Cited by 228Nanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryCharacterization and Applications of Magnetic NanoparticlesRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications

Nanoparticles for Imaging: top or Flop?

Open access
Kiessling, Fabian, Mertens, Marianne E., Grimm, Jan, Lammers, Twan·2014·Radiology

Abstract

Nanoparticles are frequently suggested as diagnostic agents. However, except for iron oxide nanoparticles, diagnostic nanoparticles have been barely incorporated into clinical use so far. This is predominantly due to difficulties in achieving acceptable pharmacokinetic properties and reproducible particle uniformity as well as to concerns about toxicity, biodegradation, and elimination. Reasonable indications for the clinical utilization of nanoparticles should consider their biologic behavior. For example, many nanoparticles are taken up by macrophages and accumulate in macrophage-rich tissues. Thus, they can be used to provide contrast in liver, spleen, lymph nodes, and inflammatory lesions (eg, atherosclerotic plaques). Furthermore, cells can be efficiently labeled with nanoparticles, enabling the localization of implanted (stem) cells and tissue-engineered grafts as well as in vivo migration studies of cells. The potential of using nanoparticles for molecular imaging is compromised because their pharmacokinetic properties are difficult to control. Ideal targets for nanoparticles are localized on the endothelial luminal surface, whereas targeted nanoparticle delivery to extravascular structures is often limited and difficult to separate from an underlying enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect. The majority of clinically used nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems are based on the EPR effect, and, for their more personalized use, imaging markers can be incorporated to monitor biodistribution, target site accumulation, drug release, and treatment efficacy. In conclusion, although nanoparticles are not always the right choice for molecular imaging (because smaller or larger molecules might provide more specific information), there are other diagnostic and theranostic applications for which nanoparticles hold substantial clinical potential.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.14131520

Cites

158 of 158 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?

  • Intravenously administered SPION are eventually cleared by macrophages in liver, spleen, lymph nodes and bone marrow, the mononuclear phagocytic system.

    “Like almost all other nanoparticles, intravenously administered SPION are eventually cleared by macrophages in liver, spleen, lymph nodes and bone marrow, the also called mononuclear phagocytic system (MPS) [143].”

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
Kiessling, F., Mertens, M. E., Grimm, J., & Lammers, T.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • RWTH Aachen University (DE)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2014-10
Volume
273
Issue
1
Pages
10-28
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2101873325
Cited by
228
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3
FWCI
1.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB014944)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Characterization and Applications of Magnetic Nanoparticles
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
Keywords
nanoparticles, molecular imaging, theranostics, pharmacokinetics, nanoparticle toxicity, biodegradation, macrophage uptake, enhanced permeability and retention effect, targeted drug delivery, stem cell tracking, tissue-engineered grafts, imaging biomarkers, tissue distribution
MeSH terms
Biocompatible Materials, Contrast Media, Diagnostic Imaging, Humans, 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