ReviewSmall methods2022
Nanotheranostic Strategies for Cancer Immunotherapy.
Review in Small methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel approaches to modulate CAR-T cell function by targeting the tumor microenvironment in ovarian cancer.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
- Nanomaterials reshaping cancer radiotherapy: Radiosensitization mechanisms, delivery and theranostic platforms, multimodal synergy, and clinical translation strategies.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- AI-driven nanomedicine for cancer theranostics.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Engineering principles of zwitterionic hydrogels: Molecular architecture to manufacturing innovations for advanced healthcare materials.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Ultrasound-assisted immunotherapy for malignant tumour.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- NIR-II light in clinical oncology: opportunities and challenges.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite advancements in cancer immunotherapy, heterogeneity in tumor response impose barriers to successful treatments and accurate prognosis. Effective therapy and early outcome detection are critical as toxicity profiles following immunotherapies can severely affect patients' quality of life. Existing imaging techniques, including positron emission tomography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or multiplexed imaging, are often used in clinics yet suffer from limitations in the early assessment of immune response. Conventional strategies to validate immune response mainly rely on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and the modified iRECIST for immuno-oncology drug trials. However, accurate monitoring of immunotherapy efficacy is challenging since the response does not always follow conventional RECIST criteria due to delayed and variable kinetics in immunotherapy responses. Engineered nanomaterials for immunotherapy applications have significantly contributed to overcoming these challenges by improving drug delivery and dynamic imaging techniques. This review summarizes challenges in recent immune-modulation approaches and traditional imaging tools, followed by emerging developments in three-in-one nanoimmunotheranostic systems co-opting nanotechnology, immunotherapy, and imaging. In addition, a comprehensive overview of imaging modalities in recent cancer immunotherapy research and a brief outlook on how nanotheranostic platforms can potentially advance to clinical translations for the field of immuno-oncology is presented.
Indexed as
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.