Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30764570›Full record

ReviewCancers2019

Virus-Based Immunotherapy of Glioblastoma.

Miika Martikainen, Magnus Essand

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Applications of Intravital Imaging in Cancer Immunotherapy.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  16. Glioblastoma Therapy: Past, Present and Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

29 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

2 authors.

Miika MartikainenDepartment of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 75185 Uppsala, Sweden. miika.martikainen@igp.uu.se.
Magnus EssandDepartment of Immunology, Genetics, and Pathology, Science for Life Laboratory, Uppsala University, 75185 Uppsala, Sweden. magnus.essand@igp.uu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common type of primary brain tumor in adults. Despite recent advances in cancer therapy, including the breakthrough of immunotherapy, the prognosis of GBM patients remains dismal. One of the new promising ways to therapeutically tackle the immunosuppressive GBM microenvironment is the use of engineered viruses that kill tumor cells via direct oncolysis and via stimulation of antitumor immune responses. In this review, we focus on recently published results of phase I/II clinical trials with different oncolytic viruses and the new interesting findings in preclinical models. From syngeneic preclinical GBM models, it seems evident that oncolytic virus-mediated destruction of GBM tissue coupled with strong adjuvant effect, provided by the robust stimulation of innate antiviral immune responses and adaptive anti-tumor T cell responses, can be harnessed as potent immunotherapy against GBM. Although clinical testing of oncolytic viruses against GBM is at an early stage, the promising results from these trials give hope for the effective treatment of GBM in the near future.

Indexed as

cancer immunotherapyglioblastomaoncolytic virotherapy

Identifiers

PMID30764570
PMCPMC6407011

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.