Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39852732›Full record

ReviewNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Monte Carlo Simulations in Nanomedicine: Advancing Cancer Imaging and Therapy.

James C L Chow

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

1 author.

James C L ChowRadiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 1X6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4202-4855

Funding

Government of Canada's New Frontiers in Research Fund-Exploration NFRFE-2022-00707
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monte Carlo (MC) simulations have become important in advancing nanoparticle (NP)-based applications for cancer imaging and therapy. This review explores the critical role of MC simulations in modeling complex biological interactions, optimizing NP designs, and enhancing the precision of therapeutic and diagnostic strategies. Key findings highlight the ability of MC simulations to predict NP bio-distribution, radiation dosimetry, and treatment efficacy, providing a robust framework for addressing the stochastic nature of biological systems. Despite their contributions, MC simulations face challenges such as modeling biological complexity, computational demands, and the scarcity of reliable nanoscale data. However, emerging technologies, including hybrid modeling approaches, high-performance computing, and quantum simulation, are poised to overcome these limitations. Furthermore, novel advancements such as FLASH radiotherapy, multifunctional NPs, and patient-specific data integration are expanding the capabilities and clinical relevance of MC simulations. This topical review underscores the transformative potential of MC simulations in bridging fundamental research and clinical translation. By facilitating personalized nanomedicine and streamlining regulatory and clinical trial processes, MC simulations offer a pathway toward more effective, tailored, and accessible cancer treatments. The continued evolution of simulation techniques, driven by interdisciplinary collaboration and technological innovation, ensures that MC simulations will remain at the forefront of nanomedicine's progress.

Indexed as

cancer therapyDNA damageDNA dosimetrydose enhancementmedical imagingMonte Carlo simulationnanodosimetrynanomaterialsnanoparticlenanoparticle-enhanced radiotherapytheranostics

Identifiers

PMID39852732
PMCPMC11767847

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.