An Concern Research On Solar Keratosis

Solar keratoses develop as a consequence of cumulative ultraviolet radiation–induced damage to keratinocytes. UV exposure leads to oxidative stress, inflammatory responses, and genetic mutations that disrupt normal epidermal homeostasis. These pathological alterations predispose affected skin to malignant transformation. The concept of field cancerization has emerged as a cornerstone in understanding SK pathophysiology, recognizing that both visible lesions and surrounding apparently normal skin may harbor premalignant changes. This paradigm has significantly influenced current therapeutic strategies.

1. Background of the Study

Solar keratoses (SKs), also referred to as actinic or senile keratoses, are common premalignant epidermal lesions that arise as a consequence of chronic ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure. They predominantly affect sun-exposed areas of the skin such as the face, scalp, neck, forearms, and hands, particularly in elderly individuals with fair skin and in immunocompromised patients (Marks et al., 1988; Stockfleth et al., 2011). Clinically, SKs are regarded as an early stage in the continuum of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and are considered a reliable marker of cumulative photodamage and increased skin cancer risk.

Epidemiological studies indicate that SKs are among the most frequently diagnosed dermatological conditions worldwide, especially in aging populations and regions with high solar radiation. Although some SK lesions may regress spontaneously, many persist for years, and a significant proportion can progress to invasive SCC. Importantly, the risk of malignant transformation increases substantially in patients presenting with multiple lesions, and the majority of cutaneous SCCs are believed to originate from pre-existing SKs (Criscione et al., 2009; Stockfleth, 2015). The clinical importance of SKs as precancerous lesions has been recognized for over a century, with their association with SCC first described by Dubreuilh in 1826.

The pathogenesis of SKs is complex and multifactorial. Chronic UV radiation acts as a complete carcinogen, contributing to both initiation and promotion of carcinogenesis. UVB radiation induces direct DNA damage through the formation of cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers, while UVA radiation generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), leading to oxidative stress, inflammation, and immunosuppression (Ichihashi et al., 2003; Narayanan et al., 2010). These events result in mutations of tumor suppressor genes such as p53, impaired apoptosis, dysregulated keratinocyte proliferation, and gradual accumulation of genetic damage. Chronic inflammation, COX-2 overexpression, reduced immune surveillance, and tissue remodeling further promote lesion persistence and malignant progression (Buckman et al., 1998; Rundhaug & Fischer, 2010).

A key concept in SK management is field cancerization, which recognizes that UV-induced genetic alterations extend beyond clinically visible lesions into surrounding apparently normal skin. This explains the frequent occurrence of multiple lesions and high recurrence rates following lesion-only therapy (Slaughter et al., 1953; Stockfleth et al., 2011). Consequently, effective treatment strategies must address both visible SKs and the broader field of photodamaged skin.

2. Rationale of the Study

Current therapeutic options for SKs include lesion-directed approaches such as cryotherapy, curettage, and excision, as well as field-directed therapies including topical 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU), imiquimod, diclofenac gel, and photodynamic therapy (Stockfleth & Peris, 2018). Among these, topical 5-FU remains one of the most widely used and effective field therapies due to its ability to selectively destroy dysplastic keratinocytes by inhibiting thymidylate synthase and disrupting DNA synthesis (Krawtchenko et al., 2007).

Despite its proven efficacy, conventional topical 5-FU formulations suffer from several limitations, including poor skin penetration, rapid drug clearance from the application site, local irritation, erythema, ulceration, and the need for prolonged treatment duration, which often results in poor patient compliance (Jorizzo et al., 2004; Gupta et al., 2012). These drawbacks highlight the need for an advanced topical delivery system capable of enhancing drug localization, controlling release, and minimizing adverse effects.

Solid lipid nanoparticles (SLNs) have emerged as a promising lipid-based nanocarrier system for topical drug delivery. SLNs combine the advantages of biocompatibility, biodegradability, controlled drug release, improved stability, and enhanced skin penetration, while avoiding the toxicity concerns associated with polymeric nanoparticles (Mehnert & Mäder, 2001; Müller et al., 2002). The nanoscale size and lipidic nature of SLNs enable improved interaction with the stratum corneum, enhanced follicular penetration, and prolonged drug residence within the skin.

Incorporation of SLNs into a hydrogel matrix further improves topical performance by increasing formulation residence time, enhancing patient acceptability, and enabling sustained and localized drug release (Wissing et al., 2004). Therefore, loading 5-FU into SLNs and formulating them as a topical hydrogel represents a rational approach to overcome the limitations of conventional 5-FU therapy and to improve therapeutic outcomes in the management of solar keratoses.

3. Need for the Study

The increasing global burden of solar keratoses, their strong association with squamous cell carcinoma, and the absence of a universally accepted gold-standard therapy underscore the need for improved treatment strategies. Although topical 5-FU is clinically effective, its adverse effects and limited skin retention restrict its long-term and widespread use.

There is a clear need for a site-specific, sustained, and patient-friendly topical delivery system that can:

• Enhance skin penetration and local bioavailability of 5-FU
• Reduce dosing frequency and treatment duration
• Minimize local irritation and systemic exposure
• Improve patient compliance and therapeutic outcomes

Solid lipid nanoparticle-based hydrogels offer a promising solution to these challenges by combining nanotechnology with conventional topical dosage forms. Developing such a system aligns with current trends in novel drug delivery systems aimed at improving safety, efficacy, and patient quality of life.

4. Objectives of the Study

Primary Objective

• To formulate and evaluate a 5-Fluorouracil-loaded solid lipid nanoparticle (SLN) hydrogel for topical treatment of solar keratoses.

Secondary Objectives

• To develop and optimize 5-FU-loaded SLNs using suitable solid lipids and surfactants.
• To characterize SLNs for particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential, drug loading, and entrapment efficiency.
• To incorporate optimized SLNs into a hydrogel base suitable for topical application.
• To evaluate the physicochemical properties of the SLN hydrogel, including pH, viscosity, spreadability, and stability.
• To assess in-vitro drug release and skin permeation behavior of the formulation.
• To compare the performance of the SLN hydrogel with conventional 5-FU formulations.

The present work demonstrates that a 5-Fluorouracil-loaded solid lipid nanoparticle hydrogel represents a rational and effective approach for the topical management of solar keratoses. By combining the antineoplastic efficacy of 5-FU with the advantages of solid lipid nanocarriers and a hydrogel matrix, the developed system addresses the key limitations of conventional topical therapy, including poor skin penetration, rapid drug loss, and local toxicity.

The SLN hydrogel offers enhanced drug stability, sustained and localized release, improved skin retention, and the potential for reduced dosing frequency and improved patient compliance. This formulation strategy not only improves therapeutic efficacy in treating precancerous lesions but may also contribute to reducing the risk of progression to squamous cell carcinoma. Overall, the 5-FU SLN hydrogel represents a promising, patient-friendly, and clinically relevant topical delivery system for the effective management of solar keratoses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design

The present work is designed as a descriptive and analytical review-based study, integrating available clinical, pathological, and therapeutic evidence related to solar keratoses.

Selection Criteria

• Patients with clinically diagnosed solar keratoses
• Lesions localized to sun-exposed areas
• Inclusion of both immunocompetent and immunocompromised populations
• Evaluation of lesion-directed and field-directed treatment modalities

Therapeutic Modalities Evaluated

1. Lesion-Directed Therapies

These therapies target individual visible lesions and include:

• Cryotherapy
• Surgical excision
• Curettage and electrodessication

2. Field-Directed Therapies

These approaches address the entire area of chronically sun-damaged skin and include:

• Topical 5-fluorouracil
• Imiquimod
• Diclofenac sodium gel
• Ingenol mebutate
• Photodynamic therapy (PDT)

Evaluation Parameters

• Reduction in lesion count
• Clearance of subclinical lesions
• Improvement in skin texture and appearance
• Prevention of progression to SCC
• Patient tolerability and compliance

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

The results of the present investigation clearly demonstrate the successful development of a 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)–loaded solid lipid nanoparticle (SLN) hydrogel for effective topical drug delivery. Preformulation studies confirmed that 5-FU is a hydrophilic drug (Log P ≈ 0.998) with limited skin permeability, justifying the use of a lipid-based nanocarrier to enhance dermal penetration and retention.

Drug identification studies showed that the procured 5-FU complied with pharmacopeial standards in terms of appearance, melting point (≈ 283 °C), and solubility. FTIR and DSC analyses confirmed drug purity and revealed no chemical interaction between 5-FU and selected lipids or excipients, indicating good compatibility and formulation stability. Solubility studies across different pH conditions showed increased solubility at higher pH, while partition coefficient analysis further validated the hydrophilic nature of 5-FU, explaining its poor permeability from conventional topical formulations.

Validated UV spectrophotometric and HPLC analytical methods demonstrated excellent linearity (R² > 0.99), precision, accuracy, and sensitivity, enabling reliable estimation of drug content, entrapment efficiency, in-vitro release, and stability throughout formulation development.

Among various formulation techniques evaluated, cold high-pressure homogenization produced SLNs with smaller particle size, lower polydispersity index (PDI), and higher entrapment efficiency compared to solvent-based methods, while avoiding residual organic solvent toxicity. Optimization of lipid–lipid ratio identified Glycerol Monostearate and Glyceryl Behenate (Compritol 888 ATO) as the most suitable lipid combination. Further optimization of drug–lipid ratio, surfactant/co-surfactant concentration (Poloxamer 188 and Sodium Taurocholate), and cryoprotectant selection resulted in physically stable SLNs with nanoscale particle size and negative zeta potential values, indicating good colloidal stability.

Among all formulations, F16 emerged as the optimized SLN formulation, exhibiting acceptable particle size (~328 nm), narrow size distribution, sufficient negative zeta potential (~–49 mV), high entrapment efficiency (~78%), and superior drug loading. SEM and TEM images confirmed spherical, discrete nanoparticles with smooth surfaces, indicating efficient formulation and solvent removal.

In-vitro drug release studies showed sustained release of 5-FU from SLNs, with cumulative drug release approaching ~98% over 24 h. Release kinetic modeling revealed that the drug release followed zero-order kinetics (R² ≈ 0.985), indicating concentration-independent, diffusion-controlled release from the lipid matrix, which is highly desirable for topical therapy.

The optimized SLNs were successfully incorporated into chitosan- and Carbopol-based hydrogels, yielding formulations with suitable pH (6.0–7.0), viscosity, spreadability, gelling strength, and sol–gel transition temperature (~34 °C). Among all gel bases, CHGB3 (chitosan-based hydrogel) showed superior gelling capacity, spreadability, and drug content, and was selected for in-vivo evaluation.

In-vivo skin penetration studies using confocal laser scanning microscopy demonstrated significantly deeper penetration of 5-FU from the SLN hydrogel compared to conventional formulations, confirming the penetration-enhancing effect of SLNs. Acute and sub-acute dermal toxicity studies revealed no signs of irritation, systemic toxicity, or histopathological abnormalities, even at higher doses, confirming the biocompatibility and dermal safety of the formulation. Skin irritation studies further showed negligible irritation compared to sodium lauryl sulfate control.

Stability studies conducted under refrigeration, long-term, and accelerated conditions demonstrated acceptable physical and chemical stability of the SLN hydrogel, with minimal changes in particle size, PDI, zeta potential, and entrapment efficiency over time. These findings indicate good shelf stability and robustness of the lipid matrix in protecting the drug.

The analysis demonstrated that solar keratoses are strongly associated with chronic UV exposure and oxidative stress–mediated epidermal damage. Lesion-directed therapies were effective in rapidly clearing individual SK lesions but failed to address surrounding subclinical dysplasia. In contrast, field-directed therapies resulted in broader clearance of both clinical and preclinical lesions, supporting the concept of field cancerization.

Combination therapy, involving lesion-directed methods followed by field-directed treatment, showed superior outcomes in reducing recurrence rates and improving overall skin health. Variability in therapeutic response was observed depending on lesion burden, anatomical location, immune status, and patient adherence. No single treatment modality emerged as universally optimal for all patients.

Interpretation

Collectively, the results confirm that the 5-Fluorouracil-loaded SLN hydrogel effectively overcomes the limitations of conventional topical 5-FU therapy by improving skin penetration, sustaining drug release, reducing irritation, and ensuring formulation stability. The developed nano-enabled hydrogel represents a safe, stable, and patient-friendly topical delivery system with strong potential for the management of precancerous and cutaneous lesions.

DISCUSSION

The findings reinforce the multifactorial pathogenesis of solar keratoses, involving inflammation, oxidative stress, impaired apoptosis, immune dysregulation, and genetic mutations. The presence of human papillomavirus in certain cases suggests an additional contributory role in disease progression. Recognition of SKs as a manifestation of field cancerization underscores the limitation of treating only visible lesions and highlights the importance of comprehensive skin-directed therapies.

CONCLUSION

Solar keratoses represent a clinically significant precancerous condition with a well-documented potential to progress into squamous cell carcinoma. Their unpredictable biological behavior and strong association with cumulative UV damage necessitate early diagnosis and proactive management. Field cancerization provides a critical framework for understanding disease spread beyond clinically apparent lesions. While lesion-directed therapies remain useful for isolated SKs, field-directed treatments are essential for addressing widespread dysplastic changes. Combination therapy offers enhanced efficacy; however, individualized treatment planning remains paramount. The absence of a universal gold-standard therapy reflects the heterogeneity of SK presentation and patient-specific factors, reinforcing the need for personalized dermatological care.

REFERENCES

1. Shete, M. B., Patil, S. J., & Raut, P. D. (2023). Enhancement of in-vitro anti-oral cancer activities of silymarin using dispersion of nanostructured lipid carrier in mucoadhesive in-situ gel. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 636, Article 122860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2023.122860
2. Rugină, D., Socaciu, M. A., Nistor, M., Diaconeasa, Z., Cenariu, M., Tabaran, F. A., & Socaciu, C. (2024). Liposomal and nanostructured lipid nanoformulations of a pentacyclic triterpenoid birch bark extract: Structural characterization and in-vitro effects on melanoma B16-F10 and Walker 256 tumor cells apoptosis. Pharmaceuticals, 17(12), Article 1630. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph17121630
3. Biswasroy, P., Pradhan, D., Kumar Pradhan, D., Ghosh, G., & Rath, G. (2024). Development of betulin-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers for the management of imiquimod-induced psoriasis. AAPS PharmSciTech, 25(3), 57. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12249-024-02774-1
4. Mahdi, W. A., et al. (2025). Formulation and evaluation of a silymarin inclusion complex: Improving dissolution and anticancer activity. ACS Omega. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.4c09614
5. Jacob, S., et al. (2025). Solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers in anticancer research: A review. Pharmaceutics, 17(8), Article 1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics17081079
6. Panwar, P. (2025). Nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs): A comprehensive review of structure, formulation and applications. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Technology & Research, (Article 676). https://doi.org/10.22270/japtr.v0i0.676
7. Kumar, G. (2024). Transforming cancer treatment: The potential of lipid-based nanocarriers in localized therapy. Cancer Treatment Reviews. Article in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102581
8. Aggarwal, B. B., & Harikumar, K. B. (2009). Potential therapeutic effects of curcumin, the anti-inflammatory agent, against cancer, cardiovascular, pulmonary, metabolic, and neurological diseases. International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, 41(1), 40–59.
9. Babu, R. J., Sathigari, S., Kumar, M. T., & Pandit, J. K. (2015). Mucoadhesive in situ gels for controlled delivery of drugs. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 41(6), 888–898.
10. Fulda, S. (2008). Betulinic acid for cancer treatment and prevention. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 9(6), 1096–1107.
11. Jaiswal, P., Gidwani, B., & Vyas, A. (2016). Nanostructured lipid carriers and their current application in drug delivery: A review. Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, 6(3), 152–161.
12. Lohavanichbutr, P., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Epidemiology and molecular biology of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Head and Neck Pathology, 11(3), 354–362.
13. Müller, R. H., Radtke, M., & Wissing, S. A. (2002). Nanostructured lipid matrices for improved microencapsulation of drugs. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 242(1–2), 121–128.
14. Naseri, N., Valizadeh, H., & Zakeri-Milani, P. (2015). Solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers: A review of the structure, preparation, and application. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 5(3), 305–313.
15. Polyak, S. J., Morishima, C., Lohmann, V., et al. (2010). Silymarin for chronic hepatitis C infection: A randomized, double-blind study. Antiviral Therapy, 15(5), 697–705.
16. Rivera, C. (2015). Essentials of oral cancer. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, 8(9), 11884–11894.
17. Sahana, T. G., Rekha, P. D., & Nair, S. R. (2017). Local drug delivery systems in the management of periodontitis: A review. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 11(8), ZE01–ZE06.
18. Schmolka, I. R. (1994). Poloxamers in the pharmaceutical industry. In R. C. Rowe, P. J. Sheskey, & S. C. Owen (Eds.), Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients (2nd ed., pp. 338–341). London, UK: Pharmaceutical Press.
19. Venugopal, D. C., et al. (2023). Preparation and characterization of silymarin gel: A novel mucoadhesive gel for topical/oral application. Gels, 9(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels9020139
20. Abedi, E., et al. (2024). Structure-based modifications of nano lipid carriers: Formulation of cinnamaldehyde-loaded NLC and nanoemulsion for improved performance. Food Research International, 163, Article 112053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112053
21. Nasirizadeh, S., & Malaekeh-Nikouei, B. (2020). Solid lipid nanoparticle (SLN) and nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) in oral cancer drug delivery. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology, 55, 101458.
22. Warnakulasuriya, S. (2020). Global epidemiology of oral and oropharyngeal cancer. Oral Oncology, 102, 104503.
23. Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R. L., et al. (2021). Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(3), 209–249.
24. Rivera, C. (2021). Essentials of oral cancer: Etiology, clinical features and diagnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology, 14(2), 143–152.
25. Gillison, M. L., & Chaturvedi, A. K. (2021). HPV-related head and neck cancer. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 18(5), 325–336.
26. Mishra, V., Bansal, K. K., Verma, A., et al. (2021). Solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers: A review of the structure, preparation, and application. Nanotechnology Reviews, 10(1), 1863–1894.
27. Mukherjee, S., Ray, S., & Thakur, R. S. (2020). Nanostructured lipid carriers: A modern platform for drug delivery. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 196, Article 111309.
28. Ganesan, P., et al. (2022). Lipid nanoparticles for enhancing anticancer drug delivery. Journal of Controlled Release, 343, 317–332..
29. Khan, Z., Khan, S., & Almasan, A. (2020). Oral cancer molecular pathways and therapeutic targets: A review. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 146(7), 1589–1603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03201-y
30. Farah, C. S., & Woo, S. B. (2021). Oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71(6), 487–512. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21661
31. Zain, R. B. (2022). Oral cancer recurrence: Challenges, mechanisms and future directions. Oral Diseases, 28(2), 288–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.14037
32. Chin, S. F., et al. (2021). Lipid-based nanocarriers and their application in oral cancer therapy: A review. Pharmaceutics, 13(9), 1461. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics13091461
33. Zabihi, F., et al. (2022). Nanostructured lipid carriers for drug delivery: Recent advances and future perspectives. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 186, 114331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2022.114331
34. Sahu, P., et al. (2023). Nanostructured lipid carriers as efficient carriers for phytochemicals in cancer therapy. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 224, 113219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113219
35. Kunnumakkara, A. B., Bordoloi, D., Sailo, B. L., et al. (2020). Curcumin, the golden nutraceutical: Multifaceted roles in cancer prevention and treatment. Biotechnology Advances, 38, 107343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.107343
36. Sharifi-Rad, J., et al. (2021). Curcumin and cancer: A review of mechanisms, challenges, and future directions. Molecules, 26(16), 4918. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26164918
37. Mehta, V., & Sangwan, S. (2023). Curcumin-loaded nanostructured lipid carriers for improved anticancer efficacy. Materials Today Chemistry, 30, 101446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtchem.2023.101446
38. Sukhanova, A., & Nabiev, I. (2021). Betulinic acid and its derivatives: Biological activity and anticancer potential. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 139, 111562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2021.111562
39. Ferreira, I. C., & Barros, L. (2022). Betulinic acid-loaded nanocarriers for improved cancer therapy. Journal of Controlled Release, 341, 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.03.020
40. Federico, A., et al. (2021). Silymarin and cancer: A review of molecular mechanisms and therapeutic prospects. Life Sciences, 272, 119248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119248
41. Javed, A., et al. (2022). Nanoencapsulation of Silybin improves its anticancer potential through enhanced bioavailability. Pharmaceutics, 14(3), 536. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14030536
42. Al-Kassas, R., et al. (2021). Mucoadhesive thermoresponsive in-situ gels for drug delivery: Mechanisms and clinical applications. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 597, 120329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120329
43. Jung, H. S., et al. (2022). Poloxamer-based in situ gelling systems for local anticancer therapy. Journal of Drug Targeting, 30(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1061186X.2022.2028493
44. Kumar, N., et al. (2020). Synergistic anticancer activity of phytochemicals: Recent trends and future prospects. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 257, 112876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.112876
45. Cheng, X., & Gao, Y. (2023). Combining natural phytochemicals with nanocarriers for synergistic cancer therapy. Seminars in Cancer Biology, 89, 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2022.11.002
46. Pezzini, B. R., et al. (2021). Buccal drug delivery: A promising route for cancer therapy. Journal of Controlled Release, 330, 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.12.032
47. Irfan, M., et al. (2020). Advances in buccal drug delivery: Mucoadhesion, penetration enhancers, nanocarriers. Pharmaceutics, 12(9), 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12090858
48. Ferreira, S. L. C., et al. (2021). Response surface methodology in pharmaceutical development. Talanta, 228, 122198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2021.122198
49. Lambertini, M., et al. (2023). Advances in molecular targets for oral squamous cell carcinoma therapy. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 118, 102536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2023.102536
50. Sivaramakrishnan, M., & Jayakumar, T. (2022). Mechanistic aspects of oral cancer progression: A focus on epithelial–mesenchymal transition. Oral Diseases, 28(5), 1223–1234. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.13872
51. Becker, M. T., et al. (2021). Oral cancer recurrence: Molecular insights and future strategies. Frontiers in Oncology, 11, 654213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.654213
52. Chen, Y., & Lin, X. (2024). Nanostructured lipid carriers: A superior platform for targeted drug delivery in oncology. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 45(4), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2023.12.006
53. Kumar, R., et al. (2023). Lipid nanoparticles in cancer therapy: Emerging trends and translational perspectives. Journal of Controlled Release, 355, 676–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.04.011
54. Sharma, A., et al. (2021). Nanostructured lipid carriers as potential drug delivery systems for cancer treatment: Critical updates. Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine, 36, 102430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nano.2021.102430
55. Dai, C., et al. (2021). Molecular targets of curcumin in cancer therapy: Recent trends and future prospects. Cancer Letters, 504, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2021.01.010
56. Moballegh Nasery, M., et al. (2020). Curcumin delivery mediated by bio-carriers: A review. Journal of Controlled Release, 321, 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.02.013
57. Ranjan, A. P., et al. (2022). Curcumin-loaded nanocarriers for cancer therapy: A review on cellular, molecular, and therapeutic perspectives. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 215, 112447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2022.112447
58. Panda, S. S., et al. (2023). Betulinic acid derivatives as anticancer agents: Mechanisms and drug delivery approaches. Bioorganic Chemistry, 132, 106350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioorg.2023.106350
59. Sebei, K., et al. (2022). Improved anticancer activity of betulinic acid through nanoencapsulation strategies. Pharmaceutics, 14(7), 1439. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14071439
60. Song, H., et al. (2023). Silymarin and silybin in cancer chemoprevention: Mechanisms, efficacy, and nanoformulations. Life Sciences, 329, 121905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2023.121905
61. Yuan, G., et al. (2022). Nanoencapsulation enhances anticancer potential of silybin via improved cellular uptake. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 13, 857018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.857018
62. Seo, Y., et al. (2022). Poloxamer-based thermoresponsive hydrogels: Advances in design and applications. Materials Today Advances, 14, 100225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtadv.2022.100225
63. Marques, A. C., et al. (2021). In situ forming gels for local drug delivery: From design to application. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 607, 120944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.120944
64. Smart, J. D. (2020). The basics and underlying mechanisms of mucoadhesion. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 156, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2020.06.001
65. Czajkowska-Kośnik, A., et al. (2021). Buccal drug delivery: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(17), 9470. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22179470
66. Liskova, A., et al. (2020). Phytochemicals as potential anticancer agents: Mechanisms and clinical applications. Cancers, 12(9), 2959. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12092959
67. Zhang, X., et al. (2024). Synergistic anticancer strategies combining phytochemicals and nanomedicine. Drug Discovery Today, 29(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2023.103103
68. Sharma, R., et al. (2022). Buccal drug delivery systems for localized therapy of head and neck cancers. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 12(3), 1208–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsb.2021.10.008
69. Monteiro, L. S., et al. (2021). Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in oral squamous cell carcinoma: A comprehensive review. Oral Oncology, 121, 105472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105472
70. Joshi, P., Dhawan, A., & Kumar, S. (2020). Targeted therapies for oral squamous cell carcinoma: A systematic review. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 152, 103007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103007
71. Cheng, H., et al. (2022). Advances in chemoresistance mechanisms in oral cancer. Frontiers in Oncology, 12, 865319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.865319
72. Blasi, P., et al. (2021). Lipid nanoparticles for cancer therapy: State-of-the-art and future directions. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 176, 113851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2021.113851
73. Emami, J., Mohiti-Ardakani, J., & Varshosaz, J. (2020). Lipid-based nanocarriers for oral delivery of anticancer drugs. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 10(3), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.34172/apb.2020.049
74. Santos, R. M., et al. (2023). Nanostructured lipid carriers as promising tools for oral therapy. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 224, 113266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2023.113266
75. Kunnumakkara, A. B., et al. (2021). Curcumin for the prevention and treatment of cancer: An update. Molecules, 26(24), 7540. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26247540
76. Karthikeyan, A., Senthil, N., & Min, T. (2020). Nanocurcumin: A promising therapeutic strategy for cancer. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 72(11), 1635–1659. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphp.13316
77. Gera, M., et al. (2023). Improved delivery of curcumin via nanoencapsulation: A review of current techniques. Pharmacological Research, 190, 106685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2023.106685
78. Cui, Q., et al. (2020). Betulinic acid: A review of its pharmacology, biosynthesis, and derivatives. Phytotherapy Research, 34(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.6501
79. Çoban, G., et al. (2022). Nanostructured lipid carrier systems for improved delivery of betulinic acid. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology, 70, 103240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jddst.2022.103240
80. Anusha, C., et al. (2021). Silymarin and its nanotechnological formulations: A comprehensive review. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 205, 111875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.111875
81. Goyal, R., et al. (2020). Silybin nanoformulations for cancer therapy: Mechanistic insights and therapeutic outcomes. Pharmaceutics, 12(9), 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics12090858
82. Bansal, K. K., et al. (2021). Advances in thermoresponsive in situ gels for drug delivery applications. Journal of Controlled Release, 337, 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.07.022
83. Li, W., et al. (2022). Development and evaluation of poloxamer-based in situ gelling systems for local drug delivery. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 615, 121452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2021.121452
84. Rashid, R., & Bashir, S. (2023). Thermoresponsive mucoadhesive gels: Applications in oral drug delivery. Gels, 9(5), 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels9050380
85. Leone, R., et al. (2020). Buccal drug delivery: Current approaches and future perspectives. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 109(6), 1761–1778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2020.02.002
86. Morales, J. O., & McConville, J. T. (2021). Drug delivery to the oral cavity: Reviewing the evidence. Pharmaceutical Research, 38(5), 999–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-021-03043-y
87. Xu, Z., et al. (2020). Natural products in cancer therapy: Past, present, and future. Pharmacological Research, 160, 105168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2020.105168
88. Liu, Y., et al. (2023). Synergistic effects of phytochemicals in cancer therapy: Mechanisms and applications. Cancers, 15(2), 450. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15020450