ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2021
Immunotherapy in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Where Are We Now?
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors in Lung Neuroendocrine Tumors - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.OncoTargets and therapy · 2025Review
- PD-L1 expression, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and mismatch repair proteins status in digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: exploring their potential role as theragnostic and prognostic biomarkers.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2024Article
- Review
- Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: epidemiology, genetics, and treatment.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- Defining Tumor Microenvironment as a Possible Target for Effective GEP-NENs Immunotherapy-A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2023Review
- Immunotherapy of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Any Role for the Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells?Cancers · 2022Review
- Tandem CAR-T cells targeting FOLR1 and MSLN enhance the antitumor effects in ovarian cancer.International journal of biological sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
opinion statementImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represent a breakthrough in the management of many hard-to-treat cancers over the past decade with demonstrable improvement in survival outcomes. We reviewed the state of the art of ICIs in neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs). While ICIs have become part of the standard of care for the management of small cell lung cancer (SCLC), their role is still unclear in the management of extra-pulmonary (EP) poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) as well as in the management of well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Conflicting results derived from the various studies in NETs and EP NECs therefore for specific settings, such as the lung NETs, or therapeutic regimen, e.g., combo vs single agent, for ICIs benefit. Therefore, at the moment, no ICIs approach is justified for NETs and EP NECs in clinical practice. Future investigations should be designed with the aim to overcome the several limitations of the current trials, e.g., lacking of a central pathology review or heterogeneity of the cohorts, in order to reduce the risk of biases. Future trials combining ICIs with other biological agents are welcome. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the biological rationale and evolving clinical applications of the use of ICIs in the management of NENs (both well-differentiated and poorly differentiated groups).
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.