Given that the EPR effect in human melanoma is neither consistent nor sufficient for effective passive accumulation, on what scientific basis do you claim that liposomes, polymeric nanoparticles, and micelles can achieve “selective drug accumulation” and “reduced systemic toxicity” through passive targeting alone?
In Table 1, the entry for “Trametinib” describes “T-cell membranes derived from 19LF6 hybridomas carrying melanoma-specific anti-gp100/HLA-A2 T cell receptor (TCR).” However, 19LF6 is not a standard hybridoma designation—was this a typographical error? This raises concerns about the accuracy of the cited literature.
The review extensively discusses passive targeting via the EPR effect but fails to acknowledge the substantial body of literature questioning the clinical relevance of EPR in human tumors (e.g., the “EPR effect” has been criticized as primarily a murine phenomenon). Given that multiple clinical trials of EPR-dependent nanomedicines have failed to show improved outcomes, how do the authors justify continuing to present EPR as a cornerstone strategy without acknowledging these limitations?