Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32681091›Full record

Trial reportNature communications2020

Exhausted T cell signature predicts immunotherapy response in ER-positive breast cancer.

Manuela Terranova-Barberio, Nela Pawlowska, Mallika Dhawan, Mark Moasser, Amy J Chien, Michelle E Melisko, Hope Rugo, Roshun Rahimi, Travis Deal, Adil Daud and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nature communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
116citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

116 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 174 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CTLA-4 Expression and Its Clinical Significance in Breast Cancer.Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

56 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Manuela Terranova-BarberioDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Nela PawlowskaDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mallika DhawanDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Mark MoasserDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4411-4336
Amy J ChienDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Michelle E MeliskoDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Hope RugoDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Roshun RahimiDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Travis DealDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Adil DaudDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6617-8421
Michael D RosenblumDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Scott ThomasDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Pamela N MunsterDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. pamela.munster@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2074-0984
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Responses to immunotherapy are uncommon in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer and to date, lack predictive markers. This randomized phase II study defines safety and response rate of epigenetic priming in ER-positive breast cancer patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors as primary endpoints. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included PD-L1 modulation and T-cell immune-signatures. 34 patients received vorinostat, tamoxifen and pembrolizumab with no excessive toxicity after progression on a median of five prior metastatic regimens. Objective response was 4% and clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD > 6 m) was 19%. T-cell exhaustion (CD8

Indexed as

ImmunotherapyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedB7-H1 AntigenBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImmunologic FactorsLymphocytes, Tumor-InfiltratingMiddle AgedReceptors, EstrogenTamoxifenT-LymphocytesTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedB7-H1 AntigenCD274 protein, humanImmunologic FactorspembrolizumabReceptors, EstrogenTamoxifenVorinostat

Identifiers

PMID32681091
PMCPMC7367885
OpenAlexW3043237451

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.