Nanomaterial (NM) delivery to solid tumors has been the focus of intense research for over a decade. Classically, scientists have tried to improve NM delivery by employing passive or active targeting strategies, making use of the so-called enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect. This phenomenon is made possible due to the leaky tumor vasculature through which NMs can leave the bloodstream, traverse through the gaps in the endothelial lining of the vessels, and enter the tumor. Recent studies have shown that despite many efforts to employ the EPR effect, this process remains very poor. Furthermore, the role of the EPR effect has been called into question, where it has been suggested that NMs enter the tumor via active mechanisms and not through the endothelial gaps. In this review, we provide a short overview of the EPR and mechanisms to enhance it, after which we focus on alternative delivery strategies that do not solely rely on EPR in itself but can offer interesting pharmacological, physical, and biological solutions for enhanced delivery. We discuss the strengths and shortcomings of these different strategies and suggest combinatorial approaches as the ideal path forward.

The development of novel nanomaterials with unique physico-chemical properties is increasing at a rapid rate, with potential applications across a broad range of manufacturing industries and consumer products. Nanomaterial safety is therefore becoming an increasingly contentious issue that has intensified over the past 4 years, and in response, a steady stream of studies focusing on nanotoxicology are emerging. However, it is becoming increasingly evident that nanomaterials cannot be treated in the same manner as chemical compounds with regards to their safety assessment, as their unique physico-chemical properties are also responsible for unexpected interactions with experimental components that generate misleading data-sets. In this report, we focus on nanomaterial interactions with colorimetric and fluorometric dyes, components of cell culture growth medium and genotoxicity assay components, and the resultant consequences on test systems are demonstrated. Thus, highlighting some of the potential confounding factors that need to be considered in order to ensure that in vitro genotoxicity assays report true biological impacts in response to nanomaterial exposure.