Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25202689›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in chemistry2014

Nanomedicines for cancer therapy: state-of-the-art and limitations to pre-clinical studies that hinder future developments.

Charlene M Dawidczyk, Luisa M Russell, Peter C Searson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in chemistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
9.7field-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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Nano-inspired smart medicines targeting brain cancer: diagnosis and treatment.Journal of biological inorganic chemistry : JBIC : a publication of the Society of Biological Inorganic Chemistry · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charlene M DawidczykInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA ; Johns Hopkins Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA ; Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA.
Luisa M RussellInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA ; Johns Hopkins Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA ; Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA.
Peter C SearsonInstitute for Nanobiotechnology, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA ; Johns Hopkins Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA ; Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to efficiently deliver a drug or gene to a tumor site is dependent on a wide range of factors including circulation time, interactions with the mononuclear phagocyte system, extravasation from circulation at the tumor site, targeting strategy, release from the delivery vehicle, and uptake in cancer cells. Nanotechnology provides the possibility of creating delivery systems where the design constraints are decoupled, allowing new approaches for reducing the unwanted side effects of systemic delivery, increasing tumor accumulation, and improving efficacy. The physico-chemical properties of nanoparticle-based delivery platforms introduce additional complexity associated with pharmacokinetics, tumor accumulation, and biodistribution. To assess the impact of nanoparticle-based delivery systems, we first review the design strategies and pharmacokinetics of FDA-approved nanomedicines. Next we review nanomedicines under development, summarizing the range of nanoparticle platforms, strategies for targeting, and pharmacokinetics. We show how the lack of uniformity in preclinical trials prevents systematic comparison and hence limits advances in the field.

Indexed as

drug delivery systemsnanoparticlespharmacokineticstargeted therapytumor accumulation

Identifiers

PMID25202689
PMCPMC4142601
OpenAlexW2038495811

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.