Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28935774›Full record

ReviewThe oncologist2018

Immunotherapy: A New (and Old) Approach to Treatment of Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcomas.

Michael J Nathenson, Anthony P Conley, Edward Sausville

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Correlative Analyses of the SARC028 Trial Reveal an Association Between Sarcoma-Associated Immune Infiltrate and Response to Pembrolizumab.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2020
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Brain metastases of sarcoma: a rare phenomenon in rare tumours.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Michael J NathensonCenter for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA michaelj_nathenson@dfci.harvard.edu.
Anthony P ConleyDepartment of Sarcoma Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Edward SausvilleDepartment of Medicine and Greenebaum Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND GREENEBAUM CANCER CENTERSUPPORT GRANTP30CA134274 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI Vu H. Duong · 2008 to 2026
$51.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA134274
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soft tissue and bone sarcomas are a rare and heterogeneous form of cancer. With standard of care treatment options including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, the long-term survival is still low for high-risk soft tissue sarcoma patients. New treatment strategies are needed. Immunotherapy offers a new potential treatment paradigm with great promise. Immunotherapy of soft tissue sarcomas dates back to Dr. Coley's first use of toxins in the late 1800s. A variety of strategies of immunotherapy have been tried in soft tissue and bone sarcomas, including various vaccines and cytokines, with limited success. Results of these early clinical trials with vaccines and cytokines were disappointing, but there are reasons to be optimistic. Recent advances, particularly with the use of adoptive T-cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors, have led to a resurgence of this field for all cancer patients. Clinical trials utilizing adoptive T-cell therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors in soft tissue and bone sarcomas are under way. This paper reviews the current state of evidence for the use of immunotherapy, as well as current immunotherapy strategies (vaccines, adopative T-cell therapy, and immune checkpoint blockade), in soft tissue and bone sarcomas. By understanding the tumor microenviroment of sarcomas and how it relates to their immunoresponsiveness, better immunotherapy clinical trials can be designed, hopefully with improved outcomes for soft tissue and bone sarcoma patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Immunotherapy is a promising treatment paradigm that is gaining acceptance for the management of several cancers, including melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, prostate cancer, and lung cancer. There is a long history of immunotherapy in the treatment of soft tissue and bone sarcomas, although with little success. It is important to understand past failures to develop future immunotherapy treatment strategies with an improved possibility of success. This article reviews the history of and current state of immunotherapy research in the treatment of soft tissue and bone sarcomas, with particular regard to vaccine trials, adoptive T-cell therapy, and immune checkpoint blockade.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyBone NeoplasmsHumansPrognosisSarcomaAdoptive T‐cell therapyBone sarcomaImmune checkpoint inhibitorsImmunotherapySarcomaSoft tissue sarcomaVaccines

Identifiers

PMID28935774
PMCPMC5759816
OpenAlexW2760521916

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.