ReviewClinical & translational immunology2014
Improved mouse models to assess tumour immunity and irAEs after combination cancer immunotherapies.
Review in Clinical & translational immunology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbiota and immune-related adverse events in cancer immunotherapy.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Review
- Experimental models in immuno-oncology and their translational impact.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Corticosteroid premedication on anti-tumor effect of immune checkpoint blockade in murine hepatocellular carcinoma models.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Radiomics: Clinical Applications for Patients with Advanced Melanoma Treated with Immunotherapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Immunosuppression for immune-related adverse events during checkpoint inhibition: an intricate balance.NPJ precision oncology · 2023Review
- Checkpoint inhibitors are a basic science-based, transformative new treatment for lung cancer.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2023Article
- Targeting myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumor immunotherapy: Current, future and beyond.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Mouse Models for Immune Checkpoint Blockade Therapeutic Research in Oral Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Risk factors and predictors of immune-related adverse events: implications for patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Expert review of anticancer therapy · 2022Review
- Novel Mouse Models for Cancer Immunology.Annual review of cancer biology · 2022Article
- Update in TIGIT Immune-Checkpoint Role in Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Immunotherapy Monitoring with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors Based on [Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Non-invasive Detection of Immunotherapy-Induced Adverse Events.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Article
- Deletion ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Effect of a multidisciplinary Severe Immunotherapy Complications Service on outcomes for patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2021Article
- Development of preclinical and clinical models for immune-related adverse events following checkpoint immunotherapy: a perspective from SITC and AACR.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2021Review
- Regional Delivery of Anti-PD-1 Agent for Colorectal Liver Metastases Improves Therapeutic Index and Anti-Tumor Activity.Vaccines · 2021Article
- Potentiating Antitumor Efficacy Through Radiation and Sustained Intratumoral Delivery of Anti-CD40 and Anti-PDL1.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2021Article
- Intravesical Anti-PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibition Treats Urothelial Bladder Cancer in a Mouse Model.The Journal of urology · 2021Article
- Aicardi-Goutières syndrome-associated gene SAMHD1 preserves genome integrity by preventing R-loop formation at transcription-replication conflict regions.PLoS genetics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current excitement surrounding cancer immunotherapy stems particularly from clinical data involving agents mediating immune checkpoint receptor blockade, which have induced unprecedented efficacy against a range of tumours compared with previous immunotherapeutic approaches. However, an important consideration in targeting checkpoint receptors has been the emergence of associated toxicities termed immune-related adverse events (irAEs). In light of the clinical benefits observed after co-blockade of checkpoint receptors and data from preclinical mouse models, there is now a strong rationale to combine different checkpoint receptors together, with other immunotherapies or more conventional therapies to assess if clinical benefits to cancer patients can be further improved. However, one may predict the frequency and severity of irAEs will increase with combinations, which may result in premature therapy cessation, thus limiting the realization of such an approach. In addition, there is a limit to how many different combination therapies that can be tested in a timely manner given the legal, regulatory and budgetary issues associated with conducting clinical trials. Thus, there is a need to develop preclinical mouse models that more accurately inform us as to which immunotherapies might combine best to provide the optimal therapeutic index (maximal anti-tumour efficacy and low level irAEs) in different cancer settings. In this review we will discuss the irAEs observed in patients after checkpoint blockade and discuss which mouse models of cancer can be appropriate to assess the development of tumour immunity and irAEs following combination cancer immunotherapies.
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.