Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16333622›Full record

ReviewCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2006

Immunosenescence, suppression and tumour progression.

G Pawelec, S Koch, H Griesemann, A Rehbein, K Hähnel, C Gouttefangeas

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Impact of aging on viral infections.Microbes and infection · 2010
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Immunity, ageing and cancer.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2008
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Immunosupportive therapies in aging.Clinical interventions in aging · 2007
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G PawelecCenter for Medical Research and Department of Immunology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. graham.pawelec@uni-tuebingen.de
S Koch
H Griesemann
A Rehbein
K Hähnel
C Gouttefangeas
University of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are good arguments for suggesting that two seminal papers published 50 years ago can be taken as the beginning of modern tumour immunology. These papers by R. Baldwin, "Immunity to transplanted tumour: the effect of tumour extracts on the growth of homologous tumours in rats" and "Immunity to methylcholanthrene-induced tumours in inbred rats following atrophy and regression of the implanted tumours" (Br J Cancer 9:646-51 and 652-657, 1955) showed that once tumours are established, they and their products can be recognised by the adaptive immune system and rejected. However, the tumour normally co-evolves with immunity, like a parasite, rather than being suddenly introduced as in these, and many other, experimental models. Dynamics of this co-evolution are illustrated by findings that inflammation enhances tumorigenicity, yet is important to enable T cells to respond properly to tumour antigen and exert anti-tumour effects. The important thing is to maintain the balance between effective anti-tumour immunity and tumour escape and/or stimulatory mechanisms. Tumours almost always co-exist with immune defence systems over extended periods and interact chronically with T cells. The effect of this is potentially similar to other situations of chronic antigenic stress, particularly lifelong persistent virus infection, most strikingly, CMV infection. The questions briefly explored in this symposium paper are what happens when T lymphocyte clones are chronically stimulated by antigen which is not or cannot be eliminated? What are the similarities and differences between chronic antigenic stimulation by tumour antigen versus CMV antigen? What can we learn in one system which may illuminate the other?

Indexed as

Immunologic SurveillanceModels, ImmunologicalAgedAnimalsClone CellsCytomegalovirusDisease ProgressionHumansNeoplasmsT-LymphocytesTumor Escape

Identifiers

PMID16333622
PMCPMC11030987
OpenAlexW2061441298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.