Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25101239›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2014

Emerging insights into barriers to effective brain tumor therapeutics.

Graeme F Woodworth, Gavin P Dunn, Elizabeth A Nance, Justin Hanes, Henry Brem

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 145 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Pyrazolo[3,4-Brain sciences · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

11 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Graeme F WoodworthDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD , USA ; Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD , USA.
Gavin P DunnDepartment of Neurosurgery, Pathology and Immunology, Center for Human Immunology and Immunotherapy Programs, Washington University School of Medicine , St. Louis, MO , USA.
Elizabeth A NanceCenter for Nanomedicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD , USA.
Justin HanesCenter for Nanomedicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD , USA ; Department of Ophthalmology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD , USA ; Department of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD , USA.
Henry BremDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD , USA.
Johns Hopkins Medicine · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

T-32 NIH Postdoctoral Training Program in Nanotechnology for Cancer Medicine NTCMT32CA130840 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WIRTZ, DENIS · 2008 to 2012
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA130840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is great promise that ongoing advances in the delivery of therapeutics to the central nervous system (CNS) combined with rapidly expanding knowledge of brain tumor patho-biology will provide new, more effective therapies. Brain tumors that form from brain cells, as opposed to those that come from other parts of the body, rarely metastasize outside of the CNS. Instead, the tumor cells invade deep into the brain itself, causing disruption in brain circuits, blood vessel and blood flow changes, and tissue swelling. Patients with the most common and deadly form, glioblastoma (GBM) rarely live more than 2 years even with the most aggressive treatments and often with devastating neurological consequences. Current treatments include maximal safe surgical removal or biopsy followed by radiation and chemotherapy to address the residual tumor mass and invading tumor cells. However, delivering effective and sustained treatments to these invading cells without damaging healthy brain tissue is a major challenge and focus of the emerging fields of nanomedicine and viral and cell-based therapies. New treatment strategies, particularly those directed against the invasive component of this devastating CNS disease, are sorely needed. In this review, we (1) discuss the history and evolution of treatments for GBM, (2) define and explore three critical barriers to improving therapeutic delivery to invasive brain tumors, specifically, the neuro-vascular unit as it relates to the blood brain barrier, the extra-cellular space in regard to the brain penetration barrier, and the tumor genetic heterogeneity and instability in association with the treatment efficacy barrier, and (3) identify promising new therapeutic delivery approaches that have the potential to address these barriers and create sustained, meaningful efficacy against GBM.

Indexed as

advanced therapeuticsblood brain barrierbrain cancerdrug deliveryglioblastomaimmunotherapynanomedicinenanotechnology

Identifiers

PMID25101239
PMCPMC4104487
OpenAlexW2094788202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.