ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2018
Optimal method of gold nanoparticle administration in melanoma-bearing mice.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Accumulation, Biological Effects and Toxicity of BSA-Coated Gold Nanoparticles in the Mouse Liver, Spleen, and Kidneys.International journal of nanomedicine · 2024Article
- Radiosensitising effect of iron oxide-gold nanocomplex for electron beam therapy of melanoma in vivo by magnetic targeting.IET nanobiotechnology · 2023Article
- Therapeutic Efficacy of Carbon Ion Irradiation Enhanced by 11-MUA-Capped Gold Nanoparticles: An in vitro and in vivo Study.International journal of nanomedicine · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study assessed different methods of administering gold nanoparticles (GNPs) using different formulations to determine which of the methods achieved optimal radiosensitization. Cells from the B16F10 mouse melanoma cell line were implanted in the femoral area of mice, assigned to one of the eight following groups: i) Control; ii) intravenous (IV) injection of polyethylene glycol (PEG)-binding GNPs (Peg-GNPs) alone; iii) direct intratumoral (IT) injection of Peg-GNPs alone; iv) radiotherapy (RT)-alone; v) Peg-GNP IV + RT; vi) Peg-GNP IT + RT; vii) naked GNP (N-GNPs) IV + RT; and viii) N-GNP IT + RT. Injection volumes of the Peg-GNPs (particle size, 15 nm; dose, 2.8 mg/ml) and N-GNPs (particle size, 15 nm; dose, 200 mg Au/cc) were 0.3 and 0.2 ml per mouse, respectively, for IV and IT. The femoral area was irradiated with a single dose of 10 Gy. To evaluate the effects of GNPs, the current study measured the changes in the tumor volume ratio to the initial tumor volume over time and observed the survival rate. Administration of GNPs with RT did not improve the suppression of tumor growth or survival to a statistically significant extent. The administration of Peg-GNPs alone indicated a slight tumor suppressing effect at the early stage. The current study was not able to confirm the radiosensitization effect of GNPs in melanoma-bearing mice with tumors that were large in comparison to previous studies. Further research is required to validate the radiosensitizing effect on large tumors.
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.