Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22669131›Full record

ReviewClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2012

Best practices in cancer nanotechnology: perspective from NCI nanotechnology alliance.

William C Zamboni, Vladimir Torchilin, Anil K Patri, Jeff Hrkach, Stephen Stern, Robert Lee, Andre Nel, Nicholas J Panaro, Piotr Grodzinski

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 265 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Nanomedicines against Chagas disease: a critical review.Beilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

33 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

William C ZamboniUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Carolina Center for Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, UNC Institute for Pharmacogenomics and Individualized Therapy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. zamboni@unc.edu
Vladimir Torchilin
Anil K Patri
Jeff Hrkach
Stephen Stern
Robert Lee
Andre Nel
Nicholas J Panaro
Piotr Grodzinski
National Cancer Institute · USScience Applications International Corporation (United States) · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Virology Research Program (Program 4)P30CA016086 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI David Darr · 1985 to 2026
$201.5M
Translational Nanosystems for Improved Lung Cancer Treatment with Small MoleculesU54CA151652 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ZHOU, OTTO Z · 2010 to 2014
$12.1M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENCI NIH HHS P30 CA016086NCI NIH HHS U54 CA151652
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, treatment of patients with cancer using chemotherapeutic agents has been associated with debilitating and systemic toxicities, poor bioavailability, and unfavorable pharmacokinetics. Nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems, on the other hand, can specifically target cancer cells while avoiding their healthy neighbors, avoid rapid clearance from the body, and be administered without toxic solvents. They hold immense potential in addressing all of these issues, which has hampered further development of chemotherapeutics. Furthermore, such drug delivery systems will lead to cancer therapeutic modalities that are not only less toxic to the patient but also significantly more efficacious. In addition to established therapeutic modes of action, nanomaterials are opening up entirely new modalities of cancer therapy, such as photodynamic and hyperthermia treatments. Furthermore, nanoparticle carriers are also capable of addressing several drug delivery problems that could not be effectively solved in the past and include overcoming formulation issues, multidrug-resistance phenomenon, and penetrating cellular barriers that may limit device accessibility to intended targets, such as the blood-brain barrier. The challenges in optimizing design of nanoparticles tailored to specific tumor indications still remain; however, it is clear that nanoscale devices carry a significant promise toward new ways of diagnosing and treating cancer. This review focuses on future prospects of using nanotechnology in cancer applications and discusses practices and methodologies used in the development and translation of nanotechnology-based therapeutics.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesAntineoplastic AgentsBlood-Brain BarrierDrug Delivery SystemsDrug DiscoveryHumansNanotechnologyNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)NeoplasmsTissue DistributionUnited StatesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID22669131
PMCPMC3916007
OpenAlexW2168278139

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.