ArticleCancer management and research2010
Review of catumaxomab in the treatment of malignant ascites.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outpatient Intraperitoneal Catumaxomab Therapy for Malignant Ascites Related to Advanced Gynecologic Neoplasms.The oncologist · 2015Trial
- Revolutionizing Cancer Treatment: Recent Advances in Immunotherapy.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Efficacy and safety of bispecific antibodies vs. immune checkpoint blockade combination therapy in cancer: a real-world comparison.Molecular cancer · 2024Review
- Review
- Immunotherapeutic progress and application of bispecific antibody in cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Application of Genetic Studies to Flow Cytometry Data and Its Impact on Therapeutic Intervention for Autoimmune Disease.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Design of a Trispecific Checkpoint Inhibitor and Natural Killer Cell Engager Based on a 2 + 1 Common Light Chain Antibody Architecture.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Article
- The bispecific anti-CD3 × anti-CD155 antibody mediates T cell immunotherapy for human prostate cancer.Investigational new drugs · 2019Article
- Bispecific T-Cell Redirection versus Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-T Cells as Approaches to Kill Cancer Cells.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Quantum dot-based multiplexed imaging in malignant ascites: a new model for malignant ascites classification.International journal of nanomedicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Malignant ascites is frequently found with various solid tumors, and no established treatment options exist, apart from symptomatic paracentesis. Catumaxomab, a trifunctional bispecific monoclonal antibody, has two binding specificities directed to epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and the T cell antigen CD3. With its Fc-fragment, catumaxomab additionally binds accessory cells, including dendritic cells, macrophages, and natural killer cells. The trifunctional approach thus leads to a major histocompatibility complex-unrestricted but specific killing of epithelial tumor cells without need for preactivation or external costimulation. Because EpCAM is expressed in most solid tumors, but not in tissue of mesothelial origin, intraperitoneal treatment with catumaxomab is tumor-specific. Intraperitoneal treatment with catumaxomab resulted in a significant prolongation of puncture-free survival in patients with malignant ascites due to epithelial cancer. Catumaxomab has been approved in Europe for the intraperitoneal treatment of malignant ascites in patients with EpCAM-positive epithelial tumors where standard therapy is not available or no longer feasible.
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.