Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25215607›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Clinical efficacy of tumor antigen-pulsed DC treatment for high-grade glioma patients: evidence from a meta-analysis.

Jun-Xia Cao, Xiao-Yan Zhang, Jin-Long Liu, Duo Li, Jun-Li Li, Yi-Shan Liu, Min Wang, Bei-Lei Xu, Hai-Bo Wang, Zheng-Xu Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Treatment advances in high-grade gliomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Immunogenic Cell Death and Immunotherapy of Multiple Myeloma.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2019
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jun-Xia CaoBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Tsinghua-Peking Center for Life Sciences, Laboratory of Dynamic Immunobiology, School of Medicine, School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Xiao-Yan ZhangBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jin-Long LiuBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Duo LiBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jun-Li LiBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yi-Shan LiuBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Min WangBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Bei-Lei XuBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Hai-Bo WangBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Zheng-Xu WangBiotherapy Center, the General Hospital of Beijing Military Command, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Tsinghua University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of immunotherapy for high-grade glioma (HGG) patients remains controversial. To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of dendritic cells (DCs) alone in the treatment of HGG, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in terms of patient survival with relevant published clinical studies. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 409 patients, including historical cohorts, nonrandomized and randomized controls with HGG, were selected for the meta-analysis.

resultsThe treatment of HGG with DCs was associated with a significantly improved one-year survival (OS) (p<0.001) and 1.5-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year OS (p<0.001) compared with the non-DC group. A meta-analysis of the patient outcome data revealed that DC immunotherapy has a significant influence on progression-free survival (PFS) in HGG patients, who showed significantly improved 1-,1.5-, 2-, 3- and 4-year PFS (p<0.001). The analysis of Karnofsky performance status (KPS) demonstrated no favorable results for DC cell therapy arm (p = 0.23).The percentages of CD3+CD8+ and CD3+CD4+ T cells and CD16+ lymphocyte subset were not significantly increased in the DC group compared with the baseline levels observed before treatment (p>0.05), whereas CD56+ lymphocyte subset were significantly increased after DC treatment (p = 0.0001). Furthermore, the levels of IFN-γ in the peripheral blood of HGG patients, which reflect the immune function of the patients, were significantly increased after DC immunotherapy (p<0.001).

conclusionsThus, our meta-analysis showed that DC immunotherapy markedly prolongs survival rates and progression-free time, enhances immune function, and improves the efficacy of the treatment of HGG patients.

Indexed as

AdultAntigens, NeoplasmBrain NeoplasmsCytokinesDendritic CellsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleGliomaHumansImmunityImmunophenotypingImmunotherapyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingSurvival AnalysisAntigens, NeoplasmCytokines

Identifiers

PMID25215607
PMCPMC4162602
OpenAlexW2048690563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.