ReviewSpringer seminars in immunopathology2005
Understanding the response to immunotherapy in humans.
Review in Springer seminars in immunopathology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reference-free deconvolution of DNA methylation data and mediation by cell composition effects.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Patterns of response in patients with pretreated metastatic melanoma who received ipilimumab 3 mg/kg in a European expanded access program: five illustrative case reports.Cancer investigation · 2012Article
- HLA antigen changes in malignant cells: epigenetic mechanisms and biologic significance.Oncogene · 2008Review
- Functional roles of immature dendritic cells in impaired immunity of solid tumour and their targeted strategies for provoking tumour immunity.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2006Review
- Microarray evidence of glutaminyl cyclase gene expression in melanoma: implications for tumor antigen specific immunotherapy.Journal of translational medicine · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Whether the efforts of the last decade aimed at the development of vaccines against tumor-specific antigens encountered success or failure is a matter of expectations. On the bright side, we could optimistically observe that anti-cancer-vaccines stand as an outstanding example of the successful implementation of modern biotechnology tools for the development of biologically sound therapeutics. In particular, vaccines against melanoma (the prototype model of tumor immunology in humans) can reproducibly induce cytotoxic T cell (CTL) responses exquisitely specific for cancer cells. This achievement trespasses the specificity of any other anti-cancer therapy. The skeptics, on the other end, might point out that immunization only rarely leads to cancer regression, labeling, therefore, this approach is ineffective. In our opinion this judgment stems from the naïve expectation that CTL induction is sufficient for an effective immune response. Here we propose that more needs to be understood about the mechanisms required for the induction of a therapeutically relevant immune response in humans. In particular, we will discuss the variables related to cancer heterogeneity, the weight of individual patients' polymorphism(s), the role of the T cell activation and differentiation and, finally, the complex relationship between immune and cancer cells within the tumor microenvironment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.