Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35104794›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical focus2022

Syngeneic murine glioblastoma models: reactionary immune changes and immunotherapy intervention outcomes.

Vijay Letchuman, Leonel Ampie, Ashish H Shah, Desmond A Brown, John D Heiss, Prashant Chittiboina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical focus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Advances in Aptamer Drug Delivery Systems for Treatment of Glioblastoma.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  3. Translational Theranostics in Glioblastoma: FAPI-46 as a Precision Medicine Tool.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Vijay Letchuman1National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and.
Leonel Ampie1National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and.
Ashish H Shah1National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and.
Desmond A Brown1National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and.
John D Heiss1National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and.
Prashant Chittiboina1National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; and.

Funding

Molecular Pathogenesis of NeoplasiaZIANS003052 · NINDS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE · PI HEISS, JOHN · 2009 to 2025
$20.7M
Neuro-oncology of Familial Neoplasia SyndromesZIANS003053 · NINDS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE · PI CHITTIBOINA, PRASHANT · 2009 to 2025
$14.9M
Central Nervous System Drug Delivery TechniquesZIANS003051 · NINDS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE · PI HEISS, JOHN · 2009 to 2025
$9.8M
Neurooncology of Benign Central and Peripheral Nervous System TumorsZIANS003132 · NINDS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE · PI CHITTIBOINA, PRASHANT · 2012 to 2025
$7.8M
Neurosurgical Oncology Unit ZIANS009433 · NINDS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE · PI BROWN, DESMOND · 2022 to 2025
$6.0M
Research Training Program in Neuro-OncologyT32CA217836 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI O'NEILL, BRIAN PATRICK, VILE, RICHARD G. · 2018 to 2022
$1.4M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA NS003052NCI NIH HHS T32 CA217836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma is the most common primary malignant brain neoplasm with dismal 10-year survival rates of < 1%. Despite promising preliminary results from several novel therapeutic agents, clinical responses have been modest due to several factors, including tumor heterogeneity, immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and treatment resistance. Novel immunotherapeutics have been developed to reverse tumor-induced immunosuppression in patients with glioblastomas. In order to recapitulate the tumor microenvironment, reliable in vivo syngeneic murine models are critical for the development of new targeted agents as these models demonstrate rapid tumor induction and reliable tumor growth over multiple generations. Despite the clear advantages of murine models, choosing an appropriate model from an immunological perspective can be difficult and have significant ramifications on the translatability of the results from murine to human trials. Herein, the authors reviewed the 4 most commonly used immunocompetent syngeneic murine glioma models (GL261 [C57BL/6], SB28 [C57BL/6], CT-2A [C57BL/6], and SMA-560 [VM/Dk]) and compared their strengths and weaknesses from an immunological standpoint.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaGliomaAnimalsCell Line, TumorHumansImmunotherapyMiceMice, Inbred C57BLTumor Microenvironmentglioblastomaimmunotherapymurine

Identifiers

PMID35104794
PMCPMC10851929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.