Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20570444›Full record

ReviewCancer treatment reviews2011

The unique characteristics of tumor vasculature and preclinical evidence for its selective disruption by Tumor-Vascular Disrupting Agents.

Dietmar W Siemann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer treatment reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 289 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
289citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

289 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Optical coherence tomography angiography in evaluating the response of ocular surface squamous neoplasia to topical immunotherapy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. How Key in vivo Models Can Advance Anticancer Nanotherapeutics.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026
    Review

229 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Dietmar W SiemannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA. siemadw@ufl.edu

Funding

ENHANCING RADIATION THERAPY: VASCULAR TARGETING AGENTSR01CA084408 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI SIEMANN, DIETMAR W · 2000 to 2013
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA084408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The vasculature of solid tumors is fundamentally different from that of normal vasculature and offers a unique target for anti-cancer therapy. Direct vascular-targeting with Tumor-Vascular Disrupting Agents (Tumor-VDAs) is distinctly different from anti-angiogenic strategies, and offers a complementary approach to standard therapies. Tumor-VDAs therefore have significant potential when combined with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and angiogenesis-inhibiting agents. Preclinical studies with the different Tumor-VDA classes have demonstrated key tumor-selective anti-vascular and anti-tumor effects.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsHumansNeoplasmsNeovascularization, PathologicAngiogenesis Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID20570444
PMCPMC2958232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.