Point‐of‐care (PoC) and organ‐on‐chip (OoC) devices represent promising microfluidic applications for in vitro analysis and miniaturized analytical studies, reducing the need for traditional animal‐based tests for drug discovery and toxicity studies. Using thermoplastics in microfluidic device manufacturing provides interesting functionalities for expansion of these devices into market. However, market growth requires manufacturing large quantities for low cost, which can be achieved using injection molding techniques. This work involves the design of a microfluidic device with different aspect ratio channels to compare injection molding (IM) and injection‐compression molding (ICM) processes, as well as the design and manufacturing of a metallic insert containing machined inverted microstructures. Injected parts are validated visually, dimensionally, and functionally. The differences between both techniques and two grades of cyclic olefin copolymer materials are analyzed to evaluate microfluidic device mass production feasibility concluding that although the machining process for inverted high aspect ratio microstructures is not mature yet, both IM and ICM processes allow the mass manufacturing of microfluidic devices in thermoplastic. Parts processed by ICM show better replicability of microfluidic structures and less internal stresses generate during the injection process than IM parts, highlighting the potential of this process to achieve thermoplastic microfluidic devices to market.

Post-surgical chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer has notorious side effects due to the high dose required. Multiple devices have been designed to tackle this aspect and achieve a delayed drug release. This study aimed to explore the controlled and sustained local delivery of a reduced drug dose from an irinotecan-loaded electrospun nanofiber membrane (named TARTESSUS) that can be placed on the patients’ tissue after tumor resection surgery. The drug delivery system formulation was made of polycaprolactone (PCL). The mechanical properties and the release kinetics of the drug were adjusted by the electrospinning parameters and by the polymer ratio between 10 w.t.% and 14 w.t.% of PCL in formic acid:acetic acid:chloroform (47.5:47.5:5). The irinotecan release analysis was performed and three different release periods were obtained, depending on the concentration of the polymer in the dissolution. The TARTESSUS device was tested in 2D and 3D cell cultures and it demonstrated a decrease in cell viability in 2D culture between 72 h and day 7 from the start of treatment. In 3D culture, a decrease in viability was seen between 72 h, day 7 (p < 0.001), day 10 (p < 0.001), 14 (p < 0.001), and day 17 (p = 0.003) as well as a decrease in proliferation between 72 h and day 10 (p = 0.030) and a reduction in spheroid size during days 10 (p = 0.001), 14 (p < 0.001), and 17 (p < 0.001). In conclusion, TARTESSUS showed a successful encapsulation of a chemotherapeutic drug and a sustained and delayed release with an adjustable releasing period to optimize the therapeutic effect in pancreatic cancer treatment.