Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28267397›Full record

ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2017

Standard of care in immunotherapy trials: Challenges and considerations.

Gareth Rivalland, Andrew M Scott, Thomas John

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gareth Rivallanda Department of Medical Oncology , Austin Health, Olivia-Newton John Cancer and Wellness Centre , Victoria , Australia.
Andrew M Scottb University of Melbourne , Victoria , Australia.
Thomas Johna Department of Medical Oncology , Austin Health, Olivia-Newton John Cancer and Wellness Centre , Victoria , Australia.
Austin Health · AULa Trobe University · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The success of immunotherapeutics over the past decade has fundamentally altered the therapeutic landscape in melanoma and non-small cell lung (NSCLC) cancer care. Multiple clinical trials have confirmed significant improvements in survival with a variety of immunotherapeutic strategies. The careful and appropriate selection of standard of care (SOC) therapies is key to the successful design and interpretation of these trials. To date immunotherapeutic trials have used best supportive care, matched placebo, chemotherapy, targeted therapy or, more recently, established immunotherapeutics in melanoma clinical trials as SOCs. Each of these SOC choices has a fundamental impact on the selection and validity of response assessment criteria and clinical endpoints. As yet there is no established approach, thus new data must be interpreted with an understanding of the limitations of the current paradigm. Additionally, the pace of development has mandated the use of novel clinical trial designs, answering multiple therapeutic questions simultaneously and designed to expedite regulatory approval. This review addresses the most important challenges in the selection of SOC in immunotherapeutic trials and the current and future challenges in trial design.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicImmunotherapyStandard of CareCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungHumansLung NeoplasmsMelanomaclinical trial designimmune-related responseimmunotherapyimmunotherapy trialsstandard of care

Identifiers

PMID28267397
PMCPMC5612282
OpenAlexW2594133220

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.