ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology
Nanomedicine for Glioblastoma Therapy: Novel Insights and Future Perspectives.
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nanomedicine for Glioblastoma Therapy: Novel Insights and Future Perspectives.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Nanomedicine and nanobiotechnologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Glioblastoma (GBM) remains one of the most aggressive primary brain tumors, with poor prognosis, high recurrence, and limited therapeutic options. Although substantial progress has been made in drug development, effective clinical translation is still constrained by inefficient delivery across the blood brain barrier (BBB) and blood brain tumor barrier (BBTB), insufficient tumor accumulation, intratumoral heterogeneity, acquired therapeutic resistance, and dose limiting systemic toxicity. Nanomedicine offers a promising strategy to address these barriers through tunable physicochemical properties, flexible surface functionalization, improved pharmacokinetics, and controllable drug release. In this review, we systematically summarize recent advances in nanomedicine enabled GBM therapy from four interrelated perspectives: the optimization of nanomaterial properties, the development of goal-oriented targeting strategies, the rationalization of delivery routes, and the engineering of smart stimuli-responsive nano-systems. Rather than only cataloguing representative nanoplatforms, we emphasize how material parameters, biological targeting mechanisms, delivery routes, and release behaviors are mechanistically linked to BBB or BBTB penetration, tumor accumulation, therapeutic efficacy, and translational feasibility. Importantly, we also incorporate a key failure case analysis of representative clinical and preclinical studies, highlighting why promising nanotherapeutic concepts may fail because of inadequate intratumoral distribution, insufficient survival benefit, poor patient selection, manufacturing complexity, safety concerns, or impractical trial design. By integrating delivery mechanisms, cross platform comparison, translational barriers, and future optimization principles, this review provides a critical and forward looking framework for the rational design of precise, effective, and clinically translatable nanomedicine strategies for GBM treatment.
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.