Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28653677›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2017

Monitoring immune-checkpoint blockade: response evaluation and biomarker development.

Mizuki Nishino, Nikhil H Ramaiya, Hiroto Hatabu, F Stephen Hodi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 579 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
579citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

579 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

519 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

4 authors.

Mizuki NishinoDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Nikhil H RamaiyaDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
Hiroto HatabuDepartment of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.
F Stephen HodiDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, 450 Brookline Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA.

Funding

Automated in vivo analysis of tumor growth rate as a guide for therapeutic decisions to advance personalized cancer treatmentR01CA203636 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI NISHINO, MIZUKI · 2017 to 2021
$2.9M
CT Volume Measurement of Lung Cancer treated with Erlotinib: Genomic CorrelationK23CA157631 · NCI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI NISHINO, MIZUKI · 2011 to 2015
$902k
NCI NIH HHS K23 CA157631NCI NIH HHS R01 CA203636
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer immunotherapy using immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) has created a paradigm shift in the treatment of advanced-stage cancers. The promising antitumour activity of monoclonal antibodies targeting the immune-checkpoint proteins CTLA-4, PD-1, and PD-L1 led to regulatory approvals of these agents for the treatment of a variety of malignancies. Patients might experience clinical benefits from treatment with these agents, despite unconventional patterns of tumour response that can be misinterpreted as disease progression, warranting a new, specific approach to evaluate responses to immunotherapy. In addition, biomarkers that can predict responsiveness to ICB are being extensively investigated to further advance precision immunotherapy. Herein, we review the biological mechanisms underlying the unconventional response patterns associated with ICB, describe strategies for the objective assessments of such responses, and also highlight the ongoing efforts to identify biomarkers, in order to guide treatment with ICB. We provide state-of-the-art knowledge of immune-related response evaluations, identify unmet needs requiring further investigations, and propose future directions to maximize the benefits of ICB therapy.

Indexed as

Antibodies, MonoclonalB7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorClinical Trials as TopicCTLA-4 AntigenDisease ProgressionHumansImmunotherapyNeoplasmsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, MonoclonalB7-H1 AntigenBiomarkers, TumorCTLA-4 AntigenProgrammed Cell Death 1 Receptor

Identifiers

PMID28653677
PMCPMC5650537

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.