ReviewCurrent neurology and neuroscience reports2026
Advances in Nanomedicine for Brain Tumors: Overcoming Biological Barriers, Targeting Strategies, and Future Directions.
Review in Current neurology and neuroscience reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purpose of reviewThis review evaluates nanomedicine strategies for brain tumors through a translational lens. Rather than cataloguing nanoparticle formulations, it focuses on representative lipid-based, polymeric, inorganic, self-assembled, protein-based, biomimetic, and nanoconjugate platforms according to the delivery problem they are designed to solve: crossing or bypassing the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and blood-brain tumor barrier (BBTB), improving intratumoral penetration, controlling payload release, reducing toxicity, or enabling image-guided therapy. RECENT
findingsPreclinical studies show that nanomedicines can increase brain tumor exposure through receptor-mediated transport, physical BBB modulation, local delivery, stimuli-responsive release, biomimetic trafficking, and theranostic integration. However, the strength of evidence remains uneven. Many systems are supported mainly by isolated or model-specific preclinical studies, with limited pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, toxicity, reproducibility, or manufacturing validation. Among clinically tested platforms, gadolinium-based AGuIX nanoparticles currently provide one of the clearest brain tumor-directed examples, supported by early-phase data showing tumor accumulation and acceptable tolerability when combined with radiotherapy. Conversely, the withdrawn SERIL trial of intratumoral JCXH-211 illustrates that mechanistic promise alone does not establish clinical feasibility in glioma. Nanomedicine may improve drug delivery, intratumoral exposure, immunomodulatory payload delivery, and image-guided radiotherapy for brain tumors. Its clinical impact will depend on reproducible central nervous system delivery, validated intratumoral pharmacodynamic readouts, disease-specific safety assessment, scalable good manufacturing practice (GMP)-compliant production, and prospective trials showing benefit over current standards of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42758253What 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.