ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
A Predictive Pharmacokinetic Model for Immune Cell-Mediated Uptake and Retention of Nanoparticles in Tumors.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engineering smart polymeric lipid nanoparticles for breast cancer: AI-guided formulation design, biological barriers, and translational constraints.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Near Infrared Biomimetic Hybrid Magnetic Nanocarrier for MRI-Guided Thermal Therapy.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Review
- Nanoengineered-based delivery systems to modulate CD4Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Para- and Transcellular Transport Kinetics of Nanoparticles across Lymphatic Endothelial Cells.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- Phytochemical-based nanodrugs going beyond the state-of-the-art in cancer management-Targeting cancer stem cells in the framework of predictive, preventive, personalized medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A promise of cancer nanomedicine is the "targeted" delivery of therapeutic agents to tumors by the rational design of nanostructured materials. During the past several decades, a realization that in vitro and in vivo preclinical data are unreliable predictors of successful clinical translation has motivated a reexamination of this approach. Mathematical models of drug pharmacokinetics (PK) and biodistribution (BD) are essential tools for small-molecule drugs development. A key assumption underlying these models is that drug-target binding kinetics dominate blood clearance, hence recognition by host innate immune cells is not explicitly included. Nanoparticles circulating in the blood are conspicuous to phagocytes, and inevitable interactions typically trigger active biological responses to sequester and remove them from circulation. Our recent findings suggest that, instead of referring to nanoparticles as designed for active or passive "tumor targeting", we ought rather to refer to immune cells residing in the tumor microenvironment (TME) as active or passive actors in an essentially "cell-mediated tumor retention" process that competes with active removal by other phagocytes. Indeed, following intravenous injection, nanoparticles induce changes in the immune compartment of the TME because of nanoparticle uptake, irrespective of the nature of tumor targeting moieties. In this study, we propose a 6-compartment PK model as an initial mathematical framework for modeling this tumor-associated immune cell-mediated retention. Published in vivo PK and BD results obtained with bionized nanoferrite
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.