ArticleRadiology and oncology2024
The therapeutic effect of ultrasound targeted destruction of schisandrin A contrast microbubbles on liver cancer and its mechanism.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Potential and Challenges of Focused Ultrasound-Mediated Therapies in the Management of Liver and Biliary Tract Cancers.Cancers · 2026Review
- Ultrasound-mediated targeted micro/nanobubbles: breaking new boundaries in precision tumor therapy.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Wuweizisu B for cancer treatment from multitarget mechanisms to precision delivery strategies (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the study was to explore the therapeutic effect of ultrasound targeted destruction of schisandrin A contrast microbubbles on liver cancer and its related mechanism. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Span-PEG microbubbles loaded with schisandrin A were prepared using Span60, NaCl, PEG-1500, and schisandrin A. The loading rate of schisandrin A in Span-PEG composite microbubbles was determined by ultraviolet spectrophotometry method. The Walker-256 cell survival rate of schisandrin A was determined by 3-(4,5)-dimethylthiahiazo (-z-y1)-3,5-di-phenytetrazoliumromide (MTT) assay. The content of schisandrin A in the cells was determined by high performance liquid chromatography. Ultrasound imaging was used to evaluate the therapeutic effect
resultsThe composite microbubbles were uniform in size, and the particle size distribution was unimodal and stable, which met the requirements of ultrasound contrast agents. The loading rate of schisandrin A in Span-PEG microbubbles was 8.84 ± 0.14%, the encapsulation efficiency was 82.24±1.21%. The IC50 value of schisandrin A was 2.87 μg/mL. The drug + microbubbles + ultrasound (D+M+U) group had the most obvious inhibitory effect on Walker-256 cancer cells, the highest intracellular drug concentration, the largest reduction in tumor volume, the most obvious reduction in serum inflammatory factors, and the most obvious improvement in pathological results. The results of immunohistochemistry showed that HIF-1α, VEGF and VEGFR-2 protein decreased most significantly in D+M+U group (
conclusionsSchisandrin A had an anti-tumor effect, and its mechanism might be related to the inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. The schisandrin A microbubbles could promote the intake of schisandrin A in tumor cells after being destroyed at the site of tumor under ultrasound irradiation, thus playing the best anti-tumor effect.
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.