The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cancer nanomedicines: So many papers and so few drugs!
Open accessAbstract
This review identifies a timeline to nanomedicine anticancer drug approval using the business model of inventors, innovators and imitators. By evaluating the publication record of nanomedicine cancer therapeutics we identified a trend of very few publications prior to FDA approval. We first enumerated the publications related to cancer involving polymers, liposomes or monoclonal antibodies and determined the number of citations per publication as well as the number of published clinical trials amongst the publications. Combining these data with the development of specific nanomedicines, we are able to identify an invention phase consisting of seminal papers in basic science necessary for the development of a specific nanomedicine. The innovation phase includes the first report, the development and the clinical trials involving that nanomedicine. Finally, the imitation phase begins after approval when others ride the wave of success by using the same formulation for new drugs or using the same drug to validate other nanomedicines. We then focused our analysis on nanomedicines containing camptothecin derivatives, which are not yet approved including two polymers considered innovations and one liposomal formulation in the imitation phase. The conclusion that may be drawn from the analysis of the camptothecins is that approved drugs reformulated in polymeric and liposomal cancer nanomedicines have a more difficult time navigating through the approval process than the parent molecule. This is probably due to the fact that for most currently approved drugs, reformulating them in a nanocarrier provides a small increase in performance that large pharmaceutical companies do not consider being worth the time, effort and expense of development. It also appears that drug carriers have a more difficult path through the clinic than monoclonal antibodies. The added complexity of nanocarriers also deters their use to deliver new molecular entities. Thus, the new drug candidates that might be most improved by drug delivery in nanocarriers are not formulated in this fashion.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Matsumura, Y., & Maeda, H. (1986) · PubMed · Cited by 6,781
Doxil® — The first FDA-approved nano-drug: Lessons learned
Barenholz, Y. (. (2012) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.03.020 · Cited by 4,792
Wall, M. E., Wani, M. C., Cook, C. E., Palmer, K. H., McPhail, A. T., & Sim, G. A. (1966) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/ja00968a057 · Cited by 2,258
Depletion of B cells in vivo by a chimeric mouse human monoclonal antibody to CD20
Reff, M., Carner, K., Chambers, K., Chinn, P., Leonard, J., Raab, R., Newman, R., Hanna, N., & Anderson, D. (1994) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood.v83.2.435.435 · Cited by 1,999
Bangham, A. D., & Horne, R. W. (1964) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(64)80115-7 · Cited by 1,809
There's plenty of room at the bottom
Feynman, R. P. (1999) · California Institute of Technology eBooks · doi:10.1201/b10107-3 · Cited by 1,444
Characterization of a human B lymphocyte-specific antigen.
Stashenko, P., Nadler, L. M., Hardy, R., & Schlossman, S. F. (1980) · The Journal of Immunology · doi:10.4049/jimmunol.125.4.1678 · Cited by 1,076
Chimeric human antibody molecules: mouse antigen-binding domains with human constant region domains.
Morrison, S. L., Johnson, M. J., Herzenberg, L. A., & Oi, V. T. (1984) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.81.21.6851 · Cited by 1,039
Nanomedicine(s) under the Microscope
Duncan, R., & Gaspar, R. (2011) · Molecular Pharmaceutics · doi:10.1021/mp200394t · Cited by 981
Haran, G., Cohen, R., Bar, L. K., & Barenholz, Y. (1993) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes · doi:10.1016/0005-2736(93)90105-9 · Cited by 934
Cited by
Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological barriers to drug delivery
Blanco, E., Shen, H., & Ferrari, M. (2015) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3330 · Cited by 7,002
Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours
Wilhelm, S., Tavares, A. J., Dai, Q., Ohta, S., Audet, J., Dvorak, H. F., & Chan, W. C. W. (2016) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.14 · Cited by 5,218
Nanoparticle colloidal stability in cell culture media and impact on cellular interactions
Moore, T. L., Rodriguez-Lorenzo, L., Hirsch, V., Balog, S., Urban, D., Jud, C., Rothen-Rutishauser, B., Lattuada, M., & Petri-Fink, A. (2015) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c4cs00487f · Cited by 1,082
Cancer nanomedicine for combination cancer immunotherapy
Nam, J., Son, S., Park, K. S., Zou, W., Shea, L. D., & Moon, J. J. (2019) · Nature Reviews Materials · doi:10.1038/s41578-019-0108-1 · Cited by 940
Cancer nanomedicine: from targeted delivery to combination therapy
Xu, X., Ho, W., Zhang, X., Bertrand, N., & Farokhzad, O. (2015) · Trends in Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2015.01.001 · Cited by 693
Metadata
- Authors
- Venditto, V. J., & Szoka, F. C.
- Venue
- Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 80-88
- ISSN
- 0169-409X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1978094989
- Cited by
- 537
- References
- 51
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer nanomedicines: So many papers and so few drugs! https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.038
- The paper
- Venditto, V. J., & Szoka, F. C. (2013). Cancer nanomedicines: So many papers and so few drugs! Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.038
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.