Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24396516›Full record

ReviewTheranostics2013

Improving conventional enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effects; what is the appropriate target?

Hisataka Kobayashi, Rira Watanabe, Peter L Choyke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Theranostics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 342 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
342citing papers in PubMed
–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

342 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

282 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.

Hisataka KobayashiMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, United States.
Rira WatanabeMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, United States.
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, United States.

Funding

Cancer-cell specific therapy: photo-immunotherapyZIABC011513 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI KOBAYASHI, HISATAKA · 2013 to 2025
$15.5M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nano-sized therapeutic agents have several advantages over low molecular weight agents such as a larger loading capacity, the ability to protect the payload until delivery, more specific targeting due to multivalency and the opportunity for controlled/sustained release. However, the delivery of nano-sized agents into cancer tissue is problematic because it mostly relies on the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect that depends on the leaky nature of the tumor vasculature and the prolonged circulation of nano-sized agents, allowing slow but uneven accumulation in the tumor bed. Delivery of nano-sized agents is dependent on several factors that influence the EPR effect; 1. Regional blood flow to the tumor, 2. Permeability of the tumor vasculature, 3. Structural barriers imposed by perivascular tumor cells and extracellular matrix, 4. Intratumoral pressure. In this review, these factors will be described and methods to enhance nano-agent delivery will be reviewed.

Indexed as

Capillary PermeabilityAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsHumansNanostructuresNeoplasmsTissue DistributionAntineoplastic AgentsCancerEnhanced permeability and retention effects.Nano-deliveryTumor physiology

Identifiers

PMID24396516
PMCPMC3881228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.