Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30096953›Full record

ReviewVaccines2018

Next Generation Cancer Vaccines-Make It Personal!

Angelika Terbuch, Juanita Lopez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Current Landscape of Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Personalized Cancer Vaccines: Clinical Landscape, Challenges, and Opportunities.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Telomerase-Targeted Cancer Immunotherapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

2 authors.

Angelika TerbuchDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK. angelika.terbuch@icr.ac.uk.
Juanita LopezDrug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton SM2 5PT, UK. juanita.lopez@icr.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8321-4212

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dramatic success in cancer immunotherapy has been achieved over the last decade with the introduction of checkpoint inhibitors, leading to response rates higher than with chemotherapy in certain cancer types. These responses are often restricted to cancers that have a high mutational burden and show pre-existing T-cell infiltrates. Despite extensive efforts, therapeutic vaccines have been mostly unsuccessful in the clinic. With the introduction of next generation sequencing, the identification of individual mutations is possible, enabling the production of personalized cancer vaccines. Combining immune check point inhibitors to overcome the immunosuppressive microenvironment and personalized cancer vaccines for directing the host immune system against the chosen antigens might be a promising treatment strategy.

Indexed as

cancer immunity cyclecancer vaccinescombination strategiesimmunotherapyneoantigenspersonalized cancer vaccine

Identifiers

PMID30096953
PMCPMC6161279

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.