Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30790064›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2019

Current State of Immunotherapy for Treatment of Glioblastoma.

Tresa McGranahan, Kate Elizabeth Therkelsen, Sarah Ahmad, Seema Nagpal

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 171 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
171citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

111 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

4 authors.

Tresa McGranahanDepartment of Neurology, UW Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. Tresa@uw.edu.
Kate Elizabeth TherkelsenDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sarah AhmadDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Seema NagpalDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementAt this time, there are no FDA-approved immune therapies for glioblastoma (GBM) despite many unique therapies currently in clinical trials. GBM is a highly immunosuppressive tumor and there are limitations to a safe immune response in the central nervous system. To date, there have been several failures of phase 3 immune therapy clinical trials in GBM. These trials have targeted single components of an antitumor immune response. Learning from these failures, the future of immunotherapy for GBM appears most hopeful for combination of immune therapies to overcome the profound immunosuppression of this disease. Understanding biomarkers for appropriate patient selection as well as tumor progression are necessary for implementation of immunotherapy for GBM.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyMolecular Targeted TherapyAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorBrain NeoplasmsCancer VaccinesClinical Trials as TopicGlioblastomaHumansPatient SelectionPrognosisTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorCancer VaccinesCAR-TCheckpoint inhibitorsGlioblastomaImmunotherapyVaccine

Identifiers

PMID30790064
PMCPMC6394457

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.