Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22154931›Full record

ReviewJournal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society2012

Local drug delivery strategies for cancer treatment: gels, nanoparticles, polymeric films, rods, and wafers.

Jesse B Wolinsky, Yolonda L Colson, Mark W Grinstaff

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 250 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
250citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

250 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Tailoring the Release of Paclitaxel from Electrospun Nonwovens.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

190 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

3 authors.

Jesse B WolinskyDepartments of Biomedical Engineering and Chemistry, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Yolonda L Colson
Mark W Grinstaff

Funding

Boston University Cross-Disciplinary Training in Nanotechnology for CancerR25CA153955 · NCI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI FALLER, DOUGLAS V, GOLDBERG, BENNETT B · 2010 to 2014
$2.1M
Flexible, Conformal, Polymeric Films for Lung Resection MarginsR01CA149561 · NCI · BOSTON UNIVERSITY (CHARLES RIVER CAMPUS) · PI COLSON, YOLONDA L, GRINSTAFF, MARK W. · 2011 to 2014
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA149561NCI NIH HHS R25 CA153955NCI NIH HHS R25 CA153955.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polymer-based drug delivery depots have been investigated over the last several decades as a means to improve upon the lack of tumor targeting and severe systemic morbidities associated with intravenous chemotherapy treatments. These localized therapies exist in a variety of form factors designed to facilitate the delivery of drug directly to the site of disease in a controlled manner, sparing off-target tissue toxicities. Many of these depots are biodegradable and designed to maintain therapeutic concentrations of drug at the tumor site for a prolonged period of time. Thus a single implantation procedure is required, sometimes coincident with tumor excision surgery, and thereby biodegrading following complete release of the loaded active agent. Even though localized polymer depot delivery systems have been investigated, a surprisingly small subset of these technologies has demonstrated potentially curative preclinical results for cancer applications, and fewer have progressed toward commercialization. The aims of this article are to review the most well-studied and efficacious local polymer delivery systems from the last two decades, to examine the rationale for utilizing drug-eluting polymer implants in cancer patients, and to identify the patient cohorts that could most benefit from localized therapy. Finally, a discussion of the physiological barriers to localized therapy (i.e. drug penetration, transport), technical hurdles, and future outlook of the field is presented.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicBiocompatible MaterialsChitosanDecanoic AcidsGelsHumansMicrospheresNanoparticlesNeoplasmsPaclitaxelPolyestersPolymersAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicBiocompatible MaterialsChitosandecanedioic acid-4,4'-(1,3-propanediylbis(oxy))bis(benzoic acid) copolymerDecanoic AcidsGelsPaclitaxelpolilactofatePolyestersPolymers

Identifiers

PMID22154931
PMCPMC3878823

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.