Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39376248›Full record

ArticleNature reviews bioengineering2024

Nanoparticle Delivery to Tumours: From EPR and ATR Mechanisms to Clinical Impact.

Anshuman Dasgupta, Alexandros Marios Sofias, Fabian Kiessling, Twan Lammers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature reviews bioengineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing 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

59 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Supramolecular Degraders: An Emerging Paradigm in Targeted Protein Degradation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Mechanisms of breast cancer dormancy in bone metastasis.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Anshuman DasguptaInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Center for Biohybrid Medical Systems, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.
Alexandros Marios SofiasInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Center for Biohybrid Medical Systems, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.
Fabian KiesslingInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Center for Biohybrid Medical Systems, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.
Twan LammersInstitute for Experimental Molecular Imaging, Center for Biohybrid Medical Systems, RWTH Aachen University Clinic, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New insights into active versus passive nanoparticle tumour entry and exit mechanisms are enriching the understanding of tumour-targeted drug delivery. Here, we align the principles of the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) and active transport and retention (ATR), and outline how their mechanistic features may be employed to improve the performance and clinical impact of cancer nanomedicines.

Identifiers

PMID39376248
PMCPMC7616668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.