Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27440064›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2016

Antidrug Antibody Formation in Oncology: Clinical Relevance and Challenges.

Emilie M J van Brummelen, Willeke Ros, Gertjan Wolbink, Jos H Beijnen, Jan H M Schellens

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. MARPLE: A Proximity-Triggered CRISPR-Cas13 Platform for Ultrasensitive Antibody Detection.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

24 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Emilie M J van BrummelenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Willeke RosDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Gertjan WolbinkImmunopathology, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Reade Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jos H BeijnenDepartment of Pharmacy, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan H M SchellensDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands j.schellens@nki.nl.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLOncode Institute · NLReade · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

: In oncology, an increasing number of targeted anticancer agents and immunotherapies are of biological origin. These biological drugs may trigger immune responses that lead to the formation of antidrug antibodies (ADAs). ADAs are directed against immunogenic parts of the drug and may affect efficacy and safety. In other medical fields, such as rheumatology and hematology, the relevance of ADA formation is well established. However, the relevance of ADAs in oncology is just starting to be recognized, and literature on this topic is scarce. In an attempt to fill this gap in the literature, we provide an up-to-date status of ADA formation in oncology. In this focused review, data on ADAs was extracted from 81 clinical trials with biological anticancer agents. We found that most biological anticancer drugs in these trials are immunogenic and induce ADAs (63%). However, it is difficult to establish the clinical relevance of these ADAs. In order to determine this relevance, the possible effects of ADAs on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety parameters need to be investigated. Our data show that this was done in fewer than 50% of the trials. In addition, we describe the incidence and consequences of ADAs for registered agents. We highlight the challenges in ADA detection and argue for the importance of validating, standardizing, and describing well the used assays. Finally, we discuss prevention strategies such as immunosuppression and regimen adaptations. We encourage the launch of clinical trials that explore these strategies in oncology. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Because of the increasing use of biologicals in oncology, many patients are at risk of developing antidrug antibodies (ADAs) during therapy. Although clinical consequences are uncertain, ADAs may affect pharmacokinetics, patient safety, and treatment efficacy. ADA detection and reporting is currently highly inconsistent, which makes it difficult to evaluate the clinical consequences. Standardized reporting of ADA investigations in the context of the aforementioned parameters is critical to understanding the relevance of ADA formation for each drug. Furthermore, the development of trials that specifically aim to investigate clinical prevention strategies in oncology is needed.

Indexed as

AntibodiesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibody FormationAntineoplastic AgentsBiological ProductsHumansImmune ToleranceIpilimumabAntibodiesAntibodies, MonoclonalAntineoplastic AgentsBiological ProductsIpilimumabAntidrug antibodyCancerClinical relevanceDetection assaysEfficacyImmunogenicityOncologyPharmacokineticsToxicity

Identifiers

PMID27440064
PMCPMC5061540
OpenAlexW2475781394

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.