Review3 Biotech2025
A comprehensive review of using nanomaterials in cancer immunotherapy: Pros and Cons of clinical usage.
Review in 3 Biotech, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A metabolic amplification strategy for spherical nucleic acid immunogenicity driven by simvastatin-CpG codelivery.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Review
- Drug Delivery Engineering Strategies Targeting CD4+/CD8+ T Cell Exhaustion to Improve the Tumor Immunosuppressive Microenvironment.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer immunotherapy utilizes the immune system to selectively destroy malignant cells. Its effectiveness is often undermined by inadequate immune system activation, immune evasion by tumors, and off-target damage. Nanotechnology has the potential to address these challenges by improving the targeting and delivery of therapeutic agents to the immune system. This review shows that nanoparticles can significantly enhance cancer diagnostics, assist in both passive and active tumor targeting, and improve the delivery of immune checkpoint inhibitors, cancer vaccines, and adoptive cell therapies. It is demonstrated that the size and surface charge of nanoparticles, along with functionalization of their components, impact the delivery of therapies and the resulting therapeutic effects. Comparative analyses indicate that organic nanoparticles like PLGA may have lower biocompatibility and higher immunotoxicity compared to inorganic nanoparticles. The use of nanoparticles in combination with radiotherapy also enhances tumor radiosensitization and modulates the immune system, leading to greater tumor regression and improved survival in preclinical models. However, controversies remain regarding nanoparticle immunotoxicity, aggregation, and organ-specific accumulation, which are related to their composition and surface properties. Manufacturing scalability and regulatory hurdles further limit clinical translation. Overall, optimizing nanoparticle design and targeting strategies is essential for maximizing therapeutic efficacy and safety, supporting the advancement of personalized cancer immunotherapies. Graphical abstract:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.