Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25060262›Full record

ReviewCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2014

Convergence of nanotechnology and cancer prevention: are we there yet?

David G Menter, Sherri L Patterson, Craig D Logsdon, Scott Kopetz, Anil K Sood, Ernest T Hawk

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nano-selenium and its nanomedicine applications: a critical review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2018
    Review
  3. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David G MenterDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Department of Cancer Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Sherri L PattersonDivision of Cancer Prevention & Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Craig D LogsdonDepartment of Cancer Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Scott KopetzDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Anil K SoodGynecologic Oncology & Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ernest T HawkDivision of Cancer Prevention & Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. ehawk@mdanderson.org.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Texas Center for Cancer NanomedicineU54CA151668 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI FERRARI, MAURO · 2010 to 2014
$12.4M
NCI NIH HHS 5P30CA016672-37NCI NIH HHS 5U54CA151668-03NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS U54 CA151668
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanotechnology is emerging as a promising modality for cancer treatment; however, in the realm of cancer prevention, its full utility has yet to be determined. Here, we discuss the potential of integrating nanotechnology in cancer prevention to augment early diagnosis, precision targeting, and controlled release of chemopreventive agents, reduced toxicity, risk/response assessment, and personalized point-of-care monitoring. Cancer is a multistep, progressive disease; the functional and acquired characteristics of the early precancer phenotype are intrinsically different from those of a more advanced anaplastic or invasive malignancy. Therefore, applying nanotechnology to precancers is likely to be far more challenging than applying it to established disease. Frank cancers are more readily identifiable through imaging and biomarker and histopathologic assessment than their precancerous precursors. In addition, prevention subjects routinely have more rigorous intervention criteria than therapy subjects. Any nanopreventive agent developed to prevent sporadic cancers found in the general population must exhibit a very low risk of serious side effects. In contrast, a greater risk of side effects might be more acceptable in subjects at high risk for cancer. Using nanotechnology to prevent cancer is an aspirational goal, but clearly identifying the intermediate objectives and potential barriers is an essential first step in this exciting journey.

Indexed as

Anticarcinogenic AgentsAnti-Inflammatory AgentsBiocompatible MaterialsChemopreventionDrug Delivery SystemsHumansImmune SystemLiposomesNanomedicineNanotechnologyNeoplasmsNeovascularization, PathologicPhenotypeRisk AssessmentRNA InterferenceAnticarcinogenic AgentsAnti-Inflammatory AgentsBiocompatible MaterialsLiposomes

Identifiers

PMID25060262
PMCPMC4307396
OpenAlexW2045392134

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.