Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38247767›Full record

ReviewGels (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Implantation of In Situ Gelling Systems for the Delivery of Chemotherapeutic Agents.

Elena O Bakhrushina, Iosif B Mikhel, Liliya M Buraya, Egor D Moiseev, Irina M Zubareva, Anastasia V Belyatskaya, Grigory Y Evzikov, Alexey P Bondarenko, Ivan I Krasnyuk, Ivan I Krasnyuk

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

10 authors.

Elena O BakhrushinaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Iosif B MikhelDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Liliya M BurayaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Egor D MoiseevDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Irina M ZubarevaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Anastasia V BelyatskayaDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Grigory Y EvzikovDepartment of Nervous Diseases and Neurosurgery, N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute of Clinical Medicine, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Alexey P BondarenkoClinical Center VitaMed, Moscow 125319, Russia.
Ivan I KrasnyukDepartment of Analytical, Physical and Colloidal Chemistry, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.
Ivan I KrasnyukDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, A.P. Nelyubin Institute of Pharmacy, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119048, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implantation is a modern method of administering chemotherapeutic agents, with a highly targeted effect and better patient tolerance due to the low frequency of administration. Implants are capable of controlled release, which makes them a viable alternative to infusional chemotherapy, allowing patients to enjoy a better quality of life without the need for prolonged hospitalization. Compared to subcutaneous implantation, intratumoral implantation has a number of significant advantages in terms of targeting and side effects, but this area of chemotherapy is still poorly understood in terms of clinical trials. At the same time, there are more known developments of drugs in the form of implants and injections for intratumoral administration. The disadvantages of classical intratumoral implants are the need for surgical intervention to install the system and the increased risk of tumor rupture noted by some specialists. The new generation of implants are in situ implants-systems formed in the tumor due to a phase transition (sol-gel transition) under the influence of various stimuli. Among this systems some are highly selective for a certain type of malignant neoplasm. Such systems are injected and have all the advantages of intratumoral injections, but due to the phase transition occurring in situ, they form depot forms that allow the long-term release of chemotherapeutic agents.

Indexed as

chemotherapyin situ implantintratumoral implantationintratumoral injectionstimuli-sensitive systemstumors

Identifiers

PMID38247767
PMCPMC10815592

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.