Biodistribution studies for cell therapy products: Current status and issues
Kamiyama Y., Naritomi Y., Moriya Y., Yamamoto S., Kitahashi T., Maekawa T.
Narrative Review, published in Regen Ther (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Regen Ther (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34307798
- PMCID
- PMC8282960
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.reth.2021.06.005
- Citations
- 22
Abstract (original English)
Information on the biodistribution (BD) of cell therapy products (CTPs) is essential for prediction and assessment of their efficacy and toxicity profiles in non-clinical and clinical studies. To conduct BD studies, it is necessary to understand regulatory requirements, implementation status, and analytical methods. This review aimed at surveying international and Japanese trends concerning the BD study for CTPs and the following subjects were investigated, which were considered particularly important: 1) comparison of guidelines to understand the regulatory status of BD studies in a global setting; 2) case studies of the BD study using databases to understand its current status in cell therapy; 3) case studies on quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) used primarily in non-clinical BD studies for CTPs; and 4) survey of imaging methods used for non-clinical and clinical BD studies. The results in this review will be a useful resource for implementing BD studies.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.