Cited by 1,101Nanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerBarrier Structure and Function Studies

Normalization of tumour blood vessels improves the delivery of nanomedicines in a size-dependent manner

Open access
Chauhan, Vikash P., Stylianopoulos, Triantafyllos, Martin, John D., Popović, Zoran, Chen, Ou, Kamoun, Walid S., Bawendi, Moungi G., Fukumura, Dai +1 more·2012·Nature Nanotechnology

Abstract

The blood vessels of cancerous tumours are leaky1–3 and poorly organized4–7. This can increase the interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) inside tumours and reduce blood supply to them, which impairs drug delivery8–9. Anti-angiogenic therapies – which “normalize” the abnormal blood vessels in tumours by making them less leaky – have been shown to improve the delivery and effectiveness of chemotherapeutics with low molecular-weights10, but it remains unclear whether normalizing tumour vessels can improve the delivery of nanomedicines. Here we show that repairing the abnormal vessels in mammary tumours, by blocking vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor-2, improves the delivery of small nanoparticles (12nm diameter) while hindering the delivery of large nanoparticles (125nm diameter). We utilize a mathematical model to show that reducing vessel wall pore sizes through normalization decreases IFP in tumours, allowing small nanoparticles to enter them more rapidly. However, increased steric and hydrodynamic hindrances, also associated with smaller pores, make it more difficult for large nanoparticles to enter tumours. Our results further suggest that smaller (~12nm) nanomedicines are ideal for cancer therapy, owing to superior tumour penetration.

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 · 10.1038/nnano.2012.45

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In breast tumor-bearing mice, combination of Doxil (around 125 nm) or Abaxane (around 12 nm) resulted in significant around threefold accumulation of smaller nanoparticles.

    “Further, the research group administered a combination of Doxil (around 125 nm in size) or Abaxane (around 12 nm in size) in breast tumor-bearing mice and observed a significant (around threefold) accumulation of smaller nanoparticles [26].”

    From Approaches to Improve EPR-Based Drug Delivery for Cancer Therapy and Diagnosis (2023) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Methods (Tumour growth studies) confirm that mice bearing mammary tumours received DC101 with either Doxil or Abraxane. The reported roughly threefold increase, however, was in transvascular flux of separate 12 nm nanoparticle probes after DC101 treatment, not measured accumulation of Abraxane during the combination therapy. The paper gives the drugs’ approximate diameters as 100 nm and 10 nm, respectively. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Uniformly elevated IFP in the tumor center is responsible for inhibiting drug delivery.

    “The uniformly elevated IFP in tumor center is responsible for inhibiting drug delivery [172, 178, 186] while the steep pressure gradients at the periphery favors tumor growth and metastasis[154,[187][188][189][190].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chauhan, V. P., Stylianopoulos, T., Martin, J. D., Popović, Z., Chen, O., Kamoun, W. S., Bawendi, M. G., Fukumura, D., & Jain, R. K.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Jain, Rakesh K.
Venue
Nature Nanotechnology
Published
2012-04-08
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
383-388
ISSN
  • 1748-3387 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-3395
OpenAlex
W2126163864
Cited by
1,101
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 107 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 76 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 78 · 2012: 26
FWCI
31.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Nanotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA115767, T32CA073479, R01CA085140, R01CA096915, R24CA085140, P01CA080124, R01CA126642, R01CA098706)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Angiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
Keywords
anti-angiogenic therapy, nanomedicine delivery, nanoparticle size dependence, interstitial fluid pressure, tumor penetration, tumor vasculature, steric hindrance, mammary tumors
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Mammary Neoplasms, Experimental, Drug Delivery Systems, Mice, SCID, Angiogenesis Inhibitors, Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor, Nanomedicine, Mice, Nanoparticles

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