Bioactive Materials2021ReviewNon-viral Gene Delivery

The application of nanoparticles in cancer immunotherapy: Targeting tumor microenvironment

Muyue Yang, Jipeng Li, Ping Gu, Xianqun Fan29 September 2026

Summary

Tumour microenvironment (TME) modulation is a promising strategy in cancer immunotherapy, but conventional immunotherapeutic agents suffer from limited drug retention in the TME, severe adverse events, and low response rates. Nanoparticles can prolong retention, enable targeted delivery to TME components, and convert the immunosuppressive TME into an immunosupportive state, potentially improving therapeutic efficacy while reducing toxicity. DC targeting: CD40-targeted PLGA nanoparticles achieved highest binding/uptake and maximum IL-12 production in vitro; however, T cell proliferation was driven mainly by TLR ligands rather than targeting ligand. -.

Keywords

Nanoparticles Cancer immunotherapy Tumour microenvironment PLGA Chemotherapy T cells Macrophages

Purpose: Tumour microenvironment (TME) modulation is a promising strategy in cancer immunotherapy, but conventional immunotherapeutic agents suffer from limited drug retention in the TME, severe adverse events, and low response rates. Nanoparticles can prolong retention, enable targeted delivery to TME components, and convert the immunosuppressive TME into an immunosupportive state, potentially improving therapeutic efficacy while reducing toxicity.

Hypothesis: As a review article, this work does not test a single hypothesis. Its central thesis is:

If nanoparticles are engineered to target major TME components—dendritic cells (DCs), tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs), cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), tumour vasculature, tumour-draining lymph nodes (tdLNs), and hypoxic regions—then they can modulate the immunosuppressive TME, enhance cancer immunotherapy, and synergize with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and photodynamic therapy (PDT) to improve anti-tumour outcomes.

Aims: Primary Aim: To review various nanoparticles targeting TME components and their applications in tumour therapy.

Secondary Aims:
To briefly introduce the major components of the TME, including DCs, macrophages, fibroblasts, tumour vasculature, tdLNs, and the hypoxic state.
To summarise how nanoparticles can be designed to target these components and modulate the TME.
To discuss the combination of nanoparticle-based TME modulation with other therapies (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, PDT).
To highlight challenges and future perspectives for clinical translation.

Delivery system:

Component: Nanoparticle Types; Examples Discussed: PLGA nanoparticles, lipid-coated calcium phosphate nanoparticles, erythrocyte membrane-enveloped nanoparticles, Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles, antigen-capturing nanoparticles (AC-NPs), gold nanocages (AuNCs), liposomes, albumin-based nanoparticles, micelles, nanogels, MnO₂ nanoparticles, perfluorocarbon (PFC)-loaded PLGA nanoparticles, mesoporous silica nanostructures, upconversion nanoparticles, HPMA polymer-based nanovehicles, CaCO₃ nanoparticles, iron nanoparticles

Component: Payloads; Examples Discussed: Tumour antigens (e.g., BRAF^V600E peptide, ovalbumin, hgp100₂₅₋₃₃), TLR ligands/agonists (TLR3, TLR4, TLR7/8, CpG), siRNA (anti-colony stimulating factor-1 receptor, anti-BTK), chemotherapeutics (doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, navitoclax, ibrutinib), photosensitizers (chlorine e6), oxygen (via MnO₂ or PFC), anti-angiogenic agents (LMWH, erlotinib, relaxin-2)

Component: Targeting Ligands/Moieties; Examples Discussed: Antibodies to CD40, DEC-205, CD11c; mannose; hyaluronic acid (HA); sialic acid (for Siglec-1); transferrin receptor-binding peptide T12; SPARC; FAP-specific single-chain variable fragment (scFv); tenascin C-binding peptide FH; anti-CD3; anti-CD8

Component: TME Targets; Examples Discussed: Dendritic cells, tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs), cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), tumour vasculature, tumour-draining lymph nodes (tdLNs), hypoxic regions

Component: Routes of Administration; Examples Discussed: Systemic (IV), intratumoral, subcutaneous, intradermal, intraperitoneal

Approach: This is a narrative review synthesising preclinical and clinical literature. No primary experimental data are presented. The review:

Summarises studies using various nanoparticle platforms in mouse tumour models and cell lines (Table 1).
Covers TME components individually: DCs, TAMs, CAFs, tumour vasculature, tdLNs, and hypoxia.
Evaluates nanoparticle design parameters such as size, charge, ligand modification, and stimuli-responsiveness.
Discusses combination with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, PDT, and checkpoint inhibitors.
Includes examples of FDA-approved nanodrugs (Doxil, Abraxane) as context.

Key methods: As a review, the “methods” are literature synthesis and comparative analysis. Headline data cited from primary studies were generated using:

Flow cytometry: Immune cell activation, T cell proliferation, DC maturation, M1/M2 polarization.
Imaging: In vivo noninvasive fluorescence imaging, photoacoustic bioimaging (AuNCs), MRI (SPIONs).
Reporter assays: Luciferase, GFP, IFN-γ, IL-12, TNF-α, IL-10, TGF-β.
Tumour efficacy: Tumour volume, survival rate, metastasis nodule count, cure rate.
Histology/immunohistochemistry: α-SMA expression, CAF percentage, vessel normalisation.
Biodistribution: Lymphatic drainage to tdLNs, accumulation in tumour and organs.

Key results: DC targeting: CD40-targeted PLGA nanoparticles achieved highest binding/uptake and maximum IL-12 production in vitro; however, T cell proliferation was driven mainly by TLR ligands rather than targeting ligand. - Antigen-capturing nanoparticles (AC-NPs): Captured multiple tumour-derived protein antigens and achieved 20% cure rate in melanoma models vs. 0% in controls. - TAM repolarization: Ferumoxytol (iron oxide) induced M2→M1 transition, increased H₂O₂ 11-fold and hydroxyl radicals 16-fold, and inhibited tumour growth in a TAM-dependent manner. - M2-targeted siRNA nanoparticles (M2NP): Eliminated 52% of M2 macrophages, decreased tumour size, and increased survival. - CAF targeting: Navitoclax-loaded, tenascin C-targeted nanoliposomes reduced CAF percentage to 18% vs. 77% in controls. - tdLN targeting: Nanoparticles of 10–100 nm showed optimal lymphatic drainage; 40–50 nm antigen-conjugated beads produced 2–10-fold stronger T cell responses than other sizes; 10–22 nm gold nanoparticles induced maximum immune responses. - Melittin-lipid nanoparticles: Increased CD8⁺ T cell responses 3.6-fold, with 95% inhibition of primary tumour growth and 92% inhibition of distant tumour growth. - Vasculature disruption + immunotherapy: PLGA nanoparticles loaded with VDA (DMXAA) and TLR7/8 agonist achieved 63.6% survival vs. 18.1% (PLGA alone) and 9% (DMXAA alone). - Hypoxia relief: PFC-loaded nanoparticles increased tumour oxygenation 3-fold and reduced hypoxic areas; MnO₂ nanoparticles reacted with H₂O₂ to produce oxygen and enhance PDT/chemotherapy.

Interpretation: The authors conclude that nanoparticles offer significant advantages over traditional drug delivery systems: tunability, EPR-based tumour accumulation, spatiotemporal drug release, and ability to target and modulate TME components. By converting the immunosuppressive TME to an immunosupportive state, nanoparticles can enhance cancer immunotherapy and synergize with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and PDT. However, clinical translation requires deeper understanding of the immune network, tumour heterogeneity, nanoparticle immunogenicity, and long-term safety of TME modulation.

Limitations: Limitations inherent to the review:

No primary experimental data; conclusions are synthesised from existing literature.
No systematic search strategy or meta-analysis.
Focus is primarily on preclinical studies; limited clinical translation data.
Heterogeneity of tumour models and nanoparticle designs makes direct comparisons difficult.

Limitations of the field highlighted by the authors:

Incomplete understanding of the immune network: The influence of depleting or inhibiting one TME component on the whole network remains unclear; compensatory pathways may upregulate.
Individual variations: Tumour heterogeneity and differences in vasculature lead to variable responses to the same nanotherapy.
Potential immunogenicity of nanoparticles: Nanoparticles themselves can be antigenic, accelerating clearance and limiting efficacy; robust immune activation may cause haemolysis and thrombogenesis.
Long-term risks of TME modulation: Partially changing TME structure or reversing immunosuppression may promote tumour metastasis; long-term effects need investigation.
Immature toxicity assays: Physicochemical properties of nanoparticles can change upon reaction with biological substances; final forms and safety must be carefully evaluated.
CAF heterogeneity: Certain CAF subsets may be anti-tumorigenic; complete depletion may not be ideal.
TAM origin complexity: M1/M2 phenotypes and locally proliferating vs. systemically recruited TAMs coexist; targeting strategies may be limited by this complexity.
Need for optimised design: Size, shape, ligands, and other properties require further optimisation before clinical translation.

RSC pharmaceutics

Orthogonal ensemble and single-particle characterisation of antisense oligonucleotide lipid nanoparticles

Discover nano

Lipid nanoparticle-based mRNA delivery system for cancer management

Molecular cancer

siRNA-mediated mismatch repair disruption synergizes with oxaliplatin to restore immune surveillance in microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer

← Back to all articles

Let's engineer the next delivery breakthrough together

We co-develop nanocarrier and biosensing programmes with pharma, biotech and academic groups — from target selection through scale-up.

ResearchersRequest a technical consultationTalk formulation, characterisation or assay design with one of our scientists.Industry partnersExplore co-developmentFeasibility studies, co-development programmes and licensing.InvestorsExplore the market opportunitySourced market sizes, pipeline, investment and deal data for genetic medicine delivery.