Home Journals Articles Updates About
CN
image
收藏切换
Poor prognosis outcome tumors, bacteria-infected tumors and nanodrugs: current evidence and hypotheses towards a paradigm change for treatment
收藏切换
PDF
Henk J. Busscher1, David W. Grainger2, JinPu Yu3, Da-Yuan Wang1
Cancer Biology & Medicine | 2026, 23(4) : 527 - 540
Less
收藏切换
Cancer Biology & Medicine | 2026, 23(4): 527-540
• Review •
Poor prognosis outcome tumors, bacteria-infected tumors and nanodrugs: current evidence and hypotheses towards a paradigm change for treatment
Full
Henk J. Busscher1, David W. Grainger2, JinPu Yu3, Da-Yuan Wang1
Affiliations
  • 1Key Laboratory of Functional Polymer Materials of Ministry of Education, Institute of Polymer Chemistry, State Key Laboratory of Medicinal Chemical Biology, Frontiers Science Center for New Organic Matter, College of Chemistry, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China
  • 2Departments of Biomedical Engineering and of Molecular Pharmaceutics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5820, USA
  • 3Cancer Molecular Diagnostics Core, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Druggability Evaluation and Systematic Translational Medicine, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China
About Author:

Author contributions

Wrote the paper: Henk J. Busscher and David W. Grainger.

Literature review and synthesis: Henk J. Busscher, David W. Grainger, JinPu Yu, Da-Yuan Wang.

Polished the article: Da-Yuan Wang.

Conceived the article: Henk J. Busscher and Da-Yuan Wang.

Published: 2026-04-15 doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0748
Outline
收藏切换

New therapies and supportive care have converted several cancer types into chronic conditions. Yet, some tumors exhibit features reproducibly correlated with poor prognosis outcome (PPO-tumors). Bacteria in a tumor environment can inactivate chemotherapeutics and are a feature of PPO-tumors, although standard diagnostic tests for tumor infections do not exist. Optimism is high for nanotechnologic innovations but nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics based on enhanced permeability and retention in a human tumor environment have only shown limited treatment benefits. Moreover, treatment of infected tumors in animals with stimuli-responsive nanocarriers loaded with an antibiotic/chemotherapeutic combination has demonstrated limited benefits compared to treatment with combinations of carrier-free antibiotics and chemotherapeutics. Development of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics with significant benefits in human clinical use is estimated to take several decades, which is too long for patients with PPO-tumors. Herein we hypothesize the following: 1-all diagnosed PPO-tumors are infected with bacteria; 2-all PPO-tumors in mice and humans exhibit enhanced permeability to chemotherapeutics; and 3-all diagnosed PPO-tumors must be treated from the onset with a combination of carrier-free antibiotics and chemotherapeutics. Each hypothesis was critically evaluated and judged plausible and clinically acceptable. Potential clinical treatment of PPO-tumors, presuming bacterial infection without diagnosis, with an approved antibiotic and chemotherapeutic free drug combination requires a paradigm change in treatment concept towards more lenient antibiotic use. However, many cancer patients already require antibiotics during chemotherapeutic treatment and combined carrier-free antibiotic/chemotherapeutic treatment may provide an immediate pathway to re-sensitize PPO-tumors to clinically used chemotherapeutics and alter the prognosis to a more favourable outcome.

Bacteria-infected tumors  /  nanodrug combinations  /  paradigm change  /  hypotheses
Henk J. Busscher, David W. Grainger, JinPu Yu, Da-Yuan Wang. Poor prognosis outcome tumors, bacteria-infected tumors and nanodrugs: current evidence and hypotheses towards a paradigm change for treatment[J]. Cancer Biology & Medicine, 2026 , 23 (4) : 527 -540 . DOI: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0748
Full Text
Less
Introduction
Less
Solid tumors are embedded in a highly complex and dynamic tumor microenvironment (TME) composed of malignant cells, stromal components, immune infiltrates, vasculature, extracellular matrix, and diverse physicochemical gradients1,2. This microenvironment is spatially and temporally heterogeneous, profoundly influencing tumor progression, therapeutic response, and drug transport3,4. Advances in targeted therapies, immunotherapies, better diagnostics, and supportive care have allowed many cancers to become managed as chronic conditions5–7. Hormone therapies have turned metastatic breast and prostate cancer, once rapidly progressive, into diseases that can often be held in control for years. Chemotherapy has laid the foundation for long-term remission of hematologic cancers. Targeted therapies using small molecules or therapeutic monoclonal antibodies hitting specific molecular targets essential for tumor survival or growth have transformed chronic myeloid leukemia and several breast and ovarian cancers into chronic conditions. Melanoma and lung cancer patients have particularly benefited from immunotherapies. Whether or not a tumor can be managed chronically depends heavily on the stage at diagnosis, molecular subtype, and patient health status. However, “chronic” does not mean “cured,” and addressing cancer as a chronic condition requires continuous supportive care, including diagnostic monitoring and treatment with low-dose chemotherapeutics. Current clinical treatments add 5–20+ years to lives of patients with select early-stage cancers8,9. For some cancers the lifetime extension remains limited to months and a maximum range of 3–5 years.
For these tumors, our current understanding of the evolving TME may be insufficient to drive meaningful advances in treatment efficacy and drug delivery. In this context, bacterial presence has been increasingly observed within the TME. Bacteria enter the TME by breaching mucosal barriers, such as in the esophagus, lungs, colon, or cervix, by invasion of adjacent tissue or by hematogenic invasion amongst others from the oral cavity or the intestines10. Once present, these bacteria may become integral components of the TME and influence tumor initiation, progression, and therapeutic response through multiple mechanisms (Figure 1).
Scope and limitations of this review
Less
This review synthesizes current evidence from the oncologic, microbiologic, and nanomedicinal literature to determine whether bacteria within tumors represents an overlooked contributor to persistently poor prognosis outcomes in a subset of cancers. Despite major advances in targeted therapies and immunotherapies, some tumors remain predictably poorly responsive to current treatment strategies. Rather than focusing on a single cancer entity, this review considers common clinical and biological features shared by such predictably poor prognosis outcome tumors (PPO-tumors) across different cancer types to evaluate whether bacterial involvement could plausibly contribute to the behaviour.
The scope of this review is therefore not to establish universal causality between intratumoral bacteria and tumor aggressiveness or therapy resistance nor to claim that all predictably PPO-tumors are driven by bacterial infection. The associations discussed are interpreted as correlations that may reflect causative, contributory, or consequential relationships, depending on the tumor context. A central limitation addressed throughout the review is the absence of clinically reliable methods to diagnose intratumoral bacterial infection in vivo, which restricts definitive attribution of bacterial involvement and necessitates cautious interpretation of post-resection and retrospective data.
Accordingly, this review emphasizes the consistency of observations, biological plausibility, and compatibility with known limitations of drug delivery and the TME over definitive proof. By explicitly defining these limitations, this review aims to provide a coherent and evidence-informed framework for re-examining treatment strategies for predictably PPO-tumors, while acknowledging current methodologic and clinical uncertainties inherent to this field.
Molecular and nanoparticulate chemotherapeutic transport mechanisms and delivery efficiencies in tumors
Less
Currently, approximately 0.1% of systemically injected molecular chemotherapeutics free in solution are delivered to a tumor site11. For cancers still showing limited lifetime extension, it is expected that nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics with increased delivery efficiencies will prove to be beneficial for increasing the gain in a patient’s longevity after diagnosis. Nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics can be divided in two groups12. Non-responsive nanocarriers show little or no interaction with the environment, while stimuli-responsive nanoparticles can selectively change properties to interact with tumor cells or blood vessel walls in the close vicinity of a tumor site. Systemically delivered nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics in rodents published between 2005 and 2015 were delivered into a solid tumor at median and mean efficiencies of 0.70% and 1.48%, respectively13, which were higher than currently achieved efficiencies using molecular chemotherapeutics free in solution. It should be recognized that delivery efficiencies reported for molecular and nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics are not fixed or absolute quantities. These values depend strongly on experimental and clinical context, including the timing of measurement after administration, tumor growth or regression kinetics, vascular dynamics, and the analytical methods used to quantify drug accumulation. Consequently, such percentages should be interpreted as indicative rather than definitive metrics. While useful for broad comparative purposes, numerical delivery efficiencies alone should not be overemphasized when evaluating therapeutic effectiveness, translational relevance, or underlying biological mechanisms. Within this limitation, further refinement of the above data demonstrate that delivery efficiencies of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics with diameters less than 100 nm and zeta potentials hovering around 0 mV, were found to be higher than 5%13. These non-responsive nanoparticles possessed little interaction with tumor cells or blood vessel endothelium. Results comprising 250 data points demonstrated that the delivery efficiencies of non-responsive nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics in rodents increase linearly with the square-root of the blood circulation half-lives up to 2.5 h1/2 (Figure 2A), indicating a strong initial influence of diffusional mass transport. For longer circulation half-lives, delivery efficiencies decrease to below the anticipated level for diffusion-controlled mass transport, likely due to slow clearance from the blood circulation.
Diffusion is not the only mass transport mechanism operating in a blood vessel in which convection- and interaction-controlled mass transport also has an important role (Figure 3). The importance of convective versus diffusional mass transport can be further elaborated upon by calculation of the Sherwood mass transport number24, denoting the ratio of convective over diffusional mass transport in absence of interaction (i.e., “perfect sink conditions”) as follows:
Sh=k LD
where k is the mass transfer coefficient (m/s), L is a characteristic length (m), and D is the nanoparticle diffusion coefficient (m2/s). Under conditions of confinement (e.g., a nanoparticle with a diameter, dp, within a tube with diameter, Dt), a widely used form is:
Sh=(2+0.6 Rep1/2 Sc1/3)(1−dpDt)−1.6
where Re is the Reynolds number (defined as [v L]/ν, in which ν is the characteristic speed and ν is the kinematic viscosity) and Sc the Schmidt number (defined as [ν/D]). For pure diffusion, Sherwood numbers are approximately 1, while Sherwood numbers ≫100 indicate pure convective mass transport. Sherwood numbers estimated for nanoparticles with a diameter of 100 nm under typical blood flow conditions range between 2 and 30, confirming diffusion-controlled mass transport with a significant contribution of convective blood flow.
More recent pH-responsive and other stimuli-responsive nanocarriers are negatively charged at physiologic pH (near 7.4) and highly hydrophilic25. These two properties enable stimuli-responsive nanocarriers to circulate for a long time in blood without loss or degradation of active components, reducing blood coagulation or complement and/or platelet activation. In the more acidic and hypoxic TME, pH-responsive nanocarriers can become positively charged and, depending on nanocarrier design, may disassemble to release the cargo. This charge reversal to positive values (>10 mV) prompts strong electrostatic double-layer attraction to tissue and enhanced retention, which contributes to increased delivery efficiency in the TME to median and mean efficiencies of 0.76% and 2.23%, respectively, as evaluated between 2005 and 201816. These stimuli-responsive nanoparticles demonstrated a distinctly different influence of blood circulation half-lives on delivery efficiency than non-responsive counterparts (Figure 2B). Whereas non-responsive nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics display a narrow, well-defined relationship with minimal dispersion, stimuli-responsive nanoparticles span a much broader range of dispersion, consistent with diverse response mechanisms. The delivery efficiencies were initially high (10%–15%) at low blood circulation half-lives, exhibiting decreasing delivery efficiency with blood circulation half-lives up to 3 h due to fast, interaction-controlled blood depletion (Figure 3). However, once blood circulation half-lives exceed 3 h, convective-diffusional mass transport dominates over interaction. As a result, delivery efficiencies slowly increase by combination of convective, diffusional, and interaction-controlled mass transport to approximately 20% for blood circulation half-lives >20–25 h for select stimuli-responsive nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics (Figure 2B). Within the broad range of dispersion, other responsive nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics perform marginally better than non-responsive types. This finding indicated that for stimuli-responsive nanoparticles, responsiveness can constitute a strong driver for bypassing in vivo barriers limiting delivery of non-responsive nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics.
Yet, within the limitations of broadly distributing delivery efficiencies among different responsive nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics in rodent models, ≥80% of the administered nanoparticle doses still go off-target, which not only impacts clinical treatment efficacy but also elicits adverse drug events26. Extrapolating to human clinical situations, this finding implies administration of unreasonably high drug doses, making it imperative to overcome the challenges of how to further increase the delivery efficiencies of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics, while encountering still substantial barriers reducing delivery27. This further development and clinical validation of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics with truly improved delivery efficiency may require several decades of further research13.
The delivery efficiency of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics in tumors: another story “of mice and men”
Less
Increased delivery efficiency of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics has hitherto been predominantly observed in rodent models (Figure 2) and has often been attributed to the so-called enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect12 but seldom reported in human nanoparticle therapy experiences. Yet, clinically exploiting the EPR effect has long provided a guideline for the further development of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics with increased delivery efficiencies, while enduring strong criticism in the drug delivery literature over the past decades28–35.
The EPR effect is closely associated with the vascular structure and lymphatic drainage in solid tumors. Tumors generally possess disorganized blood vessels17,36 due to unique tumor metabolic demands and poorly coordinated neo-vasculogenesis that accompanies rapid tumor growth (Figure 4). The altered structure of select tumor vasculature versus normal tissue vasculature allows 100–200 nm nanocarriers to permeate through vessel walls and gaps in tumor endothelial fenestrations, and enter and become retained more effectively in tumor tissue than in normal tissue. Based on observations in rodent models13, nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics 50–200 nm in diameter were retained by poor tumor lymphatic drainage, while smaller sizes were removed by lymphatic vessels surrounding a tumor. The current consensus37 is that nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics exit tumors via lymphatic vessels within or surrounding the tumor in a size-dependent manner and not through leaky endothelium. Larger nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics (50–100 nm diameter) exit tumors through lymphatic vessels, which likely enables recirculation and repeated tumor re-entry, increasing delivery efficiency. Whether or not this occurs critically depends on the nanoparticulate chemotherapeutic design and whether nanocarriers have disassembled or released the cargo upon their first entry into the tumor environment.
Human tumors are much more heterogeneous than tumor xenografts used in rodent models and often exhibit dense stroma that counteracts the transport effects of vascular leakiness by physically blocking tumor entry through diffusion38. Blood flow in human tumor vessels that may aid re-entry upon lymphatic exit appear absent39. As a result, EPR effects observed in humans are modest compared to rodent models40. Of the few nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics successfully translated to clinical use to treat human renal and breast cancers17, added patient therapeutic benefits over free drug therapies have generally been shown to be negligible28. A meta-analysis on conventional delivery of carrier-free doxorubicin compared to delivery from PEGylated liposomal nanocarriers in 14 different clinical trials (totalling 2589 patients) demonstrated no significant difference in treatment efficacy41. This result sharply contrasts with much more favourable results observed in rodent models33,40,42,43. The current general consensus regarding the EPR-effect converges towards an “overpromise” of translational relevance of the rodent tumor model results to the human clinical experience44.
PPO-tumors
Less
The relatively small, incremental gains in patient longevity obtained over past decades using conventional, systemically injected carrier-free chemotherapeutics taken together have yielded highly meaningful lifetime gains for many different, but not all cancer types5,8. Some types of cancer still appear particularly refractory to chemotherapy. Herein, we adopted the term “PPO-tumors” for tumors exhibiting features that reproducibly correlate with poor prognosis outcome across cohorts. PPO-tumors typically differ from better-treatable tumors by rapidly evolving genetic alterations, a highly immune-suppressive microenvironment, effective efflux pumps, resistance to apoptosis and metastatic potential, hypoxia, and thick fibrotic and stromal barriers reducing chemotherapeutic delivery to tumor sites38,45. Notable, current PPO-tumors include amongst others pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, and some biliary cancers.
Over the past decade, increasing numbers and diversities of bacterial strains have been identified within different human cancers.46 For some cancer types resistant to chemotherapeutic treatment, impressively high associations between treatment outcome and bacterial presence in tumors have been shown upon tumor resection or post-mortem analyses10,47. This correlation warrants considering bacteria-infected tumors as a special type of PPO-tumor. Further, treatment strategies that specifically and effectively address bacteria-infected tumors represent a new anti-cancer approach.
Hypotheses on PPO-tumors and bacterial infection
Less
Development of novel strategies to treat PPO-tumors according to current clinical paradigms and regulatory approval procedures is slow, most certainly for patients with PPO-tumors. Therefore, to accelerate further development, we advance three hypotheses with respect to PPO-tumors, knowing the hypotheses are conflicting with present clinical treatment paradigms. To make our hypotheses amenable for debate, hypotheses were formulated unambiguously according to Popper’s falsifiability criterion, as follows48:
1.

all diagnosed PPO-tumors must be considered to be bacteria-infected;

2.

all PPO-tumors in mice and men exhibit enhanced permeability to chemotherapeutics; and

3.

all diagnosed PPO-tumors must be treated from the onset with a carrier-free antibiotic/chemotherapeutic drug combination. Note that this hypothesis does not argue that all PPO-tumors are bacteria-infected, but rather that current diagnostic limitations may mask a clinically relevant bacterial contribution across multiple tumor types.

Based on a review of the literature, each hypothesis was critically evaluated for plausibility, rejection, and opportunities offered for further elaboration. Evaluation was confined to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, and some biliary cancers as examples of PPO-tumors.
Hypothesis 1: All PPO-tumors must be considered to be bacteria-infected
Less
This hypothesis has plausible and problematic aspects. In each of the three PPO-tumor types considered here, ample evidence has shown that bacteria exist inside these tumors with multiple, proposed contributions to the PPO-specific character of the tumor (Table 1). Different bacterial strains and species listed in Table 1 have even been described to be diagnostic and prognostic for recurrence or metastasis in head and neck cancers56. Overall, these studies make the hypothesis plausible.
Problematically, the mere presence of intratumoral bacteria does not always confer causation. Tumor “aggressiveness” is usually driven by genetics (mutations and epigenetics) and how genetics interacts with the host immune system and TME. Thus, PPO-tumor character is not necessarily driven by bacterial infection45.
To increase the plausibility of this hypothesis, the consistent presence of bacteria in PPO-tumors need to be established. This requires careful clinical sample collection that can only be accomplished upon tumor resection or post-mortem analyses. Simultaneously, adjacent healthy tissue samples and surgical equipment used should be cultured to rule out possibilities of bacterial contamination during surgical entry and tumor removal, analogous to recommendations for the diagnosis of septic loosening of orthopaedic implants57. Subsequent bacterial identification, localization, and load inside tumor cells or stroma must be determined and correlated with tumor grade and stage, responses to chemotherapy or immunotherapies, and patient survival. The plausibility and possible further evidence pave the way for hypotheses 2 and 3.
Hypothesis 2: All PPO-tumors exhibit enhanced permeability to chemotherapeutics
Less
Whether or not human tumor endothelium exhibits enhanced permeability is of crucial importance for the utility of novel, nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics. However, the prevailing consensus that the EPR effect exists primarily in rodents and only rarely in humans, is not necessarily true for bacteria-infected tumors. It is highly plausible that bacteria-infected tumors promote substantially higher leakiness than in uninfected tumors, also in humans, simply because infection-driven vasculature tends to be immature and disorganized, causing vascular leakiness. Importantly, this hypothesis does not imply uniform or universal enhancement of permeability, because fibrosis, interstitial pressure, lymphatic dysfunction, and biofilm formation may locally or globally limit nanoparticle penetration despite bacterial presence. Clinically significant EPR effects in human infections are reported across the major pathogenic bacterial species58 in which bacterial toxins and metabolites disrupt tight junctions, and excessive ROS generation due to increased immune infiltration further damages endothelium. Therefore, intratumoral bacteria amplify permeability, enabling EPR effects, also in humans. At the same time, it must be realized that the EPR effect is not simply about leakiness but also relies on active tumor lymphatic drainage, interstitial pressure, and whether bacteria-induced fibrosis hinders deep penetration59,60. In addition, heterogeneous tumor regions are not affected equally by bacterial presence and infectious bacterial biofilms represent barriers that hinder penetration of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics into a tumor61,62.
Currently, some studies appear to indicate that intratumoral bacteria presence helps tumor penetration of nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics. Salmonella-based tumor therapies have shown that bacteria can increase vascular permeability for drug delivery63 and animal experiments with bacteria/nanoparticle combinations have shown increased penetration, suggesting that bacteria modulate the microenvironment to facilitate penetration64,65. Unfortunately, systematic studies comparing nanoparticle delivery in sterile versus infected tumor models are lacking, to which end animal models with a bacterial colonization like that in human tumors would be useful.
The discussion on whether EPR-effects primarily exists in rodent models and not in human tumors, has not slowed down development of nanocarriers dual-loaded with antibiotic/chemotherapeutic combinations to treat bacteria-infected tumors. Therefore, nanotechnology seems to have accepted hypothesis 2. As an example, stimuli-responsive liposomes dual-loaded with an antibiotic and a chemotherapeutic66 yielded 20-fold enhanced delivery of gemcitabine to bacteria-infected tumors in a rodent model compared to conventional delivery of carrier-free gemcitabine alone and >2-fold higher efficacy compared to gemcitabine delivery co-administered with carrier-free ciprofloxacin (Figure 5A). Furthermore, ciprofloxacin delivery from liposomes was roughly 2-fold higher that when co-delivered as a carrier-free drug together with gemcitabine (Figure 5B). Both E. coli presence in tumor tissue (Figure 5C) as well as tumor weight (Figure 5D) decreased significantly, which was consistent with increased tumor delivery efficiencies of both ciprofloxacin and gemcitabine, respectively. From the clinical perspective, closer inspection of these results (Figure 5) reveals that the added therapeutic benefits of antibiotic/chemotherapeutic delivery from stimuli-responsive liposomes, while statistically significant, is generally small compared with conventional administration of an antibiotic combined with a chemotherapeutic as two carrier-free drugs. This highlights the need for further research to develop stimuli-responsive nanocarriers with several fold higher delivery efficiencies than hitherto realized.
Hypothesis 3: All diagnosed PPO-tumors should be treated from the onset with a carrier-free antibiotic/chemotherapeutic drug combination
Less
Given the absence of accepted, clinically applicable methods to readily diagnose bacterial infection of solid tumors, this hypothesis conflicts with clinical paradigms of infection treatment, as well as with increasing clinical demands to avoid antibiotic resistance. Despite the plausibility that all or at least many PPO-tumors may well be bacteria-infected (hypothesis 1), the absence of diagnostic options to confirm infection impedes both rationale selection and implementation of appropriate antibiotic/chemotherapeutic combinations to routinely treat PPO-tumors as being infected.
On the individual patient level, antibiotics may adversely affect the host’s protective oral and gut microbiomes67,68. However, antibiotic use in cancer patients is common, particularly when chemotherapy compromises the host immune status, and/or when treatment involves intravascular catheterization or biliary stents that are both prone to biomaterial-associated infection69. Potential negative impacts of antibiotic use on protective microbiota can be managed/reduced by probiotic and prebiotic administration70. On a more global scale beyond individual patients, the impact of such cancer-based antibiotic use in critically ill cancer patients on further development of antibiotic resistance seems negligible compared to the risks of current excessive over-the-counter promotion, use, and abuse of unnecessary antibiotics occurring in many countries worldwide70.
Select publications provide indications of possible benefits of adopting hypothesis 3 in animal models as well as in human cancer treatment. For example, antibiotic treatment before administration of chemotherapeutics proved beneficial for restoring chemotherapeutic sensitivity in mice and men. Studies have suggested antibiotic targeting of Helicobacter pylori bacteria in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma before administration of chemotherapeutics restored gemcitabine sensitivity in rodent models66,71. In human patients with benign familial adenomatous polyposis, 70% of patients harboured bacteria in colon specimens, while in a group of patients treated with antibiotics for 24 h before surgery, no colon specimens were found harbouring bacteria, suggesting that antibiotics effectively prevented tumor bacterial colonization72,73. Metronidazole and ciprofloxacin have shown mixed effects for enhancing chemotherapy in colorectal cancers65,74. The conventional combined administration of ciprofloxacin- and gemcitabine-free drugs to infected murine solid tumors showed re-sensitization of tumors to chemotherapeutics with significant anti-tumor effects71 (Figure 6), which was similar to what was observed for stimuli-responsive GC-DCPA-H2O liposomes co-loaded with ciprofloxacin and gemcitabine (Figure 5).
The above considerations indicate that hypothesis-based administration of combinations of carrier-free antibiotic and chemotherapeutic-free drugs may provide an immediate pathway to re-sensitize PPO-tumors to clinically used chemotherapeutics and yield a significant gain in clinical outcomes for patients with PPO-tumors.
Conclusions
Less
Figure 7 presents a conceptual summary of the rationale leading to the conclusions of this review. After decades of advances in cancer treatment, progress is stalling for a sub-set of tumors (Figure 7A and 7B, respectively). Research, production of new nanoparticulate chemotherapeutics with higher efficacy than the clinically used carrier-free drug analogues focuses on reducing off-targeting (Figure 7C), but translation from mice to men (Figure 7D) remains troublesome yet scientifically challenging. Despite many optimistic claims otherwise, it is unlikely that this situation will radically change anytime soon to provide a readily translatable and broadly applicable new anti-cancer strategy75.
Considering the typically short treatment windows available and high mortality rates of patients with PPO-tumors, the authors’ expert opinions are that, based on current evidence available, all PPO-tumors should, per hypotheses (Figure 7E), be considered as bacteria-infected and treated from the onset with conventional administration of a combination clinically familiar, carrier-free antibiotics and chemotherapeutics, while acknowledging the general need for restrained and justified use of appropriate antibiotics. Clinical benefits of this paradigm change and accompanying treatment proposal (Figure 7F) should be subject to retrospective clinical verification.
It is important to realize that clinical therapeutic innovation can only occasionally be validated within the constraints of randomized cross-over, double-blind, prospective clinical trials. In the clinical evidence pyramid76 (Figure 7G) such trials are recognized as high quality, but expensive, tedious, and time-consuming, and hence rarely performed to produce decisions that truly affect patient care. Hence, we should acknowledge that retrospective clinical verification can sometimes be the only pathway to clinical progress. For example, clinical acceptance of antibiotics has been accelerated by a high number of wounded soldiers to prevent them from dying of infection, while COVID 19 vaccine developments have been accelerated by the huge global impact of the disease. In fact, among many widely accepted therapies lacking randomised prospective clinical trial validation, no randomized cross-over, double-blind, prospective trial has ever been carried out to demonstrate that water intake is thirst-quenching.
Addressing new approaches to treat patients dying of PPO-cancers according to standard randomized cross-over, double-blind, prospective clinical trials that can only occur after development of clinically applicable, validated tumor diagnostic methods is a far too lengthy process to address this desperate cancer patient population. Many current chemotherapy patients already receive antibiotics to address an array of intrinsic infection risks, yet none acknowledged to be intratumoral, indicating that the paradigm change in clinical therapy practice proposed in the perspective article is in fact already well-accepted.
Funding
Less
  • D.Y.W. acknowledges financial support from the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2022YFA1205700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 52503184 and 52293383), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 2023T004TJ and 2024M751517), and the Tianjin Key Projects of Public Health Science and Technology Major Projects (Grant No. 24ZXGZSY00100). D.W.G. acknowledges support from the Ole and Marty Jensen Endowed Chair (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA).
References
Less
1.
Burgos-Panadero R,Lucantoni F,Gamero-Sandemetrio E,Cruz-Merino L,Álvaro T,Noguera R, et al.The tumour microenvironment as an integrated framework to understand cancer biology.Cancer Lett.2019; 461: 112–22.
2.
Giraldo NA,Sanchez-Salas R,Peske JD,Vano Y,Becht E,Petitprez F, et al.The clinical role of the TME in solid cancer.Br J Cancer.2019; 120: 45–53.
3.
Linke JA,Munn LL,Jain RK.Compressive stresses in cancer: characterization and implications for tumour progression and treatment.Nat Rev Cancer.2024; 24: 768–91.
4.
Walsh LA,Quail DF.Decoding the tumor microenvironment with spatial technologies.Nat Immunol.2023; 24: 1982–93.
5.
Zhong L,Li Y,Xiong L,Wang W,Wu M,Yuan T, et al.Small molecules in targeted cancer therapy: advances, challenges, and future perspectives.Signal Transduct Target Ther.2021; 6: 201.
6.
Zhang Y,Li Y,Fu Q,Han Z,Wang D,Umar Shinge SA, et al.Combined immunotherapy and targeted therapies for cancer treatment: recent advances and future perspectives.Curr Cancer Drug Targets.2023; 23: 251–64.
7.
Bai J,Gao Y,Zhang G.The treatment of breast cancer in the era of precision medicine.Cancer Biol Med.2025; 22: 322–47.
8.
Liu B,Zhou H,Tan L,Siu KTH,Guan XY.Exploring treatment options in cancer: tumor treatment strategies.Signal Transduct Target Ther.2024; 9: 175.
9.
Advancing cancer therapy.Nat Cancer.2021; 2: 245–6.
10.
Cao Y,Xia H,Tan X,Shi C,Ma Y,Meng D, et al.Intratumoural microbiota: a new frontier in cancer development and therapy.Signal Transduct Target Ther.2024; 9: 15.
11.
Crist RM,Grossman JH,Patri AK,Stern ST,Dobrovolskaia MA,Adiseshaiah PP, et al.Common pitfalls in nanotechnology: lessons learned from NCI’s nanotechnology characterization laboratory.Integr Biol (Camb).2013; 5: 66–73.
12.
Lammers T.Nanomedicine tumor targeting.Adv Mater.2024; 36: e2312169.
13.
Wilhelm S,Tavares AJ,Dai Q,Ohta S,Audet J,Dvorak HF, et al.Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours.Nat Rev Mater.2016; 1: 16014.
14.
Petros RA,DeSimone JM.Strategies in the design of nanoparticles for therapeutic applications.Nat Rev Drug Discov.2010; 9: 615–27.
15.
Miller MA,Gadde S,Pfirschke C,Engblom C,Sprachman MM,Kohler RH, et al.Predicting therapeutic nanomedicine efficacy using a companion magnetic resonance imaging nanoparticle.Sci Transl Med.2015; 7: 314ra183.
16.
Cheng YH,He C,Riviere JE,Monteiro-Riviere NA,Lin Z.Meta-analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumors using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation approach.ACS Nano.2020; 14: 3075–95.
17.
Islam W,Niidome T,Sawa T.Enhanced permeability and retention effect as a ubiquitous and epoch-making phenomenon for the selective drug targeting of solid tumors.J Pers Med.2022; 12: 1964.
18.
Abdallah M,Müllertz OO,Styles IK,Mörsdorf A,Quinn JF,Whittaker MR, et al.Lymphatic targeting by albumin-hitchhiking: applications and optimisation.J Control Release.2020; 327: 117–28.
19.
Chu S,Shi X,Tian Y,Gao F.pH-responsive polymer nanomaterials for tumor therapy.Front Oncol.2022; 12: 855019.
20.
Zhang W,Gong C,Chen Z,Li M,Li Y,Gao J.Tumor microenvironment-activated cancer cell membrane-liposome hybrid nanoparticle-mediated synergistic metabolic therapy and chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.J Nanobiotechnology.2021; 19: 339.
21.
Ma W,Wang X,Zhang D,Mu X.Research progress of disulfide bond based tumor microenvironment targeted drug delivery system.Int J Nanomedicine.2024; 19: 7547–66.
22.
Wróblewska A,Szczygieł A,Szermer-Olearnik B,Pajtasz-Piasecka E.Macrophages as promising carriers for nanoparticle delivery in anticancer therapy.Int J Nanomedicine.2023; 18: 4521–39.
23.
Elimelech M,Gregory J,Jia X,Williams RA.Particle Deposition and Aggreation.Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1995.
24.
Cheslak FR,Nicholls JA,Sichel M.Cavities formed on liquid surfaces by impinging gaseous jets.J Fluid Mech.2006; 36: 55–63.
25.
Majumder J,Minko T.Multifunctional and stimuli-responsive nanocarriers for targeted therapeutic delivery.Expert Opin Drug Deliv.2021; 18: 205–27.
26.
Pallares RM,Barmin RA,Wang A,Kiessling F,Lammers T.Clinical cancer nanomedicines.J Control Release.2025; 385: 113991.
27.
Jain RK,Stylianopoulos T.Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors.Nat Rev Clin Oncol.2010; 7: 653–64.
28.
Nichols JW,Bae YH.EPR: evidence and fallacy.J Control Release.2014; 190: 451–64.
29.
Matsumoto Y,Nichols JW,Toh K,Nomoto T,Cabral H,Miura Y, et al.Vascular bursts enhance permeability of tumour blood vessels and improve nanoparticle delivery.Nat Nanotechnol.2016; 11: 533–8.
30.
Nichols JW,Bae YH.Odyssey of a cancer nanoparticle: from injection site to site of action.Nano Today.2012; 7: 606–18.
31.
Jain RK.Delivery of molecular medicine to solid tumors: lessons from in vivo imaging of gene expression and function.J Control Release.2001; 74: 7–25.
32.
Ruenraroengsak P,Cook JM,Florence AT.Nanosystem drug targeting: facing up to complex realities.J Control Release.2010; 141: 265–76.
33.
Wang Y,Deng W,Lee D,Yan L,Lu Y,Dong S, et al.Age-associated disparity in phagocytic clearance affects the efficacy of cancer nanotherapeutics.Nat Nanotechnol.2024; 19: 255–63.
34.
Crommelin DJA,van Hoogevest P,Storm G.The role of liposomes in clinical nanomedicine development. What now? Now what?J Control Release.2020; 318: 256–63.
35.
Vandecasteele SJ,De Vriese AS,Tacconelli E.The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of vancomycin in clinical practice: evidence and uncertainties.J Antimicrob Chemother.2013; 68: 743–8.
36.
Maeda H.Vascular permeability in cancer and infection as related to macromolecular drug delivery, with emphasis on the EPR effect for tumor-selective drug targeting.Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci.2012; 88: 53–71.
37.
Nguyen LNM,Lin ZP,Sindhwani S,MacMillan P,Mladjenovic SM,Stordy B, et al.The exit of nanoparticles from solid tumours.Nat Mater.2023; 22: 1261–72.
38.
Hausser J,Alon U.Tumour heterogeneity and the evolutionary trade-offs of cancer.Nat Rev Cancer.2020; 20: 247–57.
39.
Fisher DT,Muhitch JB,Kim M,Doyen KC,Bogner PN,Evans SS, et al.Intraoperative intravital microscopy permits the study of human tumour vessels.Nat Commun.2016; 7: 10684.
40.
Anselmo AC,Mitragotri S.Nanoparticles in the clinic: an update.Bioeng Transl Med.2019; 4: e10143.
41.
Petersen GH,Alzghari SK,Chee W,Sankari SS,La-Beck NM.Meta-analysis of clinical and preclinical studies comparing the anticancer efficacy of liposomal versus conventional non-liposomal doxorubicin.J Contol Release.2016; 232: 255–64.
42.
Ikeda-Imafuku M,Wang LLW,Rodrigues D,Shaha S,Zhao Z,Mitragotri S.Strategies to improve the EPR effect: a mechanistic perspective and clinical translation.J Control Release.2022; 345: 512–36.
43.
Wu J.The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect: the significance of the concept and methods to enhance its application.J Pers Med.2021; 11: 771.
44.
van der Meel R,Lammers T,Hennink WE.Cancer nanomedicines: oversold or underappreciated?Expert Opin Drug Deliv.2017; 14: 1–5.
45.
Yuan S,Almagro J,Fuchs E.Beyond genetics: driving cancer with the tumour microenvironment behind the wheel.Nat Rev Cancer.2024; 24: 274–86.
46.
Yang L,Zhang Y,Yang L.Adenosine signaling in tumor-associated macrophages and targeting adenosine signaling for cancer therapy.Cancer Biol Med.2024; 21: 995–1011.
47.
Li S,Liu J,Zheng X,Ren L,Yang Y,Li W, et al.Tumorigenic bacteria in colorectal cancer: mechanisms and treatments.Cancer Biol Med.2021; 19: 147–62.
48.
Gluck SE.Karl L. Popper: The logic of scientific discovery. pp. 479. New York: Basic books, 1959.Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci.1960; 328: 212–4.
49.
Guo X,Shao Y.Role of the oral-gut microbiota axis in pancreatic cancer: a new perspective on tumor pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.Mol Med.2025; 31: 103.
50.
Khan ZA,Sobkowiak MJ,Ghorbani M,Poojabahen T,Al-Manei K,Halimi A, et al.Survival mechanism of pancreatic tumor bacteria and their ability to metabolize chemotherapy drugs.Microbiol Spectr.2025; 13: e0182025.
51.
Nejman D,Livyatan I,Fuks G,Gavert N,Zwang Y,Geller LT, et al.The human tumor microbiome is composed of tumor type-specific intracellular bacteria.Science.2020; 368: 973–80.
52.
Dougherty MW,Jobin C.Intestinal bacteria and colorectal cancer: etiology and treatment.Gut Microbes.2023; 15: 2185028.
53.
Pardo CP,Gonzalez RC,Pinto MES,Galiana A.Chapter 3 – Streptococcus gallolyticus and its implication in colorectal cancer.In:Floch MHColorectal Neoplasia and the Colorectal Microbiome.London, UK: Academic Press; 2020: 35–55.
54.
Ye C,Dong C,Lin Y,Shi H,Zhou W.Interplay between the human microbiome and biliary tract cancer: implications for pathogenesis and therapy.Microorganisms.2023; 11: 2598.
55.
Zigmond E,Zecher BF,Bartels AL,Ziv-Baran T,Rösch T,Schachschal G, et al.Bile duct colonization with Enterococcus sp. associates with disease progression in primary sclerosing cholangitis.Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol.2023; 21: 1223–32.e3.
56.
Meng Y,Deng J,Deng W,Sun Z.Intra-tumoral bacteria in head and neck cancer: holistic integrative insight.Cancer Biol Med.2025; 22: 113–36.
57.
Maathuis PG,Neut D,Busscher HJ,van der Mei HC,van Horn JR.Perioperative contamination in primary total hip arthroplasty.Clin Orthop Relat Res.2005; 433: 136–9.
58.
Azzopardi EA,Ferguson EL,Thomas DW.The enhanced permeability retention effect: a new paradigm for drug targeting in infection.J Antimicrob Chemother.2013; 68: 257–74.
59.
Park J,Choi Y,Chang H,Um W,Ryu JH,Kwon IC.Alliance with EPR effect: combined strategies to improve the EPR effect in the tumor microenvironment.Theranostics.2019; 9: 8073–90.
60.
Fang J,Islam W,Maeda H.Exploiting the dynamics of the EPR effect and strategies to improve the therapeutic effects of nanomedicines by using EPR effect enhancers.Adv Drug Deliver Rev.2020; 157: 142–60.
61.
Peterson BW,He Y,Ren Y,Zerdoum A,Libera MR,Sharma PK, et al.Viscoelasticity of biofilms and their recalcitrance to mechanical and chemical challenges.FEMS Microbiol Rev.2015; 39: 234–45.
62.
Flemming HC,van Hullebusch ED,Neu TR,Nielsen PH,Seviour T,Stoodley P, et al.The biofilm matrix: multitasking in a shared space.Nat Rev Microbiol.2023; 21: 70–86.
63.
Wang Q,Liang Q,Dou J,Zhou H,Zeng C,Pan H, et al.Breaking through the basement membrane barrier to improve nanotherapeutic delivery to tumours.Nat Nanotechnol.2024; 19: 95–105.
64.
Zheng DW,Deng WW,Song WF,Wu CC,Liu J,Hong S, et al.Biomaterial-mediated modulation of oral microbiota synergizes with PD-1 blockade in mice with oral squamous cell carcinoma.Nat Biomed Eng.2022; 6: 32–43.
65.
Chen QW,Qiao JY,Liu XH,Zhang C,Zhang XZ.Customized materials-assisted microorganisms in tumor therapeutics.Chem Soc Rev.2021; 50: 12576–615.
66.
Wang DY,Cao Y,Yang G,Zhang S,van der Mei HC,Ren Y, et al.Self-targeted co-delivery of an antibiotic and a cancer-chemotherapeutic from synthetic liposomes for the treatment of infected tumors.Adv Funct Mater.2023; 33: 2215153.
67.
Reid G,Younes JA,Van der Mei HC,Gloor GB,Knight R,Busscher HJ.Microbiota restoration: natural and supplemented recovery of human microbial communities.Nat Rev Microbiol.2011; 9: 27–38.
68.
Roy B,Cao K,Singh CO,Fang X,Yang H,Wei D.Advances in gut microbiota-related treatment strategies for managing colorectal cancer in humans.Cancer Biol Med.2025; 22: 93–112.
69.
Arciola CR,Campoccia D,Montanaro L.Implant infections: adhesion, biofilm formation and immune evasion.Nat Rev Microbiol.2018; 16: 397–409.
70.
Llor C,Benkő R,Bjerrum L.Global restriction of the over-the-counter sale of antimicrobials: does it make sense?Front Pub Health.2024; 12: 1412644.
71.
Geller LT,Barzily-Rokni M,Danino T,Jonas OH,Shental N,Nejman D, et al.Potential role of intratumor bacteria in mediating tumor resistance to the chemotherapeutic drug gemcitabine.Science.2017; 357: 1156–60.
72.
Dejea CM,Fathi P,Craig JM,Boleij A,Taddese R,Geis AL, et al.Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis harbor colonic biofilms containing tumorigenic bacteria.Science.2018; 359: 592–7.
73.
Dejea CM,Wick EC,Hechenbleikner EM,White JR,Mark Welch JL,Rossetti BJ, et al.Microbiota organization is a distinct feature of proximal colorectal cancers.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2014; 111: 18321–6.
74.
Ahmadi H,Heydari M,Abdouss M,Jamalpoor Z,Fathi-karkan S,Rahdar A, et al.Metronidazole delivery strategies: optimizing cancer therapy through novel approaches for enhanced delivery, cytotoxicity, and side effect reduction.Eur J Med Chem Rep.2024; 12: 100202.
75.
Lammers T.Smart drug delivery systems: back to the future vs. clinical reality.Int J Pharm.2013; 454: 527–9.
76.
Murad MH,Asi N,Alsawas M,Alahdab F.New evidence pyramid.Evid Based Med.2016; 21: 125–7.
Appendix
Less
Year 2026 volume 23 Issue 4
PDF
4
2
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0748
  • Receive Date：2025-11-28
  • Online Date：2026-11-07
  • Published：2026-04-15
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received：2025-11-28
  • Accepted：2026-03-16
Funding
D.Y.W. acknowledges financial support from the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2022YFA1205700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 52503184 and 52293383), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 2023T004TJ and 2024M751517), and the Tianjin Key Projects of Public Health Science and Technology Major Projects (Grant No. 24ZXGZSY00100). D.W.G. acknowledges support from the Ole and Marty Jensen Endowed Chair (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA).
Affiliations
    1Key Laboratory of Functional Polymer Materials of Ministry of Education, Institute of Polymer Chemistry, State Key Laboratory of Medicinal Chemical Biology, Frontiers Science Center for New Organic Matter, College of Chemistry, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China
    2Departments of Biomedical Engineering and of Molecular Pharmaceutics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-5820, USA
    3Cancer Molecular Diagnostics Core, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, State Key Laboratory of Druggability Evaluation and Systematic Translational Medicine, Tianjin’s Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin 300060, China

Corresponding:

Correspondence to: Da-Yuan Wang, E-mail
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/cbm/EN/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2025.0748
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family		 属数
Number of
genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)		 属
Genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT
Links
Articles
Latest Articles
Most Read
Collections
Updates
Events
News
Multimedia
About
About Us
Contact
No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing
100081
010-62662699(Operation and Technical Support)
qkjq@cast.org.cn

Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House