Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 537

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 access
Venditto, Vincent J., Szoka, Francis C.·2013·Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.addr.2012.09.038

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 537

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.