ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2014
Regulatory considerations for clinical development of cancer vaccines.
Review in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neoantigen-Encoded Oncolytic Viruses as Personalized Cancer Vaccines.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Personalized Cancer Vaccines: Clinical Landscape, Challenges, and Opportunities.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cancer vaccines are aimed at stimulating an immune response to tumor tissue. There is a high level of clinical activity in this rapidly advancing field with over 1,400 trials registered on Clincaltrials.gov. The recent approval of Sipuleucel-T which is the first cancer vaccine approved in the US and EU has encouraged developers in this field. In contrast to more established approaches for treating cancer such as chemotherapy, regulatory guidelines have been developed relatively recently for cancer vaccines. These guidelines advise on general clinical requirements. As there is an increase in innovative strategies with novel products, a 2-way dialog with regulators is recommended on a case-by-case basis to justify the clinical development plan, taking into account specific quality issues related to the product(s) in development. It is important that the rationale, background and justification for the planned development is convincing when interacting with the regulatory authorities, to enable drug developers and regulators to reach agreement.
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.