Trial reportImmunologic research2015
Safety and efficacy study of lung cancer stem cell vaccine.
Trial report in Immunologic research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Cancer stem cells: advances in knowledge and implications for cancer therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- Preventive cancer stem cell-based vaccination modulates tumor development in syngeneic colon adenocarcinoma murine model.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Phyto-Immunotherapy, a Complementary Therapeutic Option to Decrease Metastasis and Attack Breast Cancer Stem Cells.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this trial, lung cancer stem cells (CSCs) were separated and cultured to produce a vaccine; its safety and efficacy were prospectively evaluated in low-, medium-, and high-dose groups. Between February and September 2014, we enrolled 90 patients who met the enrollment criteria and assigned them to three groups (n = 30). Throughout the trial, injection site reaction was the most common reaction (63 %), and fever was least common (16 %); however, there was no difference among the three groups. When the immune responses pre- and post-vaccination were compared, we found that the CSC-nonspecific and CSC-specific responses were both significantly enhanced in the medium- and high-dose groups. This study is the first clinical trial of a lung CSC vaccine and preliminarily proves its safety and efficacy.
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.