ArticlePloS one2016
Heterogeneous Uptake of Nanoparticles in Mouse Models of Pediatric High-Risk Neuroblastoma.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanoparticle contrast-enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of vascularization of a subcutaneous niche for islet transplantation.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2025Article
- Nanoparticle contrast-enhanced computed tomography of sporadic aortic aneurysm and dissection: Effect of nanoparticle size and contrast agent dose.Theranostics · 2025Article
- Intratumoral nanofluidic system enhanced tumor biodistribution of PD-L1 antibody in triple-negative breast cancer.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Article
- Gold-nanoparticle-enriched breast tissue in breast cancer treatment using the INTRABEAM® system: a Monte Carlo study.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2022Article
- Early Detection of Aortic Degeneration in a Mouse Model of Sporadic Aortic Aneurysm and Dissection Using Nanoparticle Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography.Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology · 2021Article
- Stimuli-Responsive Iron Oxide Nanotheranostics: A Versatile and Powerful Approach for Cancer Therapy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2021Review
- Preclinical Applications of Multi-Platform Imaging in Animal Models of Cancer.Cancer research · 2021Review
- A Nanoradiomics Approach for Differentiation of Tumors Based on Tumor-Associated Macrophage Burden.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Detection of response to tumor microenvironment-targeted cellular immunotherapy using nano-radiomics.Science advances · 2020Article
- Nanoparticle Contrast-enhanced T1-Mapping Enables Estimation of Placental Fractional Blood Volume in a Pregnant Mouse Model.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Nanoparticle Contrast Agents for Photon-Counting Computed Tomography: Recent Developments and Future Opportunities.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Liposomal chemotherapeutics are exemplified by DOXIL® are commonly used in adult cancers. While these agents exhibit improved safety profile compared to their free drug counterparts, their treatment response rates have been ~ 20%, often attributed to the heterogeneous intratumoral uptake and distribution of liposomal nanoparticles. Non-invasive and quantitative monitoring of the uptake and distribution of liposomal nanoparticles in solid tumors could allow for patient stratification and personalized cancer nanomedicine. In this study, the variability of liposomal nanoparticle intratumoral distribution and uptake in orthotopic models of pediatric neuroblastoma was investigated using a liposomal nanoprobe visualized by high-resolution computed tomography (CT). Two human neuroblastoma cell lines (NGP: a MYCN-amplified line, and SH-SY5Y a MYCN non-amplified line) were implanted in the renal capsule of nude mice to establish the model. Intratumoral nanoparticle uptake was measured at tumor ages 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks post implantation. The locations of uptake within the tumor were mapped in the 3-dimensional reconstructed images. Total uptake was measured by integration of the x-ray absorption signal over the intratumoral uptake locations. Both tumor models showed significant variation in nanoparticle uptake as the tumors aged. Observation of the uptake patterns suggested that the nanoparticle uptake was dominated by vascular leak at the surface/periphery of the tumor, and localized, heterogeneous vascular leak in the interior of the tumor. Slow growing SH-SY5Y tumors demonstrated uptake that correlated directly with the tumor volume. Faster growing NGP tumor uptake did not correlate with any tumor geometric parameters, including tumor volume, tumor surface area, and R30 and R50, measures of uptake localized to the interior of the tumor. However, uptake for both SH-SY5Y and NGP tumors correlated almost perfectly with the leak volume, as measured by CT. These results suggest that the uptake of nanoparticles is heterogeneous and not governed by tumor geometry. An imaging nanoprobe remains the best measure of nanoparticle uptake in these tumor models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.