ArticleScientific reports2026
Green analytical evaluation of anticancer drug analysis: A multi-tool assessment of HPLC and LC-MS methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The escalating global cancer burden necessitates sustainable analytical methods for therapeutic drug monitoring of antineoplastic agents, yet conventional HPLC and LC-MS protocols predominantly employ hazardous solvents. This study presents comparative greenness evaluation of chromatographic methods specifically for anticancer drugs, applying eight complementary GAC tools AGREE, MoGAPI, AGREEprep, Analytical Eco-Scale, BAGI, CACI, CaFRI, and AGSA to 20 published analytical methods (16 HPLC and 4 LC-MS). Z-score standardization enabled composite rankings, with Pearson correlation analysis confirming strong inter-tool agreement (AGREE-BAGI: r = 0.858, p < 0.001 in HPLC cohort). Results showed marked variability in sustainability, with top performing methods achieving high scores (HPLC Method 1: AGREE 0.57, AES 86, composite Z-score 1.541; LC-MS Method 3: AGREE 0.61, composite Z-score 0.983). Optimized HPLC methods outperformed LC-MS counterparts in reagent safety, waste reduction, and energy efficiency. Critically, no method incorporated genuinely green solvents. The multi-metric framework provides quantitative benchmarks for method optimization via solvent substitution, miniaturization, and automation. By identifying practical and eco-friendly analytical routes for anticancer drug analysis, this study promotes greener pharmaceutical research and advocates integration of greenness metrics into regulatory guidelines.
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.