Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18923873›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2008

Evaluation of the sentinel immunized node for immune monitoring of cancer vaccines.

Craig L Slingluff, Galina V Yamshchikov, Kevin T Hogan, Sarah C Hibbitts, Gina R Petroni, Eric A Bissonette, James W Patterson, Patrice Y Neese, William W Grosh, Kimberly A Chianese-Bullock and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. A nano-enhanced vaccine for metastatic melanoma immunotherapy.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

13 authors.

Craig L SlingluffDepartment of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. cls8h@virginia.edu
Galina V Yamshchikov
Kevin T Hogan
Sarah C Hibbitts
Gina R Petroni
Eric A Bissonette
James W Patterson
Patrice Y Neese
William W Grosh
Kimberly A Chianese-Bullock
Andrea Czarkowski
Patrice K Rehm
Jayashree Parekh

Funding

Women's Oncology Program - WONP30CA044579 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI Thomas P. Loughran · 1987 to 2026
$72.1M
ZACOPRIDE VS METOCLOPRAMIDE--EFFECT ON LOWER ESOPHAGEAL SPHINCTERM01RR000847 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI BRETON, MARC D · 1985 to 2010
$48.1M
MELANOMA VACCINES USING MHC-ASSOCIATED PEPTIDESR01CA057653 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI SLINGLUFF, CRAIG LEE · 1997 to 2012
$3.4M
PEPTIDE BASED VACCINES FOR STAGE IV MELANOMAR01CA078519 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE · PI SLINGLUFF, CRAIG LEE · 1998 to 2000
$169k
NCI NIH HHS CA78519NCI NIH HHS P30 CA044579NCI NIH HHS P30CA44579NCI NIH HHS R01 CA057653NCI NIH HHS R01 CA57653NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR000847NCRR NIH HHS M01 RR00847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe hypothesized that lymph nodes draining sites of cutaneous vaccination could be identified by sentinel node biopsy techniques, and that measuring T-cell response with lymphocytes obtained from these lymph nodes would provide a more sensitive measure of immunogenicity than would the same measurement made with peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL).

methodsELISpot analysis was used to determine the magnitude of vaccine-specific T-cell response in the sentinel immunized nodes (SIN), random lymph nodes, and peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) obtained from patients enrolled in clinical trials of experimental melanoma vaccines.

resultsThe SIN biopsy was successful in 97% of cases and morbidity was very low. The T-cell response to vaccination was detected with greater sensitivity in the SIN (57%) than in PBL (39%), and evaluation of T-cell responses in the SIN and the PBL together yielded T-cell responses in 63% of patients. When the T-cell responses from a SIN and a random lymph node were compared in four patients, immune responses were detected to one of the vaccine peptides in three of these four patients. In all of those cases, responses were present in the SIN but absent from the random lymph node.

conclusionMeasurements of T-cell responsiveness to cutaneous immunization are more frequently positive in the SIN than they are in the PBL, however evaluation of both the SIN and PBL permit a more sensitive measure of T-cell immunogenicity than use of either single source.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCancer VaccinesCells, CulturedClinical Trials as TopicFeasibility StudiesHumansLymph NodesMelanomaMiddle AgedMonitoring, ImmunologicNeoplasm ProteinsPeptide FragmentsSentinel Lymph Node BiopsySkin NeoplasmsCancer VaccinesNeoplasm ProteinsPeptide Fragments

Identifiers

PMID18923873
PMCPMC2997393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.