Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31720083›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2019

Modeling multi-needle injection into solid tumor.

Vladimir Subbotin, Gennady Fiksel

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of cancer research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Fracking in Tumors: A Key Drug Transport Mechanism.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Vladimir Subbotin602 Samuel Drive Madison, WI 53717, USA.
Gennady Fiksel1035 Heather Way Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.
Ann Arbor Center for Independent Living · USSamueli Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discovery of mechanisms by which the cancer cells avoid the host immune attack (immune checkpoints) as well the capability of the monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to blockade the checkpoint proteins on cancer and tumor-infiltrating cells (CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1) promised new breakthroughs in the cure of cancer. After these mechanisms of cancer escaping the host immunity were undoubtedly confirmed in numerous experimental and clinical studies, the FDA approval of CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 mAbs for systemic treatment thought to revolutionize the outcome of cancer treatment. However, as of today, the anticipated curative effect of anti-CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 mAb treatments has been observed only in a small population of patients. In addition, systemic administration of mAbs in clinics has been found associated with new toxicity profiles, sometimes very severe. The main obstacle that hinders the mAbs therapy appears to be the inability of delivering mAbs to a sufficient number of cancer cells and tumor infiltrating cells. As an alternative to the systemic administration (or as a complement to it), local intratumoral delivery of mAbs has been anticipated to resolve that issue. However, unlike the systemic mAbs administration, for which formidable but surmountable obstacles (big size of mAbs ~150 kD, high interstitial fluid pressure in solid tumors, etc.) have been known to hamper mAbs delivery to cancer and tumor-infiltrating cells, the lack of effects of intratumoral mAbs administration remains completely incomprehensible and needs a new theoretical reconsideration that we have attempted in our analysis. It can be suggested that the limited benefits of the intratumoral mAbs administration appeared to be rooted in the same problem that hindered the effects of systemic mAbs administration: the inability to reach a sufficient number of cancer cells and tumor-infiltrating cells. We hypothesize that the core of the problem stems from the fact that the single-needle intratumoral injection forms a very localized, jet-like distribution of the drug (mAbs) that constitutes only a small fraction of the total volume of the tumor. In this light we are re-evaluating the theoretical reasonableness of the single-needle intratumoral injection approach. We propose that multi-needle injection will circumvent this limitation and for that we analyze the behavior of an injectant in tissues using different configurations of the injection needles. To accomplish this goal, we created a model of injectant distribution in a solid tissue based on the traditional technique of single-needle injection and then extended that model to a case of simultaneous multi-needle injection. To develop the model of drug delivery and transport in biological tissues, we followed a frequently used approach of modeling the diffusive transport of liquid through a porous media using the Darcy's law that relates the flow velocity, the pressure gradient, and the tissue permeability. The analysis demonstrates that a multi-needle injection setup provides a significantly more widespread and homogeneous injectant distribution within a solid tumor than that for a single needle injection for the same tumor size. Adding separate draining needles can further improve the delivery of injectant to cancer and tumor-infiltrating cells.

Indexed as

Cancercheckpoint inhibitionimmunotherapyintratumoral injectionliquid transportmAbssolid tumor

Identifiers

PMID31720083
PMCPMC6834475
OpenAlexW2996599025

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.