Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35020853›Full record

ReviewClinical and experimental immunology2022

Macrophages in ovarian cancer and their interactions with monoclonal antibody therapies.

Gabriel Osborn, Chara Stavraka, Rebecca Adams, Ahmad Sayasneh, Sharmistha Ghosh, Ana Montes, Katie E Lacy, Rebecca Kristeleit, James Spicer, Debra H Josephs and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Immune cell-antibody interactions in health and disease.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2022
    Review
  14. 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

12 authors.

Gabriel OsbornSt. John's Institute of Dermatology, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Chara StavrakaSt. John's Institute of Dermatology, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7623-299X
Rebecca AdamsSt. John's Institute of Dermatology, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ahmad SayasnehDepartment of Gynecological Oncology, Surgical Oncology Directorate, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sharmistha GhoshDepartment of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom.
Ana MontesDepartment of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom.
Katie E LacySt. John's Institute of Dermatology, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rebecca KristeleitDepartment of Oncology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, United Kingdom.
James SpicerSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Debra H JosephsSt. John's Institute of Dermatology, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
James N ArnoldSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sophia N KaragiannisSt. John's Institute of Dermatology, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C30122/A11527Cancer Research UK C30122/A15774Cancer Research UK C604/A25135Cancer Research UK DCRPGF\100009Department of Health CL-2020-17-002Medical Research Council MR/L023091/1Medical Research Council MR/V049445/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unmet clinical need for effective treatments in ovarian cancer has yet to be addressed using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which have largely failed to overcome tumour-associated immunosuppression, restrict cancer growth, and significantly improve survival. In recent years, experimental mAb design has moved away from solely targeting ovarian tumours and instead sought to modulate the wider tumour microenvironment (TME). Tumour-associated macrophages (TAMs) may represent an attractive therapeutic target for mAbs in ovarian cancer due to their high abundance and close proximity to tumour cells and their active involvement in facilitating several pro-tumoural processes. Moreover, the expression of several antibody crystallisable fragment (Fc) receptors and broad phenotypic plasticity of TAMs provide opportunities to modulate TAM polarisation using mAbs to promote anti-tumoural phenotypes. In this review, we discuss the role of TAMs in ovarian cancer TME and the emerging strategies to target the contributions of these cells in tumour progression through the rationale design of mAbs.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsOvarian NeoplasmsAntibodies, MonoclonalFemaleHumansImmunotherapyLeukocyte CountMacrophagesTumor MicroenvironmentAntibodies, MonoclonalantibodiesFc receptorsimmunotherapymacrophagestumour immunology

Identifiers

PMID35020853
PMCPMC9307234

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.