The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The blood-brain and blood-tumor barriers: A review of strategies for increasing drug delivery
Open accessAbstract
Drug delivery to brain tumors has been a controversial subject. Some believe the blood-brain barrier is not important, while others believe it is the major obstacle in treatment and have devised innovative approaches to circumvent it. These approaches can be divided into two categories: those that attempt to increase drug delivery of intravascularly administered drugs by manipulating either the drugs or capillary permeability, and those that attempt to increase drug delivery by local administration. Several strategies have been developed to increase the fraction of intravascular drug reaching the tumor, including intra-arterial administration, barrier disruption, new ways of packaging drugs, and, most recently, inhibiting drug efflux from tumor. When given intravascularly, all drugs have a common drawback: the body acts as a sink, and, even in the best situations, only a small fraction of administered drug actually reaches the tumor. A consequence is that systemic toxicity is usually the dose-limiting factor. When given locally, such as into the cerebrospinal fluid or directly into the tumor, 100% of an administered dose is delivered to the target site. However, local delivery is associated with variable and unpredictable spatial distribution and variation in drug concentration. The major dose-limiting factor of most local delivery methods will be neurotoxicity. The relative advantages and disadvantages of the different methods of circumventing the blood-brain barrier are presented in this review, and special attention is given to convection-enhanced delivery, which has particular promise for the local delivery of large therapeutic agents such as monoclonal antibodies, antisense oligonucleotides, or viral vectors.
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
Cited by
Overcoming the blood–brain tumor barrier for effective glioblastoma treatment
van Tellingen, O., Yetkin-Arik, B., de Gooijer, M. C., Wesseling, P., Wurdinger, T., & de Vries, H. E. (2015) · Drug Resistance Updates · doi:10.1016/j.drup.2015.02.002 · Cited by 1,035
Progress of drug-loaded polymeric micelles into clinical studies
Cabral, H., & Kataoka, K. (2014) · Journal of Controlled Release · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.06.042 · Cited by 837
The transferrin receptor and the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents against cancer
Daniels, T. R., Bernabeu, E., Rodríguez, J. A., Patel, S., Kozman, M., Chiappetta, D. A., Holler, E., Ljubimova, J. Y., Helguera, G., & Penichet, M. L. (2012) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects · doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2011.07.016 · Cited by 807
Matrix metalloproteinases in the brain and blood–brain barrier: Versatile breakers and makers
Rempe, R. G., Hartz, A. M., & Bauer, B. (2016) · Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism · doi:10.1177/0271678x16655551 · Cited by 721
Miura, Y., Takenaka, T., Toh, K., Wu, S., Nishihara, H., Kano, M. R., Ino, Y., Nomoto, T., Matsumoto, Y., Koyama, H., et al. (2013) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/nn402662d · Cited by 454
Metadata
- Authors
- Groothuis, D. R.
- Venue
- Neuro-Oncology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-01-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-59
- ISSN
- 1522-8517 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-5866
- OpenAlex
- W2117553516
- Cited by
- 456
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.14
- 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: The blood-brain and blood-tumor barriers: A review of strategies for increasing drug delivery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/neuonc/2.1.45
- The paper
- Groothuis, D. R. (2000). The blood-brain and blood-tumor barriers: A review of strategies for increasing drug delivery. Neuro-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/2.1.45
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.