ArticleThe Journal of pathology2011
Revisiting cancer immunoediting by understanding cancer immune complexity.
Article in The Journal of pathology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comprehensive Review of Long Non-Coding RNAs in the Cancer-Immunity Cycle: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- The broad spectrum of cancer and immunotherapy: achievements and limitations.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- The Comprehensive "Omics" Approach from Metabolomics to Advanced Omics for Development of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Potential Strategies for Next Generation of Cancer Immunotherapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- DKK2 blockage-mediated immunotherapy enhances anti-angiogenic therapy of Kras mutated colorectal cancer.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2020Article
- Have Cells Harboring the HIV Reservoir Been Immunoedited?Frontiers in immunology · 2019Article
- Metabolic Symbiosis and Immunomodulation: How Tumor Cell-Derived Lactate May Disturb Innate and Adaptive Immune Responses.Frontiers in oncology · 2018Review
- Intratumoral INF-γ triggers an antiviral state in GL261 tumor cells: a major hurdle to overcome for oncolytic vaccinia virus therapy of cancer.Molecular therapy oncolytics · 2015Article
- Targeting Epigenetic Processes in Photodynamic Therapy-Induced Anticancer Immunity.Frontiers in oncology · 2015Review
- Tumor immunotherapy: lessons from autoimmunity.Frontiers in immunology · 2014Review
- The pro-metastatic role of bone marrow-derived cells: a focus on MSCs and regulatory T cells.EMBO reports · 2012Review
- An immunologic portrait of cancer.Journal of translational medicine · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Since 1909, the cancer immunosurveillance concept has undergone four distinct eras. These include a general acceptance during 1957–1974, an abandonment during 1974–1996, resurrection during 1996–2001 in the form of an elegant theory of tumour immunoediting proposed by Robert Schreiber, and a retreat since 2006. Recently, in the Journal of Pathology, Ciampricotti et al reported an elegant experimental model designed by establishing RAG2−/−/MMTV-NeuT mice. Using this, they demonstrated that the development and metastasis of HER-2/neu-positive spontaneous mammary carcinoma were not altered by the presence or absence of the adaptive immune system. Their fascinating results are a call to revisit controversial reports as to an effective role of the adaptive immune system in tumour inhibition versus tumour promotion or tolerance in the development of spontaneous carcinomas. Ciampricotti and colleagues present a strong case for revising our ideas of cancer immunoediting and appreciating the complexity of the interaction between cancer and the immune system.
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.