ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology2017
In vitro microfluidic models of tumor microenvironment to screen transport of drugs and nanoparticles.
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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Directed migration of cancer cells: a systems biophysics perspective.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Multifunctional vesicles in cancer therapy and theranostics: current advances and future challenges.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Review
- Vascularized Tumor-on-a-Chip Model as a Platform for Studying Tumor-Microenvironment-Drug Interaction.Macromolecular bioscience · 2025Review
- DNA Origami-Cyanine Nanocomplex for Precision Imaging of KRAS-Mutant Pancreatic Cancer Cells.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Unveiling Nanoparticles: Recent Approaches in Studying the Internalization Pattern of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles in Mono- and Multicellular Biological Structures.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Article
- Advanced manufacturing of nanoparticle formulations of drugs and biologics using microfluidics.The Analyst · 2024Review
- Review
- Review
- The Extracellular Matrix: Its Composition, Function, Remodeling, and Role in Tumorigenesis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Predictive Design and Analysis of Drug Transport by Multiscale Computational Models Under Uncertainty.Pharmaceutical research · 2023Review
- Recent advances for cancer detection and treatment by microfluidic technology, review and update.Biological procedures online · 2022Review
- Engineering in vitro immune-competent tissue models for testing and evaluation of therapeutics.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2022Review
- Application of Microfluidic Systems for Breast Cancer Research.Micromachines · 2022Review
- The past, present, and future of breast cancer models for nanomedicine development.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2021Review
- Cancer Explant Models.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2021Article
- From 2D to 3D Cancer Cell Models-The Enigmas of Drug Delivery Research.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- In vitro vascularized tumor platform for modeling tumor-vasculature interactions of inflammatory breast cancer.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2020Article
- An engineered pancreatic cancer model with intra-tumoral heterogeneity of driver mutations.Lab on a chip · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.