Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29208719›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2017

Effect of removing Kupffer cells on nanoparticle tumor delivery.

Anthony J Tavares, Wilson Poon, Yi-Nan Zhang, Qin Dai, Rickvinder Besla, Ding Ding, Ben Ouyang, Angela Li, Juan Chen, Gang Zheng and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Engineered cargo-free nanoparticle decoys for phagocytic modulation of macrophages.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

71 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

12 authors.

Anthony J TavaresInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G9, Canada.
Wilson PoonInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2192-3077
Yi-Nan ZhangInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G9, Canada.
Qin DaiInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G9, Canada.
Rickvinder BeslaToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada.
Ding DingInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G9, Canada.
Ben OuyangInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G9, Canada.
Angela LiToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada.
Juan ChenPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada.
Gang ZhengPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada.
Clinton RobbinsToronto General Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada.
Warren C W ChanInstitute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G9, Canada; warren.chan@utoronto.ca.

Funding

CIHR MOP-130143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A recent metaanalysis shows that 0.7% of nanoparticles are delivered to solid tumors. This low delivery efficiency has major implications in the translation of cancer nanomedicines, as most of the nanomedicines are sequestered by nontumor cells. To improve the delivery efficiency, there is a need to investigate the quantitative contribution of each organ in blocking the transport of nanoparticles to solid tumors. Here, we hypothesize that the removal of the liver macrophages, cells that have been reported to take up the largest amount of circulating nanoparticles, would lead to a significant increase in the nanoparticle delivery efficiency to solid tumors. We were surprised to discover that the maximum achievable delivery efficiency was only 2%. In our analysis, there was a clear correlation between particle design, chemical composition, macrophage depletion, tumor pathophysiology, and tumor delivery efficiency. In many cases, we observed an 18-150 times greater delivery efficiency, but we were not able to achieve a delivery efficiency higher than 2%. The results suggest the need to look deeper at other organs such as the spleen, lymph nodes, and tumor in mediating the delivery process. Systematically mapping the contribution of each organ quantitatively will allow us to pinpoint the cause of the low tumor delivery efficiency. This, in effect, enables the generation of a rational strategy to improve the delivery efficiency of nanoparticles to solid tumors either through the engineering of multifunctional nanosystems or through manipulation of biological barriers.

Indexed as

NanoparticlesAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCell Line, TumorDrug Delivery SystemsGoldHeterograftsHumansKupffer CellsLiverMacrophagesMetal NanoparticlesMiceNanomedicineNeoplasmsPhagocytesAntineoplastic AgentsGoldcancerlivermacrophagenanoparticletumor delivery

Identifiers

PMID29208719
PMCPMC5754793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.