ReviewMaterials today. Bio2026
Localized nanomedicine for urologic cancers: anatomy-guided design and clinical translation.
Review in Materials today. Bio, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bladder, prostate, and renal cancers differ in their anatomical locations, tissue structures, and routes of clinical intervention. Conventional systemic treatments are often limited by nonspecific biodistribution, insufficient tumor accumulation, and toxicity. Localized nanomedicine delivery offers an alternative strategy by using organ-specific anatomical access to increase exposure at the tumor site and reduce systemic distribution. Its success depends on the compatibility of nanomedicine delivery systems with the physiological environment, anatomical characteristics, and procedural requirements of the organ. Here, we compare local nanomedicine strategies for these three cancers and discuss how anatomy can guide their design. We therefore define five design criteria for localized nanomedicines: retention, penetration, responsiveness, targeting, and synergy. For each criterion, describe relevant engineering approaches and applications in individual cancers. We also consider barriers to clinical use, including formulation reproducibility and compatibility with clinical workflows. An approach that combines anatomy, nanomedicine design, and delivery procedures may support their clinical translation for more precise diagnosis and treatment.
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.