Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31101066›Full record

ArticleJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2019

The promise of Immuno-oncology: implications for defining the value of cancer treatment.

Howard L Kaufman, Michael B Atkins, Prasun Subedi, James Wu, James Chambers, T Joseph Mattingly, Jonathan D Campbell, Jeff Allen, Andrea E Ferris, Richard L Schilsky and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Targeting Adaptive and Innate Immune Responses with Covalent Aptamers.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. A pharmacovigilance data-driven approach to reveal high fatal adverse events following checkpoint immunotherapy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Plant-Derived Anti-Cancer Therapeutics and Biopharmaceuticals.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

2 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

14 authors.

Howard L KaufmanSociety for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Policy Committee, Replimune, Inc, 18 Commerce Way, Woburn, MA, USA.
Michael B AtkinsGeorgetown University, 3970 Reservoir Road NW, Washington, D.C, USA.
Prasun SubediPfizer, Inc, 235 E 42nd St, New York, NY, USA.
James WuAmgen, Inc, One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
James ChambersTufts University, 145 Harrison Ave, Boston, MA, USA.
T Joseph MattinglyUniversity of Maryland, 20 N. Pine St, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jonathan D CampbellUniversity of Colorado, 12850 E. Montview Blvd, Aurora, CO, USA.
Jeff AllenFriends of Cancer Research, 1800 M St. NW, Washington, DC, USA.
Andrea E FerrisLUNGevity Foundation, 228 S Wabash Ave, Chicago, IL, USA.
Richard L SchilskyASCO, 2318 Mill Rd, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Daniel DanielsonPremera Blue Cross, 7001 220th St. SW, Mountlake Terrace, WA, USA.
J Leonard LichtenfeldAmerican Cancer Society, 250 Williams St, NW, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Linda HouseCancer Support Community, 734 15th St, NW, Washington, DC, USA.
Wendy K D SeligWSCollaborative, 934 Bellview Rd, McLean, VA, USA. wendy@wscollaborative.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid development of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies for multiple types of cancer has transformed the cancer treatment landscape and brightened the long-term outlook for many patients with advanced cancer. Responding to ongoing efforts to generate value assessments for novel therapies, multiple stakeholders have been considering the question of "What makes I-O transformative?" Evaluating the distinct features and attributes of these therapies, and better characterizing how patients experience them, will inform such assessments. This paper defines ways in which treatment with I-O is different from other therapies. It also proposes key aspects and attributes of I-O therapies that should be considered in any assessment of their value and seeks to address evidence gaps in existing value frameworks given the unique properties of patient outcomes with I-O therapy. The paper concludes with a "data needs catalogue" (DNC) predicated on the belief that multiple key, unique elements that are necessary to fully characterize the value of I-O therapies are not routinely or robustly measured in current clinical practice or reimbursement databases and are infrequently captured in existing research studies. A better characterization of the benefit of I-O treatment will allow a more thorough assessment of its benefits and provide a template for the design and prioritization of future clinical trials and a roadmap for healthcare insurers to optimize coverage for patients with cancers eligible for I-O therapy.

Indexed as

Value-Based Health InsuranceClinical Trials as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansImmunotherapyInsurance CoverageMedical OncologyNeoplasmsResearch DesignTreatment OutcomeImmuno-oncologyImmunotherapyPatient experiencePatient reported outcomes (PROs)Value

Identifiers

PMID31101066
PMCPMC6525438

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.