Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17721781›Full record

GuidelineCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2008

Results and harmonization guidelines from two large-scale international Elispot proficiency panels conducted by the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC/SVI).

Sylvia Janetzki, Katherine S Panageas, Leah Ben-Porat, Jean Boyer, Cedrik M Britten, Timothy M Clay, Michael Kalos, Holden T Maecker, Pedro Romero, Jianda Yuan and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readGuidelineMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Guideline in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

111 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 200 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Important Considerations for ELISpot Validation.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article

51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Sylvia JanetzkiZellNet Consulting, Inc, Fort Lee, NJ, USA. sylvia@zellnet.com
Katherine S Panageas
Leah Ben-Porat
Jean Boyer
Cedrik M Britten
Timothy M Clay
Michael Kalos
Holden T Maecker
Pedro Romero
Jianda Yuan
W Martin Kast
Axel Hoos
Elispot Proficiency Panel of the CVC Immune Assay Working Group
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USBD Biosciences (United States) · USBristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USDuke Medical Center · USForthnet (Greece) · GRLeiden University Medical Center · NLLudwig Cancer Research · CHUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Cancer Vaccine Consortium of the Sabin Vaccine Institute (CVC/SVI) is conducting an ongoing large-scale immune monitoring harmonization program through its members and affiliated associations. This effort was brought to life as an external validation program by conducting an international Elispot proficiency panel with 36 laboratories in 2005, and was followed by a second panel with 29 participating laboratories in 2006 allowing for application of learnings from the first panel. Critical protocol choices, as well as standardization and validation practices among laboratories were assessed through detailed surveys. Although panel participants had to follow general guidelines in order to allow comparison of results, each laboratory was able to use its own protocols, materials and reagents. The second panel recorded an overall significantly improved performance, as measured by the ability to detect all predefined responses correctly. Protocol choices and laboratory practices, which can have a dramatic effect on the overall assay outcome, were identified and lead to the following recommendations: (A) Establish a laboratory SOP for Elispot testing procedures including (A1) a counting method for apoptotic cells for determining adequate cell dilution for plating, and (A2) overnight rest of cells prior to plating and incubation, (B) Use only pre-tested serum optimized for low background: high signal ratio, (C) Establish a laboratory SOP for plate reading including (C1) human auditing during the reading process and (C2) adequate adjustments for technical artifacts, and (D) Only allow trained personnel, which is certified per laboratory SOPs to conduct assays. Recommendations described under (A) were found to make a statistically significant difference in assay performance, while the remaining recommendations are based on practical experiences confirmed by the panel results, which could not be statistically tested. These results provide initial harmonization guidelines to optimize Elispot assay performance to the immunotherapy community. Further optimization is in process with ongoing panels.

Indexed as

Cancer VaccinesCell SurvivalClinical Laboratory TechniquesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayHealth SurveysHumansInternational CooperationLaboratoriesLeukocyte CountLeukocytes, MononuclearPeptidesQuality ControlReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySocietiesCancer VaccinesPeptides

Identifiers

PMID17721781
PMCPMC2150634
OpenAlexW2058078577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.