Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23262509›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2013

Comparing routes of delivery for nanoliposomal irinotecan shows superior anti-tumor activity of local administration in treating intracranial glioblastoma xenografts.

Pin-Yuan Chen, Tomoko Ozawa, Daryl C Drummond, Ashish Kalra, Jonathan B Fitzgerald, Dmitri B Kirpotin, Kuo-Chen Wei, Nicholas Butowski, Michael D Prados, Mitchel S Berger and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. PEAMOtecan, a novel chronotherapeutic polymeric drug for brain cancer.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Nanotherapeutic systems for local treatment of brain tumors.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology · 2018
    Review
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Pin-Yuan ChenDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 1450 Third Street, Room HD-283, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA.
Tomoko Ozawa
Daryl C Drummond
Ashish Kalra
Jonathan B Fitzgerald
Dmitri B Kirpotin
Kuo-Chen Wei
Nicholas Butowski
Michael D Prados
Mitchel S Berger
John R Forsayeth
Krystof Bankiewicz
C David James
Chang Gung University · TWUniversity of California, San Francisco · USMerrimack Pharmaceuticals (United States) · US

Funding

Tissue CoreP50CA097257 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Joseph F Costello · 2002 to 2026
$57.4M
NCI NIH HHS CA097257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLiposomal drug packaging is well established as an effective means for increasing drug half-life, sustaining drug activity, and increasing drug efficacy, whether administered locally or distally to the site of disease. However, information regarding the relative effectiveness of peripheral (distal) versus local administration of liposomal therapeutics is limited. This issue is of importance with respect to the treatment of central nervous system cancer, for which the blood-brain barrier presents a significant challenge in achieving sufficient drug concentration in tumors to provide treatment benefit for patients.

methodsWe compared the anti-tumor activity and efficacy of a nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan when delivered peripherally by vascular route with intratumoral administration by convection-enhanced delivery (CED) for treating intracranial glioblastoma xenografts in athymic mice.

resultsOur results show significantly greater anti-tumor activity and survival benefit from CED of nanoliposomal irinotecan. In 2 of 3 efficacy experiments, there were animal subjects that experienced apparent cure of tumor from local administration of therapy, as indicated by a lack of detectable intracranial tumor through bioluminescence imaging and histopathologic analysis. Results from investigating the effectiveness of combination therapy with nanoliposomal irinotecan plus radiation revealed that CED administration of irinotecan plus radiation conferred greater survival benefit than did irinotecan or radiation monotherapy and also when compared with radiation plus vascularly administered irinotecan.

conclusionsOur results indicate that liposomal formulation plus direct intratumoral administration of therapeutic are important for maximizing the anti-tumor effects of irinotecan and support clinical trial evaluation of this therapeutic plus route of administration combination.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsLiposomesNanoparticlesAnimalsAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicBrain NeoplasmsCamptothecinConvectionDrug Administration RoutesFemaleGlioblastomaHistory, AncientHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesInjections, IntraperitonealIrinotecanAntineoplastic Agents, PhytogenicCamptothecinIrinotecanLiposomes

Identifiers

PMID23262509
PMCPMC3548589
OpenAlexW2141960867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.