ReviewFrontiers in oncology2022
Comparison of Laboratory Methods for the Clinical Follow Up of Checkpoint Blockade Therapies in Leukemia: Current Status and Challenges Ahead.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune checkpoints and ncRNAs: pioneering immunotherapy approaches for hematological malignancies.Cancer cell international · 2024Review
- Relationship Between PD-L1, PD-1, CD8 and Clinicopathological Factors in Primary SCCs.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2024Article
- A potential area of use for immune checkpoint inhibitors: Targeting bone marrow microenvironment in acute myeloid leukemia.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Relationship between PD-L1 expression and prognostic factors in high-risk cutaneous squamous and basal cell carcinoma.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors, the monoclonal antibodies that modulate the interaction between immune checkpoint molecules or their ligands on the immune cells or tumor tissue has revolutionized cancer treatment. While there are various studies proving their efficacy in hematological malignancies, there is also a body of accumulating evidence indicating that immune checkpoint inhibitors' clinical benefits are limited in such diseases. In addition, due to their regulatory nature that balances the immune responses, blockade of immune checkpoints may lead to toxic side effects and autoimmune responses, and even primary or acquired resistance mechanisms may restrict their success. Thus, the need for laboratory biomarkers to identify and monitor patient populations who are more likely respond to this type of therapy and the management of side effects seem critical. However, guidelines regarding the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in hematological cancers and during follow-up are limited while there is no consensus on the laboratory parameters to be investigated for safety and efficacy of the treatment. This review aims to provide an insight into recent information on predictive and prognostic value of biomarkers and laboratory tests for the clinical follow up of hematological malignancies, with an emphasis on leukemia.
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.