ReviewJournal of translational medicine2014
Evaluation of tumor response to cytokine-induced killer cells therapy in malignant solid tumors.
Review in Journal of translational medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemotherapy with or without autologous cytokine-induced killer cell transfusion as the first-line treatment for stage IV gastrointestinal cancer: a phase II clinical trial.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2016Trial
- Tumor burden as possible biomarker of outcome in advanced NSCLC patients treated with immunotherapy: a single center, retrospective, real-world analysis.Exploration of targeted anti-tumor therapy · 2021Article
- Cytokine-induced killer cell therapy for modulating regulatory T cells in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Advancing Immune and Cell-Based Therapies Through Imaging.Molecular imaging and biology · 2017Review
- PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in non-small-cell lung cancer and its relation with EGFR mutation.Journal of translational medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CIK cells therapy has been evaluated as an adoptive cell immunotherapy for cancer patients, but there still have not been any standardized systems for evaluating the antitumor efficacy yet. The WHO and RECIST criteria have already been established for a few years but not sufficient to fully characterize the activity of immunotherapy. Based on these two criteria, the irRC was proposed for evaluating the efficacy of immunotherapy. A variety of bioassays for immune monitoring including the specific and non-specific methods, have been established. We recommend detect levels of various immunocytes, immune molecules and soluble molecules to find the correlations among them and clinicopathological characteristics to establish criteria for immunological classification. We also recommend a paradigm shift for the oncologists in the evaluation of immune therapies to ensure assessment of activity based on clinically relevant criteria and time points.
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.