Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20091627›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer.

Ninke Leffers, Toos Daemen, Wijnand Helfrich, H Marike Boezen, Ben J Cohlen, Kees Melief, Hans W Nijman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Immunotherapy in ovarian cancer.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2012
    Review
  9. Deciphering the molecular nature of ovarian cancer biomarker CA125.International journal of molecular sciences · 2012
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ninke LeffersUniversity Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, P.O. Box 30.001, Groningen, Netherlands, 9700 RB.
Toos Daemen
Wijnand Helfrich
H Marike Boezen
Ben J Cohlen
Kees Melief
Hans W Nijman
University Medical Center Groningen · NLIsala · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite advances in chemotherapy, prognosis of ovarian cancer remains poor. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy aims to induce a tumour-antigen-specific anti-tumour immune responses as an alternative treatment for ovarian cancer.

objectivesTo assess feasibility of antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer. Primary outcomes are clinical efficacy and antigen-specific immunogenicity with carrier-specific immunogenicity and side-effects as secondary outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 3, 2009, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and clinicaltrials.gov was performed (1966 to July 2009). Hand searches were conducted of the proceedings of relevant annual meetings (1996 to July 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised non-controlled studies that included patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, irrespective of stage of disease, and treated with antigen-specific active immunotherapy, irrespective of type of vaccine, antigen used, adjuvant used, route of vaccination, schedule, and reported clinical or immunological outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was performed independently by two review authors. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Delphi-list for RCTs or a selection of quality domains pivotal to the assessment of non-RCTs and deemed best applicable to the non-randomised non-controlled studies. MAIN

resultsThirty-six studies were included. Response definitions showed substantial variation between trials, which makes comparison of trial results unreliable. Information on adverse events was frequently limited. Furthermore, reports of both RCTs and non-RCTs frequently lacked information necessary to assess risk of bias. Serious biases in these trials can thus not be ruled out.The largest body of evidence is currently available for CA-125 targeted antibody therapy (15 studies: 1505 patients). Non-RCTs of this CA-125 targeted antibody therapy suggest increased survival in humoral and/or cellular responders. However, three large randomised placebo-controlled trials did not show any clinical benefit despite induction of immune responses in approximately 60% of patients.Other small studies targeting many different tumour antigens showed promising immunological results. As these strategies have not yet been tested in RCTs, no reliable inferences about clinical efficacy can be made. Given the promising immunological results, limited side effects and toxicity exploration of clinical efficacy in large well-designed RCTs may be worthwhile. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe conclude that despite promising immunological responses no clinically effective antigen-specific active immunotherapy is yet available for ovarian cancer. Furthermore, the adoption of guidelines to ensure uniformity in trial conduct, response definitions and trial reporting is recommended to improve quality and comparability of immunotherapy trials.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalCA-125 AntigenClinical Trials, Phase I as TopicClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicFemaleHumansImmunotherapy, ActiveOvarian NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntibodies, MonoclonalCA-125 Antigen

Identifiers

PMID20091627
OpenAlexW4210971052

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.