Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291769›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy: Clinical Benefits for Head and Neck Cancers.

Tobias Ettl, Matthias Grube, Daniela Schulz, Richard Josef Bauer

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tobias EttlDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Matthias GrubeDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Daniela SchulzDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Richard Josef BauerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
University Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, considerable progress has been achieved in cancer immunotherapy. Targeted immune checkpoint therapies have been established for several forms of cancers, which resulted in a tremendous positive impact on patient survival, even in more advanced tumor stages. With a better understanding of cellular responses to immune checkpoint therapies, it will soon be feasible to find targeted compounds which will make personalized medicine practicable. This is a great opportunity, but it also sets tremendous challenges on both the scientific and clinical aspects. Head and neck tumors evade immune surveillance through various mechanisms. They contain fewer lymphocytes (natural killer cells) than normal tissue with an accumulation of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells. Standard therapies for HNSCC, such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, are becoming more advantageous by targeting immune checkpoints and employing combination therapies. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the expanded therapeutic options, particularly the combination of immune checkpoint inhibition with various conventional and novel therapeutics for head and neck tumor patients.

Indexed as

clinical trialcombination therapyhead and neckhead and neck cancerICIimmune checkpointPD-L1

Identifiers

PMID36291769
PMCPMC9599671
OpenAlexW4304585359

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.