Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28704840›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of cancer2017

HYPE or HOPE: the prognostic value of infiltrating immune cells in cancer.

Tristan A Barnes, Eitan Amir

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 232 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
232citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

232 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Humoral immunity in cancer.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Loss ofOncotarget · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tristan A BarnesDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.
Eitan AmirDepartment of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Princess Margaret Cancer, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interactions between immune and malignant cells have been known to have clinical relevance for decades. The potential for immune control is now being therapeutically enhanced with checkpoint inhibitors and other novel agents to improve outcomes in cancer. The importance of the immune infiltrate as a prognostic marker is increasingly relevant. In this minireview, we present an overview of the immune infiltrate and its spatial organisation, and summarise the prognostic value of immune cells in different cancer types. International collaborative efforts are standardising histopathologic reporting of the immune infiltrate, to allow application of these parameters in the clinical and research settings. In general terms, a 'pro-inflammatory' tumour microenvironment and infiltrating CD8-expressing T lymphocytes are associated with improved clinical outcomes in a broad range of tumour types. The inhibitory function of other immune cells, for example, myeloid-derived suppressor cells and regulatory T cells, appear to have a major role in disrupting the capacity for the immune control of cancers.

Indexed as

Lymphocytes, Tumor-InfiltratingLymphocyte SubsetsCD8-Positive T-LymphocytesHumansNeoplasmsPrognosisTumor Microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID28704840
PMCPMC5558691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.