The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Extracellular pH distribution in human tumours
Abstract
Extracellular pH (pHc) was determined by needle microelectrodes in 67 tumour nodules in 58 patients. The objective was to evaluate the relationship between pHe, tumour histology and tumour volume. The mean age of the patients was 62 years, mean depth of the lesions was 2.7 +/- 0.2 cm, and mean tumour volume was 187 +/- 60 cm3. Lesions were located in readily accessible areas such as on the limbs, neck or chest wall. Tumour histologies included: 48% adenocarcinoma; 34% squamous cell carcinoma; 8% soft tissue sarcoma; and 10% malignant melanoma. The mean tumour pHe for the entire group of tumours was 7.06 +/- 0.05 (range 5.66-7.78). Variation in pHe measurements between tumours was greater than the variation in measurements within tumour (F = 7.11, p < 0.01). In adenocarcinomas pHe was 6.93 +/- 0.08 (range 5.66-7.78), in soft tissue sarcomas 7.01 +/- 0.21 (6.25-7.45), in squamous cell carcinomas 7.16 +/- 0.08 (6.2-7.6), and in malignant melanomas 7.36 +/- 0.1 (6.98-7.77). Tumour pHe was significantly different between the four histological groups (p < 0.001). When adenocarcinoma and soft tissue sarcoma lesions were grouped together, pHe was 6.94 +/- 0.08 compared with 7.20 +/- 0.07 in squamous cell carcinomas and malignant melanomas lesions (p < 0.01). Tumour pHe increased as a function of the logarithm of tumour volume at 0.07 +/- 0.02 pH unit/ln cm3 (p = 0.006, r = 0.34). In conclusion, tumour histology and tumour volume were the most important factors determining the range of pHe's.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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
Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Ebel, R. L. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288803 · Cited by 976
Cited by
pH-Sensitive nano-systems for drug delivery in cancer therapy
Liu, J., Huang, Y., Kumar, A., Tan, A., Jin, S., Mozhi, A., & Liang, X.-J. (2014) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.009 · Cited by 1,121
Smart nanocarrier-based drug delivery systems for cancer therapy and toxicity studies: A review
Hossen, S., Hossain, M. K., Basher, M. K., Mia, M. N. H., Rahman, M. T., & Uddin, M. J. (2019) · Journal of Advanced Research · doi:10.1016/j.jare.2018.06.005 · Cited by 998
Zeolitic imidazolate framework-8 as efficient pH-sensitive drug delivery vehicle
Sun, C.-Y., Qin, C., Wang, X.-L., Yang, G.-S., Shao, K.-Z., Lan, Y.-Q., Su, Z.-M., Huang, P., Wang, C.-G., & Wang, E.-B. (2012) · Dalton Transactions · doi:10.1039/c2dt30357d · Cited by 710
A Review on the Synthesis and Functionalization of Gold Nanoparticles as a Drug Delivery Vehicle
Amina, S. J., & Guo, B. (2020) · International Journal of Nanomedicine · doi:10.2147/ijn.s279094 · Cited by 561
Functionalized micellar systems for cancer targeted drug delivery
Sutton, D., Nasongkla, N., Blanco, E., & Gao, J. (2007) · Pharmaceutical Research · doi:10.1007/s11095-006-9223-y · Cited by 557
Metadata
- Authors
- Engin, K., Leeper, D. B., Cater, J. R., Thistlethwaite, A. J., Tupchong, L., & McFarlane, J. D.
- Venue
- International Journal of Hyperthermia
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-216
- ISSN
- 0265-6736 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5157
- OpenAlex
- W2108165319
- Cited by
- 530
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Extracellular pH distribution in human tumours. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/02656739509022457
- The paper
- Engin, K., Leeper, D. B., Cater, J. R., Thistlethwaite, A. J., Tupchong, L., & McFarlane, J. D. (1995). Extracellular pH distribution in human tumours. International Journal of Hyperthermia. https://doi.org/10.3109/02656739509022457
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.