Breast cancer ribbon

(Credit: Angiola Harry on Unsplash)

In a Nutshell

  • Researchers at the University of Mississippi and University of Maryland embedded tiny, flexible drug-carrying “bubbles” inside a 3D-printed gel implant designed to sit next to a tumor and release chemotherapy slowly.
  • In lab tests, the implants released the chemo drug doxorubicin gradually, with a much smaller upfront burst than the bubbles alone, and continued delivering medication after 48 hours.
  • Placed above breast cancer cells, the printed implants cut cancer cell survival by more than 50%, while the empty carriers showed no toxic effects on the cells.

Chemotherapy drugs are powerful enough to destroy cancer cells, but they exact a terrible toll on the rest of the body. What if those drugs could be delivered directly to a tumor instead? A team of researchers has combined nano-sized drug carriers with 3D printing to create small, implantable drug depots that release cancer-fighting medication slowly and precisely where it’s needed most.

Chemo drugs circulate through the entire bloodstream, damaging healthy tissue along the way. That’s why patients experience side effects like nausea, hair loss, and weakened immune systems. For decades, scientists have been searching for ways to deliver these drugs directly to tumors while sparing the rest of the body. A research team from the University of Mississippi and the University of Maryland has now developed a new approach: embedding tiny, flexible drug-carrying bubbles inside a 3D-printed gel implant designed to sit right next to a tumor and release medication over an extended period.

Published in the journal Pharmaceutical Research, the study shows how these miniature implants, roughly the size of a small disc, could maintain their structure, protect the drug inside, and slowly kill breast cancer cells grown in a lab. While still in its earliest stages, the work merges nanotechnology and advanced manufacturing in a way that could one day reshape how localized cancer treatment is delivered.

How 3D-Printed Drug Depots Are Built

At the center of this system are ultra-tiny, flexible bubbles made from specialized soap-like molecules. Unlike rigid drug carriers, these bubbles are stretchy and deformable, which helps them slip through biological barriers and interact more effectively with cells. The researchers loaded them with doxorubicin, a widely used chemotherapy drug known for its potency against breast cancer but also notorious for its harsh side effects when given through standard infusion.

To make these bubbles, the team dissolved specific ingredients in ethanol and dripped the solution into water while stirring continuously at elevated temperatures. They tested different ingredient ratios to fine-tune particle size and stability. The best recipes produced particles roughly 200 to 300 nanometers across, hundreds of times smaller than the width of a human hair, that remained stable for at least 11 days without clumping together.

Getting the drug inside these tiny carriers proved moderately successful, with the best version capturing about 45% of the available doxorubicin. While that number might sound low, the researchers note this range is typical for this type of flexible carrier system and that further recipe adjustments could improve it.

For the printing step, the researchers turned to a technique called FRESH, short for Freeform Reversible Embedding of Suspended Hydrogels. Traditional 3D printing of soft, gel-like materials is tricky because the structures tend to collapse under their own weight before they can solidify. FRESH solves this by printing inside a bath of chilled gelatin slurry that acts like a temporary scaffold, supporting the delicate structure as it’s being built. Once printing is complete, the gelatin gently melts away at body temperature, leaving the finished product.

Mixing their drug-loaded bubbles into a gel made from seaweed-derived material, the team printed small disc-shaped implants measuring 10 millimeters across and 2 millimeters tall. The printing process appeared gentle enough to preserve the drug carriers, with later tests showing the medication stayed intact and active after being mixed into the printed gel.

Additional testing confirmed that the gel behaved like a good printing ink: it thinned out when squeezed through the nozzle but held its shape once deposited, a necessary property for producing accurate 3D structures.

3D-Printed Cancer Implants Release Drugs Slowly and Steadily

One of the most important results involved how the printed implants released their drug cargo compared to the bubbles alone. When researchers placed drug-loaded bubbles in simulated body fluid without the gel, they released doxorubicin relatively quickly, with a burst up front followed by near-complete release within about 48 hours. The 3D-printed gel implants, however, told a different story. They showed a much smaller initial burst and released their drug slowly and steadily. By eight hours, only about one-third to one-half of the total drug had been released, and after 48 hours the implants were still holding back a portion, meaning they continued delivering medication over a longer window.

This sustained release pattern is exactly what cancer doctors would want from a localized implant. Rather than releasing most of the drug in a short burst, the printed depot meters it out gradually. The goal is to keep effective drug levels near a tumor while limiting how much medication reaches the rest of the body.

Elom Doe (left), a third-year doctoral student in pharmaceutical sciences from Accra, Ghana, and Jaidev Chakka, principal scientist in the School of Pharmacy, show off a 3D-printed implant produced at the university's Thad Cochran Research Center. Similar implants loaded with anticancer therapies may be used to deliver medication directly to tumors.
Elom Doe (left), a third-year University of Mississippi doctoral student in pharmaceutical sciences from Accra, Ghana, and Jaidev Chakka, principal scientist in the School of Pharmacy, show off a 3D-printed implant produced at the Thad Cochran Research Center. Similar implants loaded with anticancer therapies may be used to deliver medication directly to tumors. (Credit: Photo by Hunt Mercier/Ole Miss Digital Imaging Services)

Breast Cancer Cells Respond to the 3D-Printed Drug Depots

To test the system, the researchers used a well-established line of breast cancer cells widely used in cancer research. In cell uptake experiments, microscopy revealed that the drug-loaded bubbles were efficiently absorbed by the cancer cells, with doxorubicin accumulating inside cells and concentrating in their command centers, the nuclei. This nuclear targeting is consistent with how doxorubicin works: it wedges itself into DNA to block cancer cell replication. The empty bubbles, carrying no drug, showed no toxic effects on the cells in these experiments, suggesting the carrier material itself is non-toxic.

When the 3D-printed implants were placed in a specialized chamber above a layer of breast cancer cells, mimicking how an implant might sit near a tumor, the released drug reduced cancer cell survival by more than 50%. This showed that doxorubicin remained active and potent even after being loaded into the bubbles, mixed into gel, printed, and slowly released.

What Comes Next for the Drug Depots

One appealing aspect of this approach is its flexibility. By adjusting the printing geometry, including the thickness of printed lines, the infill pattern, and the overall shape, doctors could theoretically customize how fast or slow the drug is released and even tailor the implant to fit a specific surgical site. This creates a two-layered delivery system: the gel controls the overall release rate, while the flexible drug carriers deliver the medication into cancer cells.

This remains an early-stage, lab-only proof of concept. The researchers acknowledge that animal studies are the necessary next steps. Those studies would evaluate how well living tissue tolerates the implants, how much drug stays at the implant site versus leaking into the bloodstream, and whether the system can shrink tumors in a living organism. Moving from a petri dish to a patient will take years of further testing, but for the millions of people enduring the body-wide side effects of conventional chemotherapy, more targeted options are worth pursuing.

Disclaimer: This research was conducted entirely in laboratory cell cultures, not in animals or humans. Results from early-stage lab studies do not always translate to living organisms, and the implant would need extensive further testing before it could be considered for patient use.


Paper Notes

Limitations

This study was conducted entirely in laboratory settings using cell cultures, not in living organisms. Encapsulation efficiency was moderate (33–45%), and total drug recovery after separation was about 40%, which the authors attribute to losses during centrifugation rather than chemical instability. The researchers note that the separation method itself, centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 15 minutes, may contribute to recovery losses and leakage from these deformable carriers, and suggest that alternative separation techniques could reduce such losses. All experiments used triplicate samples, which is standard but represents a relatively small sample size. The transwell anticancer assay evaluated only a single 24-hour timepoint. No in vivo studies have been performed, and the researchers outline planned next steps including local tolerability and safety assessments, biodistribution studies, and efficacy evaluation in a relevant breast cancer model.

Funding and Disclosures

This work was supported by NSF REU Site: Ole Miss Nanoengineering Summer REU Program ENG/EEC/EPSCoR 2148764. The authors also acknowledge the GlyCore facility and PharmE3D lab. Corresponding author Mohammed Maniruzzaman holds stock in, serves on scientific advisory boards for, or consults for CoM3D (Surrey, UK), DosePlus Therapeutics (Princeton, NJ, USA), Septum Solutions (Houston, TX, USA), and SmarGic Tech LLC (Oxford, MS, USA). Co-author L.R. Jaidev Chakka holds stock in SmarGic LLC (Oxford, MS, USA). The companies had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation.

Publication Details

Paper Title: “Fresh 3D Printing of Spanlastics Hydrogel for Drug Delivery Applications In Vitro”

Authors: Elom Doe (University of Mississippi), Abigail Alabi (University of Maryland, College Park), Leela Raghava Jaidev Chakka (University of Mississippi), Mohammed Maniruzzaman (University of Mississippi)

Journal: Pharmaceutical Research (NIPTE Special Theme Issue)

DOI: 10.1007/s11095-026-04068-6

Received: January 9, 2026 | Accepted: February 23, 2026

Corresponding Author: Mohammed Maniruzzaman, Pharmaceutical Engineering and 3D Printing Lab (PharmE3D), Department of Pharmaceutics and Drug Delivery, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi ([email protected])

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor