Table 5 Advantages and disadvantages of EVs in tumor therapy

EVs

Biocompatibility

Low immunogenicity

Minimized size

Rich in surface proteins

Long dwell time

High shuttling ability

Low clearance rate

Accurate localization

Can be degraded and recovered in vivo

Higher safety profile

Improved drug stability and bioavailability

Inefficient extraction and purification methods

High costs

Difficult preservation methods

Difficult preservation methods

Uncertain delivery methods

Uncertain pharmacokinetics

Uncertainty of optimal safe dose

Uncertain mechanism of action

Immaturity of nanotechnology

Lack of clinical trials

Lerch et al. (2013), Mitchell et al. (2021), Jeon et al. (2018), Dai et al. (2019), Qiao et al. (2020), Betzer et al. (2017), Shahjin et al. (2020), Skotland et al. (2017), Polanco et al. (2021), Abello et al. (2019), Belhadj et al. (2020), Fu et al. (2021), Zhang et al. (2020), Walker et al. (2019), Lin et al. (2019)

Macrophage-derived EVs

Avoidance of immune surveillance

Modulates immune activity

Reduces risk of whole cell therapy

Low yield

Limited functionality on its own

Wang et al. (2021c), Lou et al. (2022), Schulert and Grom (2015)

MSCs-derived EVs

Large-scale production

Regulates immune activity

Regenerative

Uncertain source

Uncertain results

Wang et al. (2014a), Ankrum et al. (2014), Meldolesi (2022), Yeo et al. (2013)

Milk-derived EVs

Large-scale production

Regulates immune activity

Hydrophilic and lipophilic

Uncertain results

Admyre et al. (2007), Sun et al. (2013), Nordgren et al. (2019), Li et al. (2022)

Plant-derived EVs

Large-scale production

High stability

Antibacterial properties

Resistant to degradation by digestive enzymes

Contains phytospecific chemical components

Insufficient understanding

Variable phytoconstituents

Uncertain source

An et al. (2007), Alfieri et al. (2021), Ji et al. (2016), Cui et al. (2020), Canal and Pinedo (2018), Liu et al. (2021), Regente et al. (2017), Rutter and Innes (2018), Borges and Martienssen (2015)