Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32002299›Full record

ArticleOncoimmunology2020

Pre-treatment tumor neo-antigen responses in draining lymph nodes are infrequent but predict checkpoint blockade therapy outcome.

Shaokang Ma, Jonathan Chee, Vanessa S Fear, Catherine A Forbes, Louis Boon, Ian M Dick, Bruce W S Robinson, Jenette Creaney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncoimmunology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Characterization of neoantigen-specific T cells in cancer resistant to immune checkpoint therapies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shaokang MaNational Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
Jonathan CheeNational Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7986-2708
Vanessa S FearNational Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
Catherine A ForbesNational Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
Louis BoonBioceros B.V., Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0937-9171
Ian M DickNational Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1902-9033
Bruce W S RobinsonNational Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
Jenette CreaneyNational Centre for Asbestos Related Diseases, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9391-9395
The University of Western Australia · AUPolpharma Biologics (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICPB) is a powerfully effective cancer therapy in some patients. Tumor neo-antigens are likely main targets for attack but it is not clear which and how many tumor mutations in individual cancers are actually antigenic, with or without ICPB therapy and their role as neo-antigen vaccines or as predictors of ICPB responses. To examine this, we interrogated the immune response to tumor neo-antigens in a murine model in which the tumor is induced by a natural human carcinogen (i.e. asbestos) and mimics its human counterpart (i.e. mesothelioma). We identified and screened 33 candidate neo-antigens, and found T cell responses against one candidate in tumor-bearing animals, mutant UQCRC2. Interestingly, we found a high degree of inter-animal variation in the magnitude of neo-antigen responses in otherwise identical mice. ICPB therapy with Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA-4) and α-glucocorticoid-induced TNFR family related gene (GITR) in doses that induced tumor regression, increased the magnitude of responses and unmasked functional T cell responses against another neo-antigen, UNC45a. Importantly, the magnitude of the pre-treatment draining lymph node (dLN) response to UNC45a closely corresponded to ICPB therapy outcomes. Surprisingly however, boosting pre-treatment UNC45a-specific T cell numbers did not improve response rates to ICPB. These observations suggest a novel biomarker approach to the clinical prediction of ICPB response and have important implications for the development of neo-antigen vaccines.

Indexed as

Cancer VaccinesNeoplasmsAnimalsAntigens, NeoplasmHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsLymph NodesMiceT-Lymphocytes, CytotoxicAntigens, NeoplasmCancer VaccinesImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsIntracellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsUNC45A protein, humanbiomarkercheckpoint blockademesotheliomaNeo-antigenT cells

Identifiers

PMID32002299
PMCPMC6959436
OpenAlexW2988519437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.