Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30604321›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2019

Evaluation of a Particulate Breast Cancer Vaccine Delivered via Skin.

Lipika Chablani, Suprita A Tawde, Archana Akalkotkar, Martin J D'Souza

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Progress and prospects of metal-based immunotherapy in breast cancer.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Exploiting Unique Features of Microneedles to Modulate Immunity.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Clinical Data on Immunotherapy in Breast Cancer.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  16. Microbes in Tumoral In Situ Tissues and in Tumorigenesis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Lipika ChablaniDepartment of Pharmaceutical Science, Wegmans School of Pharmacy, St. John Fisher College, 3690 East Ave., Rochester, New York, 14618, USA. lchablani@sjfc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7221-6829
Suprita A TawdeResearch and Development, Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Vernon Hills, Illinois, 60061, USA.
Archana AkalkotkarCharles River Laboratories, 1407 George Rd., Ashland, Ohio, 44805, USA.
Martin J D'SouzaVaccine Nanotechnology Laboratory, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Mercer University, Atlanta, Georgia, 30341, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer impacts female population globally and is the second most common cancer for females. With various limitations and adverse effects of current therapies, several immunotherapies are being explored. Development of an effective breast cancer vaccine can be a groundbreaking immunotherapeutic approach. Such approaches are being evaluated by several clinical trials currently. On similar lines, our research study aims to evaluate a particulate breast cancer vaccine delivered via skin. This particulate breast cancer vaccine was prepared by spray drying technique and utilized murine breast cancer whole cell lysate as a source of tumor-associated antigens. The average size of the particulate vaccine was 1.5 μm, which resembled the pathogenic species, thereby assisting in phagocytosis and antigen presentation leading to further activation of the immune response. The particulate vaccine was delivered via skin using commercially available metal microneedles. Methylene blue staining and confocal microscopy were used to visualize the microchannels. The results showed that microneedles created aqueous conduits of 50 ± 10 μm to deliver the microparticulate vaccine to the skin layers. Further, an in vivo comparison of immune response depicted significantly higher concentration of serum IgG, IgG2a, and B and T cell (CD4+ and CD8+) populations in the vaccinated animals than the control animals (p < 0.001). Upon challenge with live murine breast cancer cells, the vaccinated animals showed five times more tumor suppression than the control animals confirming the immune response activation and protection (p < 0.001). This research paves a way for individualized immunotherapy following surgical tumor removal to prolong relapse episodes.

Indexed as

Administration, CutaneousAnimalsAntigens, NeoplasmBreast NeoplasmsCancer VaccinesCell Line, TumorDisease Models, AnimalDrug CompoundingFemaleHumansImmunity, CellularImmunity, HumoralImmunization ScheduleMiceNeedlesParticle SizeAntigens, NeoplasmCancer Vaccinesimmunotherapymicroneedlemicroparticlespray dryingwhole cell lysate

Identifiers

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.