ReviewNanomedicine (London, England)2026
Advances in the applications of stimulus-responsive nanomedicines for anti-cancer therapy.
Review in Nanomedicine (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key Tumor Responsive ZIF-8 Nanocarriers for Effective Anti-Cancer Therapeutics.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Nanoparticle Drug Delivery Systems: The Future Direction for the Treatment of Tumors.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
Abstract
Current major cancer therapies are limited by nonspecific drug distribution and severe off-target toxicity. Nanomedicine has emerged as a promising strategy for targeted tumor drug delivery, leveraging nanoparticles' unique properties to enhance drug solubility, extend circulation, and enable imaging, while relying on the enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect and antibody/ligand recognition for passive and active targeting to accumulate at tumor sites. Stimulus-responsive nanomedicines are another trend accompanying both targeting strategies to address further issues of tissue penetration, cellular internalization, and drug release that are critical for the payload's therapeutic efficacy, they exploit the internal tumor microenvironment (TME)-specific features of pH, glutathione (GSH), Reactive oxygen species (ROS), Enzymes, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that are differential from normal tissues or externally introduced triggers of light, magnetic fields, ultrasound to release the therapeutic modality via a spatiotemporally controlled manner to overcome encountered barriers and enable optimal therapeutic efficacy. This review will summarize recent advances in the application of these stimulus-responsive nanomedicines in cancer therapy, focusing on their functions of achieving targeted release, improved tumor penetration, maximum efficacy, multidrug resistance reversal, TME modulation, and synergistic combination therapies. It also discusses current challenges and future directions for facilitating stimulus-responsive nanomedicines.
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.