In this review we provide an up to date snapshot of nanomedicines either currently approved by the US FDA, or in the FDA clinical trials process. We define nanomedicines as therapeutic or imaging agents which comprise a nanoparticle in order to control the biodistribution, enhance the efficacy, or otherwise reduce toxicity of a drug or biologic. We identified 51 FDA-approved nanomedicines that met this definition and 77 products in clinical trials, with ~40% of trials listed in clinicaltrials.gov started in 2014 or 2015. While FDA approved materials are heavily weighted to polymeric, liposomal, and nanocrystal formulations, there is a trend towards the development of more complex materials comprising micelles, protein-based NPs, and also the emergence of a variety of inorganic and metallic particles in clinical trials. We then provide an overview of the different material categories represented in our search, highlighting nanomedicines that have either been recently approved, or are already in clinical trials. We conclude with some comments on future perspectives for nanomedicines, which we expect to include more actively-targeted materials, multi-functional materials ("theranostics") and more complicated materials that blur the boundaries of traditional material categories. A key challenge for researchers, industry, and regulators is how to classify new materials and what additional testing (e.g. safety and toxicity) is required before products become available.

Studying the interactions between nanoengineered materials and biological systems plays a vital role in the development of biological applications of nanotechnology and the improvement of our fundamental understanding of the bio-nano interface. A significant barrier to progress in this multidisciplinary area is the variability of published literature with regards to characterizations performed and experimental details reported. Here, we suggest a 'minimum information standard' for experimental literature investigating bio-nano interactions. This standard consists of specific components to be reported, divided into three categories: material characterization, biological characterization and details of experimental protocols. Our intention is for these proposed standards to improve reproducibility, increase quantitative comparisons of bio-nano materials, and facilitate meta analyses and in silico modelling.

The interface of bio-nano science and cancer medicine is an area experiencing much progress but also beset with controversy. Core concepts of the field-e.g., the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect, tumor targeting and accumulation, and even the purpose of "nano" in cancer medicine-are hotly debated. In parallel, considerable advances in neighboring fields are occurring rapidly, including the recent progress of "immuno-oncology" and the fundamental impact it is having on our understanding and the clinical treatment of the group of diseases collectively known as cancer. Herein, we (i) revisit how cancer is commonly treated in the clinic and how this relates to nanomedicine; (ii) examine the ongoing debate on the relevance of the EPR effect and tumor targeting; (iii) highlight ways to improve the next-generation of nanomedicines; and (iv) discuss the emerging concept of working with (and not against) biology. While discussing these controversies, challenges, emerging concepts, and opportunities, we explore new directions for the field of cancer nanomedicine.