Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32042343›Full record

ReviewTheranostics2020

Spatial heterogeneity of nanomedicine investigated by multiscale imaging of the drug, the nanoparticle and the tumour environment.

Josanne Sophia de Maar, Alexandros Marios Sofias, Tiffany Porta Siegel, Rob J Vreeken, Chrit Moonen, Clemens Bos, Roel Deckers

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Theranostics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Josanne Sophia de MaarDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Alexandros Marios SofiasDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Tiffany Porta SiegelThe Maastricht Multimodal Molecular Imaging Institute (M4I), Division of Imaging Mass Spectrometry, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Rob J VreekenThe Maastricht Multimodal Molecular Imaging Institute (M4I), Division of Imaging Mass Spectrometry, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Chrit MoonenDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Clemens BosDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
Roel DeckersDivision of Imaging and Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLMaastricht University · NLNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic and phenotypic tumour heterogeneity is an important cause of therapy resistance. Moreover, non-uniform spatial drug distribution in cancer treatment may cause pseudo-resistance, meaning that a treatment is ineffective because the drug does not reach its target at sufficient concentrations. Together with tumour heterogeneity, non-uniform drug distribution causes "therapy heterogeneity": a spatially heterogeneous treatment effect. Spatial heterogeneity in drug distribution occurs on all scales ranging from interpatient differences to intratumour differences on tissue or cellular scale. Nanomedicine aims to improve the balance between efficacy and safety of drugs by targeting drug-loaded nanoparticles specifically to tumours. Spatial heterogeneity in nanoparticle and payload distribution could be an important factor that limits their efficacy in patients. Therefore, imaging spatial nanoparticle distribution and imaging the tumour environment giving rise to this distribution could help understand (lack of) clinical success of nanomedicine. Imaging the nanoparticle, drug and tumour environment can lead to improvements of new nanotherapies, increase understanding of underlying mechanisms of heterogeneous distribution, facilitate patient selection for nanotherapies and help assess the effect of treatments that aim to reduce heterogeneity in nanoparticle distribution. In this review, we discuss three groups of imaging modalities applied in nanomedicine research: non-invasive clinical imaging methods (nuclear imaging, MRI, CT, ultrasound), optical imaging and mass spectrometry imaging. Because each imaging modality provides information at a different scale and has its own strengths and weaknesses, choosing wisely and combining modalities will lead to a wealth of information that will help bring nanomedicine forward.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug Delivery SystemsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmEnvironmentHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMass SpectrometryMiceMultimodal ImagingNanomedicineNanoparticlesNeoplasmsOptical ImagingPatient SelectionPharmaceutical PreparationsRatsPharmaceutical PreparationsClinical ImagingDrug distributionMass Spectrometry Imaging.NanomedicineOptical imaging

Identifiers

PMID32042343
PMCPMC6993242
OpenAlexW3004179479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.