Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31822814›Full record

ReviewCancer gene therapy2020

Challenges in assessing solid tumor responses to immunotherapy.

Louis F Chai, Ethan Prince, Venu G Pillarisetty, Steven C Katz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer gene therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models for Cancer Immunotherapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. PD1-IL2v expands and induces effector CD8Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Louis F ChaiDepartment of Surgery, Roger Williams Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA.
Ethan PrinceDepartment of Radiology, Roger Williams Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA.
Venu G PillarisettyDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1162-9643
Steven C KatzDepartment of Surgery, Roger Williams Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA. skatz@chartercare.org.
Roger Williams Medical Center · USBoston University · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the advent of immunotherapy as an integral component of multidisciplinary solid tumor treatment, we are confronted by an unfamiliar and novel pattern of radiographic responses to treatment. Enlargement of tumors or even new lesions may not represent progression, but rather reflect what will ultimately evolve into a clinically beneficial response. In addition, the kinetics of radiographic changes in response to immunotherapy treatments may be distinct from what has been observed with cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiation. The phenomenon of pseudoprogression has been documented in patients receiving immunotherapeutic agents, such as checkpoint inhibitors and cellular therapies. Currently, there are no clinical response guidelines that adequately account for pseudoprogression and solid tumor responses to immunotherapy in general. Even so, response criteria have evolved to account for the radiographic manifestations of novel therapies. The evolution of World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), along with the emergence of immune-related response criteria (irRC) and the immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (iRECIST) reflect the need for new frameworks. This review evaluates the relationship between pseudoprogression, clinical outcomes, and our current understanding of the biology of pseudoprogression. To achieve our goal, we discuss unusual response patterns in patients receiving immunotherapy. We seek to develop a deeper understanding of radiographic responses to immunotherapy such that clinical benefit is not underappreciated in individual patients and during clinical investigation.

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyDisease ProgressionHumansNeoplasmsResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

Identifiers

PMID31822814
OpenAlexW2996219098

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.