 899–914.
88. J.C. Oliver, et al., A dose-finding pharmacokinetic study of IT-101, the first de novo designed nanoparticle therapeutic, in refractory solid cancers, 2008 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2008.
89. P.J. Stevens, M. Sekido, R.J. Lee, A folate receptor-targeted lipid nanoparticle formulation for a lipophilic paclitaxel prodrug, Pharm. Res. 21(12) (2004) 2153–2157.
90. S.K. Kumar, et al., Targeted inhibition of hedgehog signaling by cyclopamine prodrugs for advanced prostate cancer, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 16(6) (2008) 2764–2768.
91. A. Mhaka, et al., A 5-fluorodeoxyuridine prodrug as targeted therapy for prostate cancer, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 12(17) (2002) 2459–2461.
92. S.K. Kumar, et al., Modulating paclitaxel bioavailability for targeting prostate cancer, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 15(14) (2007) 4973–4984.
93. S.R. Denmeade, et al., Enzymatic activation of a doxorubicin-peptide prodrug by prostate-specific antigen, Cancer Res. 58(12) (1998) 2537–2540.
94. S.R. Denmeade, et al., Prostate-specific antigen-activated thapsigargin prodrug as targeted therapy for prostate cancer, J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95(13) (2003) 990–1000.
95. V.M. Garsky, et al., The synthesis of a prodrug of doxorubicin designed to provide reduced systemic toxicity and greater target efficacy, J. Med. Chem. 44(24) (2001) 4216–4224.
96. A. Ghosh, W.D. Heston, Cancer target prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) and its regulation in prostate cancer, J. Cell. Biochem. 91(3) (2004) 528–539.
97. J.S. Ross, et al., Correlation of primary cancer prostate-specific membrane antigen expression with disease recurrence in prostate cancer, Clin. Cancer Res. 9(17) (2003) 6357–6362.
98. G.L. Wright Jr., et al., Upregulation of prostate-specific membrane antigen after androgen-deprivation therapy, Urology 48(2) (1996) 326–334.
99. A. Mhaka, et al., Use of methotrexate-based peptide substrates to characterize the substrate specificity of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), Cancer Biol. Ther. 3(6) (2004) 551–558.
100. K.D. Bagshawe, Antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy (ADEPT), Adv. Pharmacol. 24 (1993) 99–121.
101. T.A. Connor, Prodrugs in cancer chemotherapy, Stem Cells 13(5) (1995) 501–511.
102. R.G. Melton, R.F. Sherwood, Antibody-enzyme conjugates for cancer therapy, J. Natl Cancer Inst. 88(3–4) (1996) 153–165.
103. R.G. Melton, Antibody-directed enzyme prodrug therapy (ADEPT), Drugs Future 21 (1996) 167.
104. K.D. Bagshawe, Antibody-Directed Enzyme Prodrug Therapy, 2007.
105. R.D. Alvarez, et al., A Phase I study of combined modality (90)Yttrium-CC49 intraperitoneal radioimmunotherapy for ovarian cancer, Clin. Cancer Res. 8(9) (2002) 2806–2811.
106. J. Xiao, et al., Pharmacokinetics and clinical evaluation of 125I-radiolabeled humanized CC49 monoclonal antibody (HuCC49deltaC(H)2) in recurrent and metastatic colorectal cancer patients, Cancer Biother. Radiopharm. 20(1) (2005) 16–26.
107. L. Fang, et al., Enzyme specific activation of benzoquinone ansamycin prodrugs using HuCC49DeltaCH2-beta-galactosidase conjugates, J. Med. Chem. 49(21) (2006) 6290–6297.
108. R.J. Francis, et al., A phase I trial of antibody directed enzyme prodrug therapy (ADEPT) in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma or other CEA producing tumours, Br. J. Cancer 87(6) (2002) 600–607.
109. S.M. Freeman, et al., The "bystander effect": cancer regression when a fraction of the cancer mass is genetically modified, Cancer Res. 53(21) (1993) 5274–5283.
110. W.L. Bi, et al., In vitro evidence that metabolic cooperation is responsible for the bystander effect observed with HSV tk retroviral gene therapy, Hum. Gene Ther. 4(6) (1993) 725–731.
111. B.E. Huber, et al., Metabolism of 5-fluorocytosine to 5-fluorouracil in human colorectal cancer cells transduced with the cytosine deaminase gene: significant anticancer effects when only a small percentage of cancer cells express cytosine deaminase, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91(17) (1994) 8302–8306.
112. H.S. Pandha, et al., Genetic prodrug activation therapy for breast cancer: a phase I clinical trial of erbB-2-directed suicide gene expression, J. Clin. Oncol. 17(7) (1999) 2180–2189.
113. C.J. Ring, et al., Suicide gene expression induced in tumour cells transduced with recombinant adenoviral, retroviral and plasmid vectors containing the ERBB2 promoter, Gene Ther. 3(12) (1996) 1094–1103.
114. C.J. Ring, et al., Use of transcriptional regulatory elements of the MUC1 and ERBB2 genes to drive tumour-selective expression of a prodrug activating enzyme, Gene Ther. 4(10) (1997) 1045–1052.
115. J. Hlavaty, et al., Multiple modifications allow high-titer production of retroviral vectors carrying heterologous regulatory elements, J. Virol. 78(3) (2004) 1384–1392.
116. C. Altaner, Prodrug cancer gene therapy, Cancer Lett. 270(2) (2008) 191–201.
117. L. Wu, et al., Chimeric PSA enhancers exhibit augmented activity in prostate cancer gene therapy vectors, Gene Ther. 8(18) (2001) 1416–1426.
118. C.S. Chen, Y. Jounaidi, D.J. Waxman, Enantioselective metabolism and cytotoxicity of R-ifosfamide and S-ifosfamide by cancer cell-expressed cytochromes P450, Drug Metab. Dispos. 33(9) (2005) 1261–1267.
119. H.O. McCarthy, et al., Bioreductive GDEPT using cytochrome P450 3A4 in combination with AQ4N, Cancer Gene Ther. 10(1) (2003) 40–48.
120. H. Lu, C.S. Chen, D.J. Waxman, Potentiation of methoxymorpholinyl doxorubicin anticancer activity by P450 3A4 gene transfer, Cancer Gene Ther. 16(5) (2009) 393–404.
121. S.O. Freytag, et al., Five-year follow-up of trial of replication-competent adenovirus-mediated suicide gene therapy for treatment of prostate cancer, Mol. Ther. 15(3) (2007) 636–642.