Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26965203›Full record

ArticleNature reviews. Drug discovery2016

Development of immuno-oncology drugs - from CTLA4 to PD1 to the next generations.

Axel Hoos

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 337 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
337citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

337 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

277 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Axel HoosOncology Research and Development, GlaxoSmithKline, 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, Pennsylvania 19426, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the regulatory approval of ipilimumab in 2011, the field of cancer immunotherapy has been experiencing a renaissance. This success is based on progress in both preclinical and clinical science, including the development of new methods of investigation. Immuno-oncology has become a sub-specialty within oncology owing to its unique science and its potential for substantial and long-term clinical benefit. Immunotherapy agents do not directly attack the tumour but instead mobilize the immune system - this can be achieved through various approaches that utilize adaptive or innate immunity. Therefore, immuno-oncology drug development encompasses a broad range of agents, including antibodies, peptides, proteins, small molecules, adjuvants, cytokines, oncolytic viruses, bi-specific molecules and cellular therapies. This Perspective summarizes the recent history of cancer immunotherapy, including the factors that led to its success, provides an overview of novel drug-development considerations, summarizes three generations of immunotherapies that have been developed since 2011 and, thus, illustrates the breadth of opportunities these new generations of immunotherapies represent.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsCTLA-4 AntigenHumansImmunityImmunotherapyIpilimumabMedication Therapy ManagementProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic AgentsCTLA-4 AntigenIpilimumabProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptortremelimumab

Identifiers

PMID26965203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.