Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28198106›Full record

ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology2017

In vitro microfluidic models of tumor microenvironment to screen transport of drugs and nanoparticles.

Altug Ozcelikkale, Hye-Ran Moon, Michael Linnes, Bumsoo Han

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Directed migration of cancer cells: a systems biophysics perspective.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. DNA Origami-Cyanine Nanocomplex for Precision Imaging of KRAS-Mutant Pancreatic Cancer Cells.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Cancer Explant Models.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Altug OzcelikkaleSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Cancer Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Hye-Ran MoonSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Cancer Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Michael LinnesSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Cancer Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Bumsoo HanSchool of Mechanical Engineering, Center for Cancer Research, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.

Funding

Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3M
Indiana Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UL1)UL1TR000006 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2012 to 2013
$5.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000006NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201400021C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in nanotechnology have enabled numerous types of nanoparticles (NPs) to improve drug delivery to tumors. While many NP systems have been proposed, their clinical translation has been less than anticipated primarily due to failure of current preclinical evaluation techniques to adequately model the complex interactions between the NP and physiological barriers of tumor microenvironment. This review focuses on microfluidic tumor models for characterization of delivery efficacy and toxicity of cancer nanomedicine. Microfluidics offer significant advantages over traditional macroscale cell cultures by enabling recapitulation of tumor microenvironment through precise control of physiological cues such as hydrostatic pressure, shear stress, oxygen, and nutrient gradients. Microfluidic systems have recently started to be adapted for screening of drugs and NPs under physiologically relevant settings. So far the two primary application areas of microfluidics in this area have been high-throughput screening using traditional culture settings such as single cells or multicellular tumor spheroids, and mimicry of tumor microenvironment for study of cancer-related cell-cell and cell-matrix interactions. These microfluidic technologies are also useful in modeling specific steps in NP delivery to tumor and characterize NP transport properties and outcomes by systematic variation of physiological conditions. Ultimately, it will be possible to design drug-screening platforms uniquely tailored for individual patient physiology using microfluidics. These in vitro models can contribute to development of precision medicine by enabling rapid and patient-specific evaluation of cancer nanomedicine. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2017, 9:e1460. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1460 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Indexed as

Drug Delivery SystemsMicrofluidicsNanoparticlesTumor MicroenvironmentHumansNanomedicine

Identifiers

PMID28198106
PMCPMC5555839

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.