ReviewNanoscale advances2022
Revisiting the outstanding questions in cancer nanomedicine with a future outlook.
Review in Nanoscale advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor microenvironment-specific nanomedicine: from biology-driven to multi-omics-guided precision engineering.Journal of hematology & oncology · 2026Review
- Targeted nano-drug delivery systems for tumor immunotherapy.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2026Review
- Regulatory framework for polymer-based nanotherapeutics in clinical translation.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Article
- Nanotechnology for the theranostic opportunity of breast cancer lung metastasis: recent advancements and future challenges.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Synthetic molecular motor activates drug delivery from polymersomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Advances in Doxorubicin-based nano-drug delivery system in triple negative breast cancer.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Influence of Elasticity of Hydrogel Nanoparticles on Their Tumor Delivery.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The field of cancer nanomedicine has been fueled by the expectation of mitigating the inefficiencies and life-threatening side effects of conventional chemotherapy. Nanomedicine proposes to utilize the unique nanoscale properties of nanoparticles to address the most pressing questions in cancer treatment and diagnosis. The approval of nano-based products in the 1990s inspired scientific explorations in this direction. However, despite significant progress in the understanding of nanoscale properties, there are only very few success stories in terms of substantial increase in clinical efficacy and overall patient survival. All existing paradigms such as the concept of enhanced permeability and retention (EPR), the stealth effect and immunocompatibility of nanomedicine have been questioned in recent times. In this review we critically examine impediments posed by biological factors to the clinical success of nanomedicine. We put forth current observations on critical outstanding questions in nanomedicine. We also provide the promising side of cancer nanomedicine as we move forward in nanomedicine research. This would provide a future direction for research in nanomedicine and inspire ongoing investigations.
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.