Reply to “Evaluation of nanomedicines: stick to the basics”

Article metrics

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Analysis of studies in clinical trial phases.


  1. 1

    Wilhelm, S. et al. Analysis of nanoparticle delivery to tumours. Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16014 (2016).

  2. 2

    McNeil, S. Correspondence to the editor. Nat. Rev. Mater. (2016).

  3. 3

    Petersen, G. H., Alzghari, S. K., Chee, W., Sankari, S. S. & La-Beck, N. M. Meta-analysis of clinical and preclinical studies comparing the anticancer efficacy of liposomal versus conventional non-liposomal doxorubicin. J. Control. Release 232, 255–264 (2016).

  4. 4

    [No authors listed.] A billion dollar punt. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1453 (2006).

  5. 5

    Carroll, J. Merck writes off RNAi, punts Sirna to Alnylam for $175M. FierceBiotech (updated 4 Jul 2016).

  6. 6

    Brunton, L. L., Chabner, B. & Knollmann, B. C. Goodman & Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (McGraw-Hill Medical, 2011).

  7. 7

    Sykes, E. A. et al. Tailoring nanoparticle designs to target cancer based on tumor pathophysiology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E1142–E1151 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Warren C. W. Chan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information S1–S3 (box, figure, table)

Supplementary information (PDF 302 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilhelm, S., Tavares, A. & Chan, W. Reply to “Evaluation of nanomedicines: stick to the basics”. Nat Rev Mater 1, 16074 (2016) doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.74

Download citation

Further reading