Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30107040›Full record

ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2019

Tumor Drug Penetration Measurements Could Be the Neglected Piece of the Personalized Cancer Treatment Puzzle.

Imke H Bartelink, Ella F Jones, Sheerin K Shahidi-Latham, Pei Rong Evelyn Lee, Yanan Zheng, Paolo Vicini, Laura van 't Veer, Denise Wolf, Andrei Iagaru, Deanna L Kroetz and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing 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

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Dynamic Tracking ofMolecular pharmaceutics · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

1 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

15 authors.

Imke H BartelinkDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Ella F JonesDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Sheerin K Shahidi-LathamDrug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics, Genentech, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Pei Rong Evelyn LeeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine of the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Yanan ZhengClinical Pharmacology, Pharmacometrics and DMPK (CPD), MedImmune, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Paolo ViciniClinical Pharmacology, Pharmacometrics and DMPK (CPD), MedImmune, Cambridge, UK.
Laura van 't VeerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine of the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Denise WolfDepartment of Laboratory Medicine of the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Andrei IagaruDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging at Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California, USA.
Deanna L KroetzDepartment of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences (BTS), School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Brendan PrideauxRutgers New Jersey Medical School, Public Health Research Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.
Cornelius CilliersDepartments of Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Greg M ThurberDepartments of Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Zena WimanaInstitut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Geraldine GebhartInstitut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision medicine aims to use patient genomic, epigenomic, specific drug dose, and other data to define disease patterns that may potentially lead to an improved treatment outcome. Personalized dosing regimens based on tumor drug penetration can play a critical role in this approach. State-of-the-art techniques to measure tumor drug penetration focus on systemic exposure, tissue penetration, cellular or molecular engagement, and expression of pharmacological activity. Using in silico methods, this information can be integrated to bridge the gap between the therapeutic regimen and the pharmacological link with clinical outcome. These methodologies are described, and challenges ahead are discussed. Supported by many examples, this review shows how the combination of these techniques provides enhanced patient-specific information on drug accessibility at the tumor tissue level, target binding, and downstream pharmacology. Our vision of how to apply tumor drug penetration measurements offers a roadmap for the clinical implementation of precision dosing.

Indexed as

Absorption, PhysiologicalAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicComputer SimulationDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansModels, BiologicalMolecular ImagingNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID30107040
PMCPMC6617978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.