Cited by 996Nanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryNanoplatforms for cancer theranosticsUltrasound and Hyperthermia Applications

Improving conventional enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effects; what is the appropriate target?

Open access
Kobayashi, Hisataka, Watanabe, Rira, Choyke, Peter L.·2014·Theranostics

Abstract

Nano-sized therapeutic agents have several advantages over low molecular weight agents such as a larger loading capacity, the ability to protect the payload until delivery, more specific targeting due to multivalency and the opportunity for controlled/sustained release. However, the delivery of nano-sized agents into cancer tissue is problematic because it mostly relies on the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect that depends on the leaky nature of the tumor vasculature and the prolonged circulation of nano-sized agents, allowing slow but uneven accumulation in the tumor bed. Delivery of nano-sized agents is dependent on several factors that influence the EPR effect; 1. Regional blood flow to the tumor, 2. Permeability of the tumor vasculature, 3. Structural barriers imposed by perivascular tumor cells and extracellular matrix, 4. Intratumoral pressure. In this review, these factors will be described and methods to enhance nano-agent delivery will be reviewed.

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 · 10.7150/thno.7193

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • The key success factor for theranostics in oncology is the presence of solid tumors with disrupted vascular architecture, which provides a pronounced EPR effect.

    “The key success factor is the presence of solid tumors with disrupted vascular architecture, which provides a pronounced enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect [32,34].”

    From Theranostic Nanoplatforms for Alzheimer's Disease: A Critical Analysis of Conceptual Contradictions (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    Section 2.1 (page unavailable) describes abnormal, leaky tumor vessels that allow macromolecules to enter tumors, supporting the link between disrupted vasculature and EPR-based delivery. But the Introduction says EPR effects vary substantially among and within tumors, and Section 2.1 notes that high interstitial pressure can inhibit drug accumulation. The paper therefore does not establish that the presence of such tumors reliably produces a pronounced EPR effect or is the key success factor. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • EPR effect can provide 20-30% increase in delivery compared with critical normal organs.

    “Some reports have demonstrated that EPR effect can provide 20–30% increase in delivery compared with critical normal organs [157].”

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
Kobayashi, H., Watanabe, R., & Choyke, P. L.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Kobayashi, Hisataka
Venue
Theranostics
Published
2014
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
81-89
ISSN
1838-7640 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116118767
Cited by
996
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 119 · 2019: 114 · 2018: 113 · 2017: 85 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 15 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Theranostics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Nanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Nanoplatforms for cancer theranostics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
Keywords
enhanced permeability and retention effect, nanomedicine, tumor vasculature, tumor perfusion, tumor vascular permeability, extracellular matrix, anticancer drug delivery, nanoparticle targeting, sustained drug release
MeSH terms
Animals, Antineoplastic Agents, Capillary Permeability, Humans, Neoplasms, Tissue Distribution, Nanostructures

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