Nanomaterials at the Immunological Frontier: Precision Treatment for Cancer and Inflammatory Disease

How nanomaterials can reshape drug exposure, immune signalling and tissue targeting—and why scientific discipline matters as much as nanoscale ingenuity.

Cancer and chronic inflammatory diseases are often discussed as separate therapeutic worlds. One is defined by uncontrolled cell growth; the other by immune activity that fails to resolve. Yet at the level of tissue biology, the two share a striking amount of terrain: abnormal blood vessels, activated macrophages, oxidative stress, dysregulated cytokines, altered extracellular matrices and signalling networks such as NF-κB.

This overlap helps explain why nanomaterials are attracting attention across both fields. A well-designed nanosystem can do more than carry a drug. It can change where that drug travels, how long it circulates, which cells encounter it and when its payload becomes available. Some platforms can also interact with the biological environment in their own right—scavenging reactive species, responding to pH or enzymes, or influencing innate immune cells.

The promise is substantial, but it should be stated precisely. Nanomedicine is not a universal solution, and “nano” is not itself evidence of therapeutic superiority. Several nanoformulated cancer medicines are already established in clinical practice. By contrast, many actively targeted, immune-reprogramming and inflammation-responsive systems remain preclinical or early-stage clinical technologies. The decisive question is therefore not whether a material is nanoscale. It is whether the complete formulation produces a reproducible clinical advantage over the best existing treatment.

Clinical reality check: Approved nanoformulations prove that nanomedicine can reach patients. They do not prove that every sophisticated laboratory nanoparticle will translate—or that tumour and inflammatory-tissue targeting is uniform across patients.

What changes when a medicine becomes a nanomedicine?

Many therapeutic nanomaterials fall within tens to a few hundred nanometres and include liposomes, lipid nanoparticles, polymeric particles, protein-based particles, dendrimers, inorganic nanostructures and hybrid or biomimetic systems. Their value comes from the way size, shape, surface chemistry, charge, stiffness and degradability combine to influence biological behaviour.

Encapsulation or surface conjugation can:

• protect fragile cargos such as RNA, peptides or proteins;
• improve the apparent solubility of poorly soluble molecules;
• alter pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution;
• reduce exposure of vulnerable healthy tissues;
• enable co-delivery of agents that act through complementary mechanisms; and
• release a payload in response to local conditions such as acidity, enzymes, redox state or oxidative stress.

This is already clinically tangible in oncology. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (DOXIL), albumin-bound paclitaxel particles (ABRAXANE) and liposomal irinotecan (ONIVYDE) are regulated medicines with nanoscale formulation architectures [1–3]. Their indications, dosing and toxicities differ, but together they establish a crucial principle: the carrier is not decorative packaging. It is part of the medicine’s pharmacology.

Cancer: delivery is only the first layer

From passive accumulation to patient-specific transport

The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) concept emerged from the observation that macromolecules could accumulate in experimental tumours because of abnormal vasculature and impaired clearance [4]. Radiolabelled pegylated liposomes later demonstrated tumour localisation in patients with locally advanced cancers, although uptake varied substantially among and within tumour types [5].

That variability matters. Tumours differ in perfusion, endothelial transport, stromal density, interstitial pressure, lymphatic function and immune-cell composition. A 2020 experimental study challenged the simple picture of nanoparticles leaking mainly through gaps between endothelial cells: in the models examined, up to 97% of nanoparticle entry occurred through active trans-endothelial processes [6]. This does not erase the broader EPR framework; it shows that transport is more biologically active and heterogeneous than a single “leaky vessel” explanation suggests.

The practical consequence is a shift from asking, “Does this particle accumulate in tumours?” to asking:

1. Which tumour and vascular phenotypes admit it?
2. Which cell populations capture it?
3. Does the intact carrier arrive, or only the released payload?
4. Is the delivered concentration sufficient to change outcome?

These are questions for quantitative imaging, spatial biology, pharmacokinetics and clinically relevant models—not assumptions that can be settled by particle size alone.

Macrophages as targets, barriers and therapeutic partners

Tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs) illustrate the double-edged nature of nano–bio interactions. Phagocytic cells can remove particles from circulation, limiting access to tumour cells. Inside a tumour, however, the same avid uptake may be harnessed. In a mouse tumour study, TAMs accumulated a polymeric nanoparticle carrying a platinum(IV) prodrug and acted as local depots, gradually releasing active payload to neighbouring tumour cells [7].

An even more ambitious strategy is to change macrophage function itself. Macrophage states exist on a continuum, but the M1/M2 shorthand remains useful when applied carefully: inflammatory, tumouricidal features are often associated with M1-like programmes, whereas immunosuppressive and tissue-remodelling features are frequently associated with M2-like TAM programmes.

In our 2025 study, resveratrol-functionalised palladium nanoparticles produced by green nanotechnology were evaluated in prostate cancer models [8]. The selected formulation had a 24 ± 3 nm metal core and a resveratrol-rich surface corona. Experiments reported tumour-cell selectivity, modulation of NF-κB signalling, changes consistent with re-education of M2-like macrophages toward an antitumour M1-like phenotype, and therapeutic activity in prostate tumour-bearing SCID mice. These findings are preclinical—not evidence of an approved human treatment—but they demonstrate a broader design principle: a nanomaterial may be engineered simultaneously as a targeted carrier, a therapeutic surface and an immunomodulatory interface.

Combination without indiscriminate exposure

Cancer rarely depends on one pathway. Nanosystems can place chemotherapy, nucleic acids, immune agonists, radiosensitisers or imaging agents in the same architecture. Co-delivery may synchronise exposure and concentrate interacting mechanisms at the disease site. It can also fail if release rates are mismatched, one cargo destabilises another, or the carrier accumulates in the wrong cell population.

The most credible future is therefore not maximal complexity. It is purposeful complexity: every component should solve a defined pharmacological problem and justify the manufacturing and safety burden it adds.

Inflammatory disease: precision means restoring control

In cancer, treatment may seek to stimulate antitumour immunity. In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), atherosclerosis and neuroinflammatory injury, the aim is usually to suppress damaging signals or restore immune balance without causing broad immunosuppression. Nanomaterials offer several routes to that goal.

Targeting inflammatory cells and tissues

Inflamed tissues recruit monocytes and macrophages, alter vascular adhesion and permeability, and often develop acidic, enzyme-rich or oxidising microenvironments. These features can be used as biological addresses.

In a mouse model of systemic arthritis, a lipidoid–polymer hybrid nanoparticle delivered siRNA against IL-1β to macrophages in arthritic joints. The treatment reduced inflammatory mediators, ankle swelling, bone erosion and cartilage damage [9]. This is a strong mechanistic result, but it remains an animal study; dose, durability, immunogenicity and human disease heterogeneity still require clinical evaluation.

Human evidence is beginning to provide a more discriminating picture. In a randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial involving 150 patients with active RA, intravenous pegylated liposomal prednisolone produced better week-one EULAR responses than equipotent intramuscular methylprednisolone, with broadly comparable adverse-event patterns, although infusion hypersensitivity reactions were more frequent in the liposomal groups [10]. A separate phase I study in 17 ACPA-positive patients found that DEN-181—liposomes containing a collagen-II self-peptide and calcitriol—was well tolerated and generated signals consistent with antigen-specific immune modulation [11]. These studies are encouraging, but they answer different questions: one tests improved delivery of a familiar anti-inflammatory drug; the other explores immune tolerance at an early clinical stage.

Local treatment of the inflamed gut

IBD is especially suited to local delivery because orally administered materials can be designed to survive the upper gastrointestinal tract and interact preferentially with the inflamed colon. In mouse colitis models, edible ginger-derived nanoparticles were taken up by intestinal epithelial cells and macrophages and were associated with reduced inflammatory cytokines and improved tissue repair [12]. Another experimental platform used biodegradable organosilica nanoparticles as a “dual scavenger” for cell-free DNA and reactive oxygen species, reducing inflammation in mouse models of ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease [13].

These approaches are intriguing because the material is not merely transporting a conventional drug. It is participating in the therapeutic mechanism. Yet neither result should be presented as established IBD care: both are preclinical demonstrations.

A cautionary human result that the field should value

Successful targeting does not guarantee successful treatment. In human atherosclerosis studies, long-circulating liposomal prednisolone reached macrophages isolated from plaques and markedly prolonged prednisolone exposure, but it did not reduce arterial-wall inflammation on multimodal imaging [14].

This negative efficacy result is scientifically valuable. It separates three questions that are too often blended together:

• Did the nanomaterial reach the intended tissue?
• Did it enter the intended cell?
• Did modulating that cell with that payload improve the disease?

A platform can succeed at the first two and fail at the third. Translation improves when that distinction is treated as knowledge rather than disappointment.

The shared therapeutic frontier: immune microenvironments

Cancer and inflammatory disease demand different clinical outcomes, but both are shaped by immune microenvironments. Macrophages, dendritic cells, endothelial cells and fibroblasts exchange cytokines, metabolites and extracellular-matrix signals that determine whether tissue sustains inflammation, repairs itself or supports tumour growth.

Nanomaterials can intervene at several levels:

• Payload delivery: concentrating a small molecule, protein or nucleic acid in a relevant cell population.
• Signal interruption: silencing mediators such as IL-1β or NF-κB pathway components.
• Phenotype modulation: shifting macrophage behaviour toward antitumour activity or inflammatory resolution, depending on disease context.
• Microenvironment response: releasing or activating treatment under acidic, enzymatic, redox or oxidative conditions.
• Theranostics: combining imaging and therapy so that delivery can be measured rather than presumed.

The last point may be transformative. If an imaging companion can identify patients whose lesions actually accumulate a formulation, nanomedicine trials can move from population averages toward biologically informed selection.

Why promising particles still fail

The journey from an elegant nanoparticle to a dependable medicine is demanding because the product changes as soon as it encounters biology.

The biological identity can replace the engineered identity

Proteins and other biomolecules rapidly adsorb to many nanoparticle surfaces, forming a corona that influences recognition, clearance and cellular uptake [15]. In one experimental study, a protein corona masked transferrin ligands and eliminated their intended receptor-targeting specificity [16]. A targeting ligand that works in buffer or simple cell culture may therefore behave differently in blood, mucus or inflamed tissue.

Disease models can exaggerate uniformity

Fast-growing xenografts, acute colitis models and induced arthritis models are useful, but they do not reproduce the full diversity, chronicity and treatment history of human disease. Strong animal efficacy must be followed by studies that address biological sex, age, comorbidities, repeated dosing, background medication and interpatient variation.

Manufacturing is part of the mechanism

Particle size distribution, surface chemistry, cargo loading, residual reagents, sterility, storage and release kinetics must remain controlled from batch to batch. A formulation that cannot be manufactured reproducibly cannot deliver reproducible biology. Green synthesis can reduce hazardous reagents and simplify certain processes, but “green” does not remove the need for rigorous physicochemical characterisation, toxicology and quality control.

Immune compatibility cannot be assumed

The immune system is both a therapeutic target and a safety sensor. Complement activation, infusion reactions, anti-carrier antibodies, off-target phagocyte uptake and long-term tissue persistence can all alter the risk–benefit balance. Biodegradability and renal or hepatobiliary clearance must be designed and measured, not inferred from short-term cell viability.

What responsible progress looks like

The next generation of nanomedicine will be defined less by novelty of materials than by quality of translation. Five priorities stand out:

1. Design backward from a clinical problem. Begin with an unmet pharmacological need—poor solubility, dose-limiting exposure, an inaccessible cell population or an unstable cargo.
2. Measure delivery at multiple scales. Quantify blood pharmacokinetics, tissue accumulation, cell-specific uptake, payload release and pharmacodynamic response.
3. Use models that reflect human architecture. Patient-derived organoids, tumoroids, immune-competent models and spatial analysis can expose delivery barriers hidden in two-dimensional culture.
4. Build safety and manufacturability early. The final formulation, process controls and repeat-dose behaviour should not be late-stage afterthoughts.
5. Report negative results clearly. Knowing that a carrier reached its target but failed to change disease may be more informative than another unqualified statement of “successful targeting.”

The perspective

Nanomaterials are already changing medicine, but their most important contribution is not miniaturisation. It is control: control over exposure, timing, cellular interaction and, potentially, immune behaviour.

In cancer, the frontier is moving from passive accumulation toward measurable, cell-aware delivery and immunomodulation. In inflammatory disease, it is moving from systemic suppression toward local resolution and antigen-specific tolerance. Across both fields, macrophages are emerging not simply as cells to avoid or eliminate, but as biological decision-makers that can capture, redistribute and respond to nanoscale therapeutics.

The field should be ambitious without becoming imprecise. Approved formulations show what is possible. Carefully designed clinical studies show where promise becomes evidence. Negative trials reveal where delivery alone is insufficient. And rigorous preclinical work—including green, immunomodulatory and patient-relevant platforms—helps define the next questions worth taking into humans.

That is the real opportunity of nanomaterials: not a smaller medicine, but a more intelligently engineered relationship between a therapy and the living system it is intended to heal.

---

References

1. U.S. National Library of Medicine. DOXIL (doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome injection): Prescribing Information. DailyMed; revised 2026. Official label.
2. U.S. National Library of Medicine. ABRAXANE (paclitaxel protein-bound particles for injectable suspension): Prescribing Information. DailyMed. Official label.
3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves irinotecan liposome for first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. 2024. FDA approval notice.
4. Matsumura Y, Maeda H. A new concept for macromolecular therapeutics in cancer chemotherapy: mechanism of tumoritropic accumulation of proteins and the antitumor agent SMANCS. Cancer Research. 1986;46(12 Pt 1):6387–6392. PubMed PMID: 2946403.
5. Harrington KJ, Mohammadtaghi S, Uster PS, et al. Effective targeting of solid tumors in patients with locally advanced cancers by radiolabeled pegylated liposomes. Clinical Cancer Research. 2001;7(2):243–254. PubMed PMID: 11234875.
6. Sindhwani S, Syed AM, Ngai J, et al. The entry of nanoparticles into solid tumours. Nature Materials. 2020;19:566–575. doi:10.1038/s41563-019-0566-2.
7. Miller MA, Zheng Y-R, Gadde S, et al. Tumour-associated macrophages act as a slow-release reservoir of nano-therapeutic Pt(IV) pro-drug. Nature Communications. 2015;6:8692. doi:10.1038/ncomms9692.
8. Thipe VC, Raphael Karikachery A, Katti K, Katti KV. Immunomodulatory and tumor-targeting palladium nanoparticles functionalized with resveratrol via green nanotechnology: synthesis, mechanisms, and in vivo therapeutic evaluation. Journal of Materials Chemistry B. 2025;13:8683–8704. doi:10.1039/D5TB00620A.
9. Song P, Yang C, Thomsen JS, et al. Lipidoid-siRNA nanoparticle-mediated IL-1β gene silencing for systemic arthritis therapy in a mouse model. Molecular Therapy. 2019;27(8):1424–1435. doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.05.002.
10. Metselaar JM, Middelink LM, Wortel CH, et al. Intravenous pegylated liposomal prednisolone outperforms intramuscular methylprednisolone in treating rheumatoid arthritis flares: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Journal of Controlled Release. 2022;341:548–554. doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.12.007.
11. Sonigra A, Nel HJ, Wehr P, et al. Randomized phase I trial of antigen-specific tolerizing immunotherapy with peptide/calcitriol liposomes in ACPA-positive rheumatoid arthritis. JCI Insight. 2022;7(20):e160964. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.160964.
12. Zhang M, Viennois E, Prasad M, et al. Edible ginger-derived nanoparticles: a novel therapeutic approach for the prevention and treatment of inflammatory bowel disease and colitis-associated cancer. Biomaterials. 2016;101:321–340. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.018.
13. Shi C, Dawulieti J, Shi F, et al. A nanoparticulate dual scavenger for targeted therapy of inflammatory bowel disease. Science Advances. 2022;8(4):eabj2372. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj2372.
14. van der Valk FM, van Wijk DF, Lobatto ME, et al. Prednisolone-containing liposomes accumulate in human atherosclerotic macrophages upon intravenous administration. Nanomedicine. 2015;11(5):1039–1046. doi:10.1016/j.nano.2015.02.021.
15. Monopoli MP, Åberg C, Salvati A, Dawson KA. Biomolecular coronas provide the biological identity of nanosized materials. Nature Nanotechnology. 2012;7:779–786. doi:10.1038/nnano.2012.207.
16. Salvati A, Pitek AS, Monopoli MP, et al. Transferrin-functionalized nanoparticles lose their targeting capabilities when a biomolecule corona adsorbs on the surface. Nature Nanotechnology. 2013;8:137–143. doi:10.1038/nnano.2012.237.

Scientific note: This article is an educational research perspective, not medical advice. It distinguishes approved products and human trials from experimental animal or cell studies. Patients should make treatment decisions with qualified healthcare professionals.