ReviewCancers2020
Exploring Essential Issues for Improving Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine Trial Design.
Review in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular origin, discovery, validation and application of neoantigens.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2026Review
- Therapeutic cancer vaccines: navigating clinical translation and multimodal synergy.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Cancer vaccine trial evaluations: immunobridging and potential immunological endpoints.Immunotherapy advances · 2025Review
- Combination Immunotherapy in Prostate Cancer.Cancers · 2022Article
- Therapeutic efficacy of dendritic cell injection in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the role of natural killer and T lymphocytes.Clinical and experimental hepatology · 2022Article
- Immunization with short peptide particles reveals a functional CD8Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2021Article
- A Bayesian network meta-analysis of comparison of cancer therapeutic vaccines for melanoma.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2021Review
- DNA damage repair: historical perspectives, mechanistic pathways and clinical translation for targeted cancer therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic cancer vaccines have been at the forefront of cancer immunotherapy for more than 20 years, with promising results in phase I and-in some cases-phase II clinical trials, but with failures in large phase III studies. After dozens of clinical studies, only Dendreon's dendritic cell vaccine Sipuleucel-T has succeeded in receiving US FDA approval for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Although scientists working on cancer immunotherapy feel that this is an essential breakthrough for the field, they still expect that new vaccine regimens will yield better clinical benefits compared to the four months prolonged median overall survival (OS) Sipuleucel-T demonstrated in the IMPACT phase III clinical trial. Clinical development of cancer vaccines has been unsuccessful due to failures either in randomized phase II or-even worse-phase III trials. Thus, rigorous re-evaluation of these trials is urgently required in order to redefine aspects and optimize the benefits offered by therapeutic cancer vaccines. The scope of this review is to provide to the reader our thoughts on the key challenges in maximizing the therapeutic potentials of cancer vaccines, with a special focus on issues that touch upon clinical trial design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.