Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model
-
Upload
nils-persson -
Category
Science
-
view
234 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model
![Page 1: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Paper CritiqueCationic Nanoparticles Have Superior Transvascular Flux into Solid
Tumors: Insights from a Mathematical Model
T. Stylianopoulos, K. Soteriou, D. Fukumura, R. Jain
Presented by: Nils Persson
![Page 2: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Challenge
• Deliver nanoparticles into the tumor interstitium uniformly and selectively
• Resistances to this goal:– Flow through capillaries– Flow through capillary pores– Diffusion through interstitium– Drainage to normal tissue
![Page 3: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Structure of the Model
Capillary – Hagen Poiseuille flowConvection only
PoresHindered
stokesflow
TumorPorous flow and diffusion
No drainageNormal tissueP = 0
DiffusionConvection
Grid 1
Grid 2
![Page 4: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Structure of the Model
Capillary – Hagen Poiseuille flowConvection only
TumorPorous flow and diffusion
No drainageNormal tissueP = 0
DiffusionConvection
Grid 1
Grid 2
PoresHindered
stokesflow
![Page 5: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Structure of the Model
Capillary – Hagen Poiseuille flowConvection only
TumorPorous flow and diffusion
No drainageNormal tissueP = 0
DiffusionConvection
Grid 1
Grid 2
Effect of charge,Ionic strength,Pore size
PoresHindered
stokesflow
![Page 6: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Two steps: Pressure, then Concentration
• Steady state pressure profile
![Page 7: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Capillary – Hagen Poiseuille flowConvection only
TumorPorous flow and diffusion
No drainageNormal tissueP = 0
DiffusionConvection
Grid 1
Grid 2
Two steps: Pressure, then Concentration
PoresHindered
stokesflow
![Page 8: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Two steps: Pressure, then Concentration
• RK4 time stepping with centered finite differences to solve C(r,t)– Not reported, most interesting result
• Figure of merit: Vascular permeability or transvascular flux, Peff
– Similar to a mass transfer coefficient into tumor:
Averaged concentration, C
![Page 9: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Representative Results
Fluid in tumor stagnatesPore diameter is too restrictive
Peff
![Page 10: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Critiques• Blood viscosity/compressibility• Capillary Compliance• Dilute particle assumption• Concentration BCs unspecified and unrealistic• Transvascular flux is over-fit• Deen’s theory is shaky for attractive charges• Centerline approximation invalid for attractive charges• “lacking information” on glycocalyx charge, the crux of the entire
paper• Neglected axial diffusion even in areas of zero flow• 2-dimensional percolation network was unnecessary to obtain results• Lead author did not apply results of a previous modeling study
![Page 11: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Critiques• Blood viscosity/compressibility• Capillary Compliance• Dilute particle assumption• Concentration BCs unspecified and unrealistic• Transvascular flux is over-fit• Deen’s theory is shaky for attractive charges• Centerline approximation invalid for attractive charges• “lacking information” on glycocalyx charge, the crux of the entire
paper• Neglected axial diffusion even in areas of zero flow• 2-dimensional percolation network was unnecessary to obtain results• Lead author did not apply results of a previous modeling study
![Page 12: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Blood Flow
• Modeled with Hagen-Poiseuille equation– Assumes laminar flow, smooth pipe, constant density and viscosity
(3 mmHg-s = 4 mPa-s)
• Properties of blood:– Viscoelastic: erythrocyte deformability and aggregation– Shear thinning– Viscosity varies with hematocrit level
• Plasma:– Newtonian– µ = 1.2 mPa-s (water = 0.65 mPa-s @ 37 °C)
![Page 13: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Dilute Particle Assumption
• Deen’s theory assumes no solute-solute interactions (continuous solvent)
• Nanoparticles are in pores with plasma, concentration of albumin (~10 nm) is about 0.5 wt%
• Deen predicts ~10% higher partitioning into pores at this concentration
![Page 14: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Where does Deen’s theory break down?
• “Only for attractive interactions (E<0) is there likely to be a problem.” – Deen, 1987
• Hindrance integrals blow up
![Page 15: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
The Centerline Approximation
• Says that hindrance coefficients are those of r=0– Very good for repulsive charges– Very bad for attractive charges
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
Deen, 1987
![Page 16: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
The glycocalyx – source of charge• Layer of carbohydrates on
inner wall of capillary– But, in pores?
• Negatively charged, ~-0.022 C/m21
-used -0.05 C/m2
• 0.5 µm thick – too thick for capillary pores
• Acts as molecular sieve and shear stress transducer
1Donath et al., 1996, image Reitsma et al., 2007
![Page 17: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Previous Studies
• Campbell and Jain et al., 2002– Tumor uptake not affected by charge, however,
accumulation in tumor vessels doubled for cationic particles
• Stylianopoulos, et al., 2010– Positive charge hinders
diffusion in the interstitium– Not applied to this model
![Page 18: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Conclusions
• Very powerful model used to study known charge phenomena– Many bad approximations, missing data
• Much greater insight is provided on the transport phenomena and pore size distributions
• Slight modifications could yield very realistic results
![Page 19: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Dimensionless Quantities, 400nm pores, 60nm particles
DiffusionConvection
Grid 1
Grid 2
D ~ 10-13 m2/s= 10-9 cm2/s
V:4E-5 m/sPe,r = 9Pe,L = 220Re = 4E-6∆P = 1.25 mmHg
V:2.5E-4 m/sPe,r = 53Pe,L = 1300Re = 2.5E-5∆P = 7.5 mmHg
5µm
15µm
V:2.3E-4 m/sPe,L = 2.3E6Re = 8.6E-4∆P = 20 mmHg (max)
V:2E-6 cm/sPe,L = 100Re << 1∆P = 1.25 mmHg“L” = 0.5cm
Assumes Ac is void surface area
V:2.4E-5 cm/sPe,L = 600Re << 1∆P = 7.5 mmHg“L” = 0.25cm
![Page 20: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Reynolds Number in Pores… <<1∆P = 0.05 = 1.25 mmHg ∆P = 0.3 = 7.5 mmHg
166.6 Pa 999.7 PaR (nm) R (m) v (m/s) Re v (m/s) Re
10 1.00E-08 1.0E-07 5.2E-10 6.2E-07 3.1E-0950 5.00E-08 2.6E-06 6.5E-08 1.6E-05 3.9E-07
100 1.00E-07 1.0E-05 5.2E-07 6.2E-05 3.1E-06150 1.50E-07 2.3E-05 1.8E-06 1.4E-04 1.1E-05200 2.00E-07 4.2E-05 4.2E-06 2.5E-04 2.5E-05250 2.50E-07 6.5E-05 8.1E-06 3.9E-04 4.9E-05300 3.00E-07 9.4E-05 1.4E-05 5.6E-04 8.4E-05350 3.50E-07 1.3E-04 2.2E-05 7.7E-04 1.3E-04400 4.00E-07 1.7E-04 3.3E-05 1.0E-03 2.0E-04450 4.50E-07 2.1E-04 4.7E-05 1.3E-03 2.8E-04500 5.00E-07 2.6E-04 6.5E-05 1.6E-03 3.9E-04
![Page 21: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Peclet Numbers in Pores… >>1
∆P = 1.25 mmHg ∆P = 7.5 mmHg166.61 Pa 999.67 Pa
R (nm) R (m) v (m/s) D(m^2/s) Pe, r Pe,L v (m/s) D(m^2/s) Pe, r Pe,L10 1.00E-08 1.0E-07 1.89E-11 5.5E-05 2.8E-02 6.2E-07 1.89E-11 3.3E-04 1.7E-0150 5.00E-08 2.6E-06 3.78E-12 3.4E-02 3.4E+00 1.6E-05 3.78E-12 2.1E-01 2.1E+01
100 1.00E-07 1.0E-05 1.89E-12 5.5E-01 2.8E+01 6.2E-05 1.89E-12 3.3E+00 1.7E+02150 1.50E-07 2.3E-05 1.26E-12 2.8E+00 9.3E+01 1.4E-04 1.26E-12 1.7E+01 5.6E+02200 2.00E-07 4.2E-05 9.46E-13 8.8E+00 2.2E+02 2.5E-04 9.46E-13 5.3E+01 1.3E+03250 2.50E-07 6.5E-05 7.57E-13 2.2E+01 4.3E+02 3.9E-04 7.57E-13 1.3E+02 2.6E+03300 3.00E-07 9.4E-05 6.30E-13 4.5E+01 7.4E+02 5.6E-04 6.30E-13 2.7E+02 4.5E+03350 3.50E-07 1.3E-04 5.40E-13 8.3E+01 1.2E+03 7.7E-04 5.40E-13 5.0E+02 7.1E+03400 4.00E-07 1.7E-04 4.73E-13 1.4E+02 1.8E+03 1.0E-03 4.73E-13 8.5E+02 1.1E+04450 4.50E-07 2.1E-04 4.20E-13 2.3E+02 2.5E+03 1.3E-03 4.20E-13 1.4E+03 1.5E+04500 5.00E-07 2.6E-04 3.78E-13 3.4E+02 3.4E+03 1.6E-03 3.78E-13 2.1E+03 2.1E+04
Assumes γ=0.3 (similar to paper)Assumes Stokes-Einstein diffusivityAssumes Hagen-Poiseuille velocity in pores
![Page 22: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Data
![Page 23: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Ionic Strength
• I (mol/kg) = ½ Σmizi2
– Seawater: 0.72 mol/kg– In paper: varied from 0 to 0.15M
• Debye length κ-1 ~ I-1/2
– 1 nm• ln γ ~ κ ~ I1/2
Increased concentration = decreased Debye length = lower potential
Debye LengthsI K-1 (m) e0 8.85E-12
0.005 4.38E-09 eR 780.01 3.10E-09 R 8.3140.06 1.26E-09 T 3100.15 7.99E-10 dS 1000
Na 6.02E+23e 1.60E-19
![Page 24: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
H and W for negative particles
Lambda = 0.3I = 0.15
3
![Page 25: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Flux of negatively charged particles
Q = -.05
Lambda = 0.3
Both 400nm/60nm
4
![Page 26: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
More negative charge fluxes
positive
NegativeI = .15
5
400nm/60nm
![Page 27: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Varying pore size
![Page 28: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Fitting the Vascular Permeability
• C(t) linear – why?
• They fit an exponential0
100200
300400
500600
700800
9001000
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
f(x) = 0.0002199202 x + 0.00040044141R² = 0.999948648166217
Time (sec)
Dim
ensi
onle
ss C
on-
cent
ratio
n
Source: Data Thief
Large Kd yields vastly simpler eqn.Kd ~ 80,000
![Page 29: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
No flowpredicted
![Page 30: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
No flow to the tumor
Wu et al. 2008
- Also predicted by a paper they cite
- Nanoparticles reach tumor’s edge, then spill out
- This paper also treats viscosity as a function of hematocrit
![Page 31: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Transport Properties of a Tumor
Chauhan et al. 2011
![Page 32: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
Starling’s Law
• Jv = Kf([Pc-Pi]-σ[πc-πi])• σ = reflection coef.– More likely varies with pore size– Human serum albumin: ~10nm in diameter
• Assumes Hagen-Poiseuille flow in pore• R = 200 nm, µ = 4 Pa-s, ∆P varies, L = 5 µm• ∆P is normalized to 25 mmHg
![Page 33: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Vascular Equations
Hagen - Poiseuille
Mass balance, missing transvascular loss
- ϕ
![Page 34: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Interstitial Equations
+ ϕTumor mass balane:
Pe ~ 800 in the interstitium
Transvascular“generation” term
Darcy’s Law, Ac = void surface area Ac = pi*d/Sv
![Page 35: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
Transvascular Equations
S = inner surface area of vessel
L = thickness of capillary wall
For steady state
R (nm) Lp (m^3/s/Pa/m^2) and in cm/mmHg v (m/s)10 1.88E-10 2.50E-06 6.25E-0750 4.69E-09 6.25E-05 1.56E-05
100 1.88E-08 2.50E-04 6.25E-05150 4.22E-08 5.62E-04 1.41E-04200 7.50E-08 1.00E-03 2.50E-04250 1.17E-07 1.56E-03 3.91E-04300 1.69E-07 2.25E-03 5.63E-04350 2.30E-07 3.06E-03 7.66E-04400 3.00E-07 4.00E-03 1.00E-03450 3.80E-07 5.06E-03 1.27E-03500 4.69E-07 6.25E-03 1.56E-03
![Page 36: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
Transvascular EquationsQt
FluxMass/time*area
Flowmass/time
W = convective hindranceH = diffusive hindrance
1-σ=WDerived from…
![Page 37: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Hindrance Factors
diffusive
convective pore
Centerline:Pull out K-1 and GAs constants
τ=κ
![Page 38: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Derivation of Partition Coefficients
Drag forceDiffusive force
• N = U*C• Poiseuille velocity profile• Average flux over pore area• Assume C(z,β) separable• Neglect Taylor dispersion• Radial Pe > 2• Axial Pe >29• Both are satisfied (See table)
![Page 39: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Runge-Kutta 4th Order
Industry standard, O(h5) error
![Page 40: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Transport through pores
• Assumptions:– low Re <1, Per>>1 (samples all radii)– dilute in fluid continuum (?)– significant radius relative to pore– no Taylor dispersion (Per>2, PeL>29)– fully developed flow
• Diffusion and hydrodynamic drag forces
Smith & Deen, 1982
![Page 41: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Length Scales
• RBC: D = 8 µm• Human serum albumin: 10 nm• Nanomedicines: 10 – 100 nm– In paper: 6 – 200 nm, usually 0.3*Dp
• Capillaries: 10 µm (15 µm in paper)• Vascular pores: 1-1000 nm– In paper: 400 nm average, distribution
![Page 42: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
Vascular Network
• 200x200 two-layer grid, each point is defined by the neighbors to which it connects
• Volumetric flow conserved through each point• Vasculature only exists at pre-defined points• Interstitium occupies all grid points inside radius
![Page 43: Critique of a nanoparticle cancer therapy model](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062513/556be28bd8b42ab2138b542d/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
Overview of Tumor Modeling
Wu et al. 2007