Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32367687›Full record

ReviewAdvanced healthcare materials2020

Best Practices for Preclinical In Vivo Testing of Cancer Nanomedicines.

Danielle M Valcourt, Chintan H Kapadia, Mackenzie A Scully, Megan N Dang, Emily S Day

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced healthcare materials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Permeability Benchmarking: Guidelines for ComparingJournal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Review
  9. Exemplifying interspecies variation of liposomeActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Diagnostic Ability of Methods Depicting Distress of Tumor-Bearing Mice.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

5 authors.

Danielle M ValcourtDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, 161 Colburn Lab, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
Chintan H KapadiaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, 161 Colburn Lab, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
Mackenzie A ScullyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, 161 Colburn Lab, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
Megan N DangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, 161 Colburn Lab, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.
Emily S DayDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Delaware, 161 Colburn Lab, Newark, DE, 19716, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8707-826X

Funding

Maximizing the delivery and efficacy of miRNA therapeutics through nanocarrier designR35GM119659 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI DAY, EMILY S · 2016 to 2020
$2.0M
Multifunctional siRNA/antibody nanocarriers to treat metastatic triple-negative breast cancerR01CA211925 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE · PI DAY, EMILY S · 2019 to 2023
$1.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA211925NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM119659
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significant advances have been made in the development of nanoparticles for cancer treatment in recent years. Despite promising results in preclinical animal models, cancer nanomedicines often fail in clinical trials. This failure rate could be reduced by defining stringent criteria for testing and quality control during the design and development stages, and by performing carefully planned preclinical studies in relevant animal models. This article discusses best practices for the evaluation of nanomedicines in murine tumor models. First, a recommended set of experiments to perform is introduced, including discussion of the types of data to collect during these studies. This is followed by an outline of various tumor models and their clinical relevance. Next, different routes of nanoparticle administration are overviewed, followed by a summary of important controls to include in in vivo studies of nanomedicine. Finally, animal welfare considerations are discussed, and an overview of the steps involved in achieving US Food and Drug Administration approval after animal studies are completed is provided. Researchers should use this report as a guideline for effective preclinical evaluation of cancer nanomedicine. As the community adopts best practices for in vivo testing, the rate of clinical translation of cancer nanomedicines is likely to improve.

Indexed as

NanomedicineNanoparticlesNeoplasmsAnimalsDrug Delivery SystemsMiceanimal welfareclinical translationexperimental designmurine tumor modelsnanoparticles

Identifiers

PMID32367687
PMCPMC7473451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.