Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41993782›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2026

How Key in vivo Models Can Advance Anticancer Nanotherapeutics.

Gudapureddy Radha, B Devika Chithrani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Gudapureddy RadhaDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.
B Devika ChithraniDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8P 5C2, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nanomedicine offers powerful opportunities for targeted drug delivery and cancer therapy, yet clinical translation remains limited by the complex and dynamic interactions of nanoparticles within biological systems. This review integrates current evidence on how nanoparticle size, shape, and surface properties govern cellular uptake and processing, systemic biodistribution, immune interactions, and therapeutic performance across in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo models. By comparatively analyzing findings across two-dimensional, three-dimensional, xenograft, and immunocompetent tumor models, this review identifies model-dependent determinants of nanoparticle performance that influence translational outcomes. Foundational studies in two-dimensional monolayers established relationships between physicochemical attributes, endocytic pathways, vesicular trafficking, and exocytosis. Three-dimensional spheroids introduce extracellular matrix density and cellular packing constraints that limit nanoparticle movement and alter uptake trends observed in monolayers. In vivo, xenograft models emphasize the influence of vascular permeability and stromal architecture but often overestimate delivery due to exaggerated enhanced permeability and retention effects and the lack of adaptive immunity. Immunocompetent tumor models capture complement activation, opsonization, macrophage-mediated clearance, dynamic protein corona evolution, and cytokine-driven vascular changes. These immune-mediated processes reshape biodistribution patterns and often diminish ligand-mediated targeting benefits. They operate alongside systemic factors such as renal and hepatosplenic filtration, biotransformation, and species-specific differences in vascular structure and immune composition, influencing nanoparticle pharmacokinetics and therapeutic response. Together, these findings underscore that successful nanomedicine design requires integrating material engineering with an understanding of immune surveillance, vascular biology, tumor microenvironment heterogeneity, and whole-body transport dynamics. Future progress will depend on developing nanoparticles that maintain functional stability in immune-intact hosts, minimize premature clearance, and achieve sustained intratumoral delivery. These advances must be supported by predictive, physiologically relevant models that bridge gaps between in vitro results, preclinical outcomes, and clinical translation.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsNanoparticlesNeoplasmsAnimalsHumansNanomedicineNanoparticle Drug Delivery SystemTissue DistributionAntineoplastic AgentsNanoparticle Drug Delivery System2D cultures3D spheroidsbiodistributionimmunocompetent modelnanoformulationstumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID41993782
PMCPMC13082252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.